Salon | Newsreal: Toothless hounds

T A B L E+T A L K
Is there anything that can be done to end poverty? Join the discussion in the Social Issues area of Table Talk

D A I L Y+Q U O T E
Is Baba Wawa wike Wucifer?

R E C E N T L Y
It's time to investigate the investigator
By Bruce Shapiro
Although he may think differently, Kenneth Starr is not above the law
(02/25/98)
Starr chamber
By Mollie Dickenson
The deep and twisted roots of Kenneth Starr's Clinton inquisition stretch back to the dark corners of the 1992 presidential campaign
(02/24/98)
Prosecuting -- or persecuting -- the prosecutors?
By Jonathan Broder
Fierce opponents of Kenneth Starr are now taking the fight right into the independent counsel's own office
(02/24/98)
Finish the job? Not in our lifetime
By Jonathan Broder
The U.S. can't "go all the way" in Iraq because, beyond Saddam Hussein, there's nowhere to go. Besides, his neighbors need to keep him around
(02/23/98)
Uncle Sam regrets ...
By Dennis Bernstein
When U.S. officials warn of "regrettable civilian casualties" resulting from a renewed bombing of Iraq, they should talk to Rema al-Attar
(02/23/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

TOOTHLESS HOUNDS | PAGE 2 OF 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the final analysis, this mess is all Clinton's fault, concludes the Post. "The White House should remember that what is driving this story," the Post pronounces, "is not the conduct of Mr. Starr's staff, alleged leaks, supposed media bias or -- in Mrs. Clinton's now famous words -- a 'vast right-wing conspiracy.' Mr. Clinton is the only one who can make this matter go away, and he remains entirely free to do so at any time." Tell that to the Inquisitor-General.
The Times takes the same tack. Starr's "failure in his obligation to the law" is, in its view, primarily a PR problem. The zealous prosecutor suffers from a "tin ear." Sure, Starr has launched "an attack on press freedom and the unrestricted flow of information that is unwarranted by the facts and beyond his mandate as a prosecutor." But at heart, this is simply just another example of Starr's "chronic clumsiness and periodic insensitivity." If Starr has overreacted, opines the Times, he was provoked. "Mr. Starr may ... be miffed by reports that the White House has turned its trademark tool of personal attack on his prosecutorial staff." In other words, it's the White House's fault.
And when the president's lawyers, with ample reason, complain about the illegal leaking from the sieve-like office of the independent counsel (often into the receptive ears of the Times' Washington bureau), it's "demagogic." In the Times' view, there are no criticisms of Starr that have not been engineered and floated by the White House. According to reporter John M. Broder (no relation to Salon's Jonathan Broder) in the Feb. 25 edition, accusations that Starr was leaking secret grand jury testimony to the press come from "Clinton loyalists." It's as if Times editors have function keys automatically set to insert boilerplate phrases in all Clinton coverage.
In a sidebar story, Broder and Don Van Natta Jr. refer, with absolutely no proof, sources or elaboration (another Times trademark in the Clinton scandal stories) to "a whispering campaign, spearheaded by White House aides and Clinton loyalists," against Starr's office. The fact that journalists, politicians and average citizens have been raising questions about the motivations and practices of Starr's office ever since he was appointed independent counsel three and a half years ago seems to have escaped Van Natta's attention and that of his editor. And, of course, Blumenthal's efforts to point reporters in certain -- quite valid -- directions on the Starr story is simply "damage control." So says the Times' Michael Janofsky in a largely sneering profile of the White House aide.
Perhaps the most telling example of the Times' convolutions in the face of news it doesn't like to see came in its Feb. 24 story about the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, which showed that President Clinton's approval rating keeps climbing, despite the Monica Lewinsky affair. James Bennett and Janet Elder couldn't resist this sideswipe as they reported on this bit of good news for Clinton: "Judging from the poll, the White House has plenty of political breathing room as it pursues its chosen strategy for dealing with Mr. Clinton's crisis, withholding information and attacking the independent prosecutor Kenneth W. Starr."
The reporters were then forced to explain (16 paragraphs into the story) why, according to the Times' own poll, Starr enjoyed a 3-to-1 unfavorable rating, right down there with Newt Gingrich when the Republicans shut the government down. "Perhaps taking a cue from White House attacks [my italics], 59 percent agreed with the proposition that Mr. Starr was 'mostly conducting a partisan investigation to damage Bill Clinton.'" In other words, according to the Times, the American public has been brainwashed by the White House spinmeisters.
I could hardly be said to have taken my cue from the White House when I wrote in Salon, shortly after news of the alleged intern scandal broke, that if Clinton was lying about the affair -- and encouraging others do so as well -- then he should resign immediately. I still believe that, though with far less passion now. It seemed to me then that the most important issue was the president's behavior and truthfulness, or lack thereof. I still have doubts about that truthfulness, and as I have written in the past, I believe that Clinton, if he should fall, will largely be the author of his own woe.
But another issue is far more critical to the health of the republic -- and it is appalling that the most prestigious institutions of my chosen profession (for 30 years, if you must know) are blindered to it. It's the out-of-control independent counsel with his show trials, his crooked "star" witnesses, his bully-boy assistants and his blatantly partisan political agenda, which is starting to look like, as Arkansas Democrat-Gazette political columnist and Salon contributor Gene Lyons has said, an attempted coup d'état.
For uttering such words, I might be the next one to be subpoenaed by Starr, who no doubt is convinced I've been put up to it by Sid Blumenthal. I'd like that. I've seen the ashen faces of others, like Lewinsky's mother, emerging from a session of this latter-day Inquisition. But in my fantasy, I stride into the grand jury room and tell Starr and his white-collar thugs to stuff it. It's about time somebody did.
SALON | Feb. 26, 1998
Discuss the Kenneth Starr's role in Table Talk.

