Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________ SICK VICTORY BY DAVID HOROWITZ (04/04/98)

Nixon was brought down primarily because of erasing 18 minutes of tape? What a crock. Nixon was brought down because he tried to subvert the system of government of the United States. This recent pooh-poohing of Nixon's downfall as some minor incident is just out and out wrong, an inaccurate reconstruction of history. There is no comparison to what Nixon did and the Clinton mess. Horowitz's reaction to the Jones ruling is childish, petulant and absurd.
-- John Kirk

Once again David Horowitz distorts history to serve his purposes, in this case to defend Richard Nixon and Richard Mellon Scaife.
"Let's remember that not too long ago, we forced a president out of office and sent several of his aides to jail for far less than has been done by the Clinton White House."
Is he kidding? Or has he ignored the Stanley Kutler book "Abuse of Power," a transcription of the Nixon Tapes directly related to Watergate? On Clinton's watch, we have misappropriations of FBI files, illegal leaking of personnel files, defying of court requests and court subpoenas, missing records, destroyed records etc., none of which equals the illegal invasion of Cambodia, unleashing the IRS on private citizens or plotting to murder journalists -- all done under Mr. Nixon's administration.
"Richard Nixon went down primarily for erasing 18 minutes of tape to cover up a burglary of which there is no evidence to suggest he had knowledge in advance."
Ridiculous. Mr. Nixon was removed from office for covering up the burglary. The men who planned it worked in the White House and were supervised directly by the president's staff. While Nixon didn't know about that specific illegal act, he was aware of numerous other crimes, including massive cash payoffs and illegal orders to wiretap and invade the privacy of American citizens.
"Moreover, the consequences of Nixon's downfall were not small. His forced resignation led directly to the reversal of his Indochina policies, the cutting off of U.S. military and financial aid to the governments in Cambodia and South Vietnam."
Once again, Horowitz gets the historical record wrong. By August 1974, the U.S. military was out of Vietnam. In fact, by 1972, it was clear the war was lost. The North Vietnamese controlled large tracts of South Vietnam. The Easter Offensive, with lavish U.S. air support, almost succeeded in splitting the country in two.
It is widely believed that the massive U.S. intervention of Cambodia led directly to the Khmer Rouge victory. Before 1970, it was a small group of guerrillas in the far jungle. By 1975, it controlled the country. To blame Nixon's fall for these events is ahistorical. Any reading of the history demonstrates different facts.
"Consider the supposed conspirator in chief, Richard Mellon Scaife, a man featured, but never interviewed, in several recent issues of Salon. But what has he actually done? It seems Scaife provided $2.4 million to journalists, investigators and witnesses in these matters regarding the president with the idea of facilitating their efforts ... So what's the crime? It's no longer OK for an individual to take it upon himself to try to make the system work?"
Mr. Scaife has funded every effort to attack the president in one way or another. From David Hale, to the American Spectator, to Ken Starr, Scaife money has been there. This is not making the system work. This is a concerted attempt to attack the president by a billionaire. No one knows his reasons. They may be financial or based upon a pure loathing of Mr. Clinton. However, it seems at least some of his activities may be cause for FBI investigation.
Now, Mr. Horowitz, what would you call a $2 million effort by Barbra Streisand to gather "information" on Newt Gingrich, fund lawsuits against him and possibly pay witnesses involved in the case? Democracy at work or a smear effort?
"And what is the conspiracy? The Washington Post financed a couple of reporters for nearly two years to bring down Nixon. Is there some law that prevents Richard Scaife and the American Spectator from trying to do the same?"
The Washington Post did not fund lawsuits against Mr. Nixon by private citizens, Woodward and Bernstein did not repudiate their work five years later, nor did it fund a chair for Archibald Cox at a leading university.
You may dislike the president, but your willingness to discount Mr. Nixon's activities, which threatened democracy in this country, and support Mr. Scaife's privately funded vendetta against the current president is puzzling.
I'd suggest you read some more history before applying mistaken and ahistorical examples to prove your points.
-- Stephen Gilliard

In his latest rant on your site, David Horowitz seems to suggest that I'm being covertly subsidized to report on the so-called Clinton scandals. Lumping me in with the payments to Webster Hubbell and Monica Lewinsky's job search, he evidently hopes readers will think I've been compromised financially somehow. But as Horowitz knows very well, my salary is paid by the New York Observer, the weekly newspaper where I've worked for several years, which endorsed Bob Dole in 1996, and where I've edited and written numerous articles critical of the president and his administration.
Unlike Horowitz, I'm just a journalist, not a hired propagandist. My views are my own. I have never taken a penny from anyone resembling Richard Mellon Scaife, on the left, right or center, let alone the White House or any of its friends.
But Horowitz himself dines regularly at the Scaife trough. [Editor's Note: In a recent column, David Horowitz disclosed his association with Richard Mellon Scaife.] Just for the record: Between 1994 and 1996 Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture received at least $1.75 million from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, one of the two tax-exempt entities that funded the anti-Clinton Arkansas Project.
The records for 1997 are not publicly available yet. So tell us, David, how much did Scaife give your outfit last year? How much are you getting this year, while you defend the poor, beleaguered billionaire in the pages of Salon? And how big a tip do you expect next year, in recognition of services rendered?
-- Joe Conason
SALON | April 9, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| A DIMINISHED VIEW OF MANHOOD BY EARL OFARI HUTCHINSON (04/02/98)

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.

