http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jun23.html

washingtonpost.com
The Clinton Warmongers


By Richard Cohen

Tuesday, June 24, 2003; Page A21


Sidney Blumenthal titles his account of his White House days "The Clinton
Wars," but it could just as easily be called "The Blumenthal Wars."
Reviewers have called him a Clinton "courtier," "Sid Vicious," a
"lady-in-waiting" and, by the strongest of implications, a liar. Yet to
actually read the book brings another term to mind: "mad." This is what
Washington was during the Clinton years.

I do not mean all of Washington. After all, many Democrats fought valiantly
for Bill Clinton -- or, if not for him, then against Ken Starr, the
moralistic prig of a special prosecutor. Ditto some members of the press,
who realized that no matter what Clinton did, what was being done to him --
and the presidency -- was far, far worse.

But you would get little of that from most of the reviews. Barely mentioned
are the censorious comments of Samuel Dash, Starr's ethics counselor, who,
in the book, characterizes the special prosecutor as a morally obsessed
inquisitor. "He lacked a lot of judgment," Dash told Blumenthal. "Starr
didn't see the difference between a sin and a crime. His judgments were
distorted." Dash says that Starr could have ended his investigation much
earlier than he did. He had, really, nothing.

The same has to be said about Filegate, Travelgate and all the other
scandals, including the overriding influence China supposedly exercised over
the Democratic Party. In each and every case, there was a nugget, an
infraction, something suspicious. But now, all these years later, it is hard
to recall just what these scandals were about. That's hardly the case, say,
with Watergate. To this day I can tell you it was about abuse of power by
the Nixon White House -- and White House aides went to jail. None of
Clinton's White House aides was even indicted.

It certainly wasn't for lack of trying. Starr was preceded by Robert Fiske,
who was removed from office by Republican judges on account of a disabling
conflict of interest -- experience as a prosecutor, fair-mindedness and
estimable professionalism. Starr, in turn, was succeeded by a third
prosecutor, Robert Ray, another pro. The FBI was in the hands of Louis
Freeh, who loathed Clinton. Various congressional committees were run by the
likes of Al D'Amato, who -- in the manner of naming a nunnery after Hugh
Hefner -- just got his name put on a Long Island courthouse. As for the news
media, they went after both Bill and Hillary Clinton full time. The result?
Zip.

I know Blumenthal. He was my Post colleague. But I also know most of the
people who have criticized his book. They are honorable people, but many of
them use the book to pick up where they left off. They have no second
thoughts, no backward glance to see the mess they made or to wonder how
investigative reporting and commentary went right off a cliff and into a
sewer. The real scandal for the news media is that no scandal ever
materialized.

So we get accusations that Blumenthal spun this or that event. What's
missing is not just an overview but a sense of astonishment. Isn't it just
plain mysterious that Newt Gingrich continues to get respectful media
attention when, really, on a given day he is half-mad and almost always
blowing smoke? The same could be asked of Tom DeLay, who revived impeachment
when the effort flagged for lack of compelling evidence and was determined
to smash Clinton -- never mind what else he would destroy in the process.
Yet he and other Clinton-haters wander the streets of Washington, unscarred,
uncensored but, nonetheless, unhinged.

The virtue of Blumenthal's book is that it assembles in one place what
happened in Washington during the Clinton years. If you are not already
convinced that Clinton was guilty of multiple crimes, then Blumenthal will
make you wonder all over again about how partisan politics, even cultural
disagreements, got so out of hand that the government wound up in the
pornography business. The