T A B L E+T A L K Is there anything that can be done to end poverty? Join the discussion in the Social Issues area of Table Talk D A I L Y+Q U O T E Is Baba Wawa wike Wucifer? R E C E N T L Y It's time to investigate the investigator By Bruce Shapiro Although he may think differently, Kenneth Starr is not above the law (02/25/98) Starr chamber By Mollie Dickenson The deep and twisted roots of Kenneth Starr's Clinton inquisition stretch back to the dark corners of the 1992 presidential campaign (02/24/98) Prosecuting -- or persecuting -- the prosecutors? By Jonathan Broder Fierce opponents of Kenneth Starr are now taking the fight right into the independent counsel's own office (02/24/98) Finish the job? Not in our lifetime By Jonathan Broder The U.S. can't "go all the way" in Iraq because, beyond Saddam Hussein, there's nowhere to go. Besides, his neighbors need to keep him around (02/23/98) Uncle Sam regrets ... By Dennis Bernstein When U.S. officials warn of "regrettable civilian casualties" resulting from a renewed bombing of Iraq, they should talk to Rema al-Attar (02/23/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		TOOTHLESS HOUNDS \| PAGE 2 OF 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In the final analysis, this mess is all Clinton's fault, concludes the Post. "The White House should remember that what is driving this story," the Post pronounces, "is not the conduct of Mr. Starr's staff, alleged leaks, supposed media bias or -- in Mrs. Clinton's now famous words -- a 'vast right-wing conspiracy.' Mr. Clinton is the only one who can make this matter go away, and he remains entirely free to do so at any time." Tell that to the Inquisitor-General. The Times takes the same tack. Starr's "failure in his obligation to the law" is, in its view, primarily a PR problem. The zealous prosecutor suffers from a "tin ear." Sure, Starr has launched "an attack on press freedom and the unrestricted flow of information that is unwarranted by the facts and beyond his mandate as a prosecutor." But at heart, this is simply just another example of Starr's "chronic clumsiness and periodic insensitivity." If Starr has overreacted, opines the Times, he was provoked. "Mr. Starr may ... be miffed by reports that the White House has turned its trademark tool of personal attack on his prosecutorial staff." In other words, it's the White House's fault. And when the president's lawyers, with ample reason, complain about the illegal leaking from the sieve-like office of the independent counsel (often into the receptive ears of the Times' Washington bureau), it's "demagogic." In the Times' view, there are no criticisms of Starr that have not been engineered and floated by the White House. According to reporter John M. Broder (no relation to Salon's Jonathan Broder) in the Feb. 25 edition, accusations that Starr was leaking secret grand jury testimony to the press come from "Clinton loyalists." It's as if Times editors have function keys automatically set to insert boilerplate phrases in all Clinton coverage. In a sidebar story, Broder and Don Van Natta Jr. refer, with absolutely no proof, sources or elaboration (another Times trademark in the Clinton scandal stories) to "a whispering campaign, spearheaded by White House aides and Clinton loyalists," against Starr's office. The fact that journalists, politicians and average citizens have been raising questions about the motivations and practices of Starr's office ever since he was appointed independent counsel three and a half years ago seems to have escaped Van Natta's attention and that of his editor. And, of course, Blumenthal's efforts to point reporters in certain -- quite valid -- directions on the Starr story is simply "damage control." So says the Times' Michael Janofsky in a largely sneering profile of the White House aide. Perhaps the most telling example of the Times' convolutions in the face of news it doesn't like to see came in its Feb. 24 story about the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, which showed that President Clinton's approval rating keeps climbing, despite the Monica Lewinsky affair. James Bennett and Janet Elder couldn't resist this sideswipe as they reported on this bit of good news for Clinton: "Judging from the poll, the White House has plenty of political breathing room as it pursues its chosen strategy for dealing with Mr. Clinton's crisis, withholding information and attacking the independent prosecutor Kenneth W. Starr." The reporters were then forced to explain (16 paragraphs into the story) why, according to the Times' own poll, Starr enjoyed a 3-to-1 unfavorable rating, right down there with Newt Gingrich when the Republicans shut the government down. "Perhaps taking a cue from White House attacks [my italics], 59 percent agreed with the proposition that Mr. Starr was 'mostly conducting a partisan investigation to damage Bill Clinton.'" In other words, according to the Times, the American public has been brainwashed by the White House spinmeisters. I could hardly be said to have taken my cue from the White House when I wrote in Salon, shortly after news of the alleged intern scandal broke, that if Clinton was lying about the affair -- and encouraging others do so as well -- then he should resign immediately. I still believe that, though with far less passion now. It seemed to me then that the most important issue was the president's behavior and truthfulness, or lack thereof. I still have doubts about that truthfulness, and as I have written in the past, I believe that Clinton, if he should fall, will largely be the author of his own woe. But another issue is far more critical to the health of the republic -- and it is appalling that the most prestigious institutions of my chosen profession (for 30 years, if you must know) are blindered to it. It's the out-of-control independent counsel with his show trials, his crooked "star" witnesses, his bully-boy assistants and his blatantly partisan political agenda, which is starting to look like, as Arkansas Democrat-Gazette political columnist and Salon contributor Gene Lyons has said, an attempted coup d'état. For uttering such words, I might be the next one to be subpoenaed by Starr, who no doubt is convinced I've been put up to it by Sid Blumenthal. I'd like that. I've seen the ashen faces of others, like Lewinsky's mother, emerging from a session of this latter-day Inquisition. But in my fantasy, I stride into the grand jury room and tell Starr and his white-collar thugs to stuff it. It's about time somebody did. SALON \| Feb. 26, 1998 Discuss the Kenneth Starr's role in Table Talk.