_______________ SICK VICTORY BY DAVID HOROWITZ (04/04/98)
	Nixon was brought down primarily because of erasing 18 minutes of tape? What a crock. Nixon was brought down because he tried to subvert the system of government of the United States. This recent pooh-poohing of Nixon's downfall as some minor incident is just out and out wrong, an inaccurate reconstruction of history. There is no comparison to what Nixon did and the Clinton mess. Horowitz's reaction to the Jones ruling is childish, petulant and absurd. -- John Kirk Once again David Horowitz distorts history to serve his purposes, in this case to defend Richard Nixon and Richard Mellon Scaife. "Let's remember that not too long ago, we forced a president out of office and sent several of his aides to jail for far less than has been done by the Clinton White House." Is he kidding? Or has he ignored the Stanley Kutler book "Abuse of Power," a transcription of the Nixon Tapes directly related to Watergate? On Clinton's watch, we have misappropriations of FBI files, illegal leaking of personnel files, defying of court requests and court subpoenas, missing records, destroyed records etc., none of which equals the illegal invasion of Cambodia, unleashing the IRS on private citizens or plotting to murder journalists -- all done under Mr. Nixon's administration. "Richard Nixon went down primarily for erasing 18 minutes of tape to cover up a burglary of which there is no evidence to suggest he had knowledge in advance." Ridiculous. Mr. Nixon was removed from office for covering up the burglary. The men who planned it worked in the White House and were supervised directly by the president's staff. While Nixon didn't know about that specific illegal act, he was aware of numerous other crimes, including massive cash payoffs and illegal orders to wiretap and invade the privacy of American citizens. "Moreover, the consequences of Nixon's downfall were not small. His forced resignation led directly to the reversal of his Indochina policies, the cutting off of U.S. military and financial aid to the governments in Cambodia and South Vietnam." Once again, Horowitz gets the historical record wrong. By August 1974, the U.S. military was out of Vietnam. In fact, by 1972, it was clear the war was lost. The North Vietnamese controlled large tracts of South Vietnam. The Easter Offensive, with lavish U.S. air support, almost succeeded in splitting the country in two. It is widely believed that the massive U.S. intervention of Cambodia led directly to the Khmer Rouge victory. Before 1970, it was a small group of guerrillas in the far jungle. By 1975, it controlled the country. To blame Nixon's fall for these events is ahistorical. Any reading of the history demonstrates different facts. "Consider the supposed conspirator in chief, Richard Mellon Scaife, a man featured, but never interviewed, in several recent issues of Salon. But what has he actually done? It seems Scaife provided $2.4 million to journalists, investigators and witnesses in these matters regarding the president with the idea of facilitating their efforts ... So what's the crime? It's no longer OK for an individual to take it upon himself to try to make the system work?" Mr. Scaife has funded every effort to attack the president in one way or another. From David Hale, to the American Spectator, to Ken Starr, Scaife money has been there. This is not making the system work. This is a concerted attempt to attack the president by a billionaire. No one knows his reasons. They may be financial or based upon a pure loathing of Mr. Clinton. However, it seems at least some of his activities may be cause for FBI investigation. Now, Mr. Horowitz, what would you call a $2 million effort by Barbra Streisand to gather "information" on Newt Gingrich, fund lawsuits against him and possibly pay witnesses involved in the case? Democracy at work or a smear effort? "And what is the conspiracy? The Washington Post financed a couple of reporters for nearly two years to bring down Nixon. Is there some law that prevents Richard Scaife and the American Spectator from trying to do the same?" The Washington Post did not fund lawsuits against Mr. Nixon by private citizens, Woodward and Bernstein did not repudiate their work five years later, nor did it fund a chair for Archibald Cox at a leading university. You may dislike the president, but your willingness to discount Mr. Nixon's activities, which threatened democracy in this country, and support Mr. Scaife's privately funded vendetta against the current president is puzzling. I'd suggest you read some more history before applying mistaken and ahistorical examples to prove your points. -- Stephen Gilliard In his latest rant on your site, David Horowitz seems to suggest that I'm being covertly subsidized to report on the so-called Clinton scandals. Lumping me in with the payments to Webster Hubbell and Monica Lewinsky's job search, he evidently hopes readers will think I've been compromised financially somehow. But as Horowitz knows very well, my salary is paid by the New York Observer, the weekly newspaper where I've worked for several years, which endorsed Bob Dole in 1996, and where I've edited and written numerous articles critical of the president and his administration. Unlike Horowitz, I'm just a journalist, not a hired propagandist. My views are my own. I have never taken a penny from anyone resembling Richard Mellon Scaife, on the left, right or center, let alone the White House or any of its friends. But Horowitz himself dines regularly at the Scaife trough. [Editor's Note: In a recent column, David Horowitz disclosed his association with Richard Mellon Scaife.] Just for the record: Between 1994 and 1996 Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture received at least $1.75 million from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, one of the two tax-exempt entities that funded the anti-Clinton Arkansas Project. The records for 1997 are not publicly available yet. So tell us, David, how much did Scaife give your outfit last year? How much are you getting this year, while you defend the poor, beleaguered billionaire in the pages of Salon? And how big a tip do you expect next year, in recognition of services rendered? -- Joe Conason SALON \| April 9, 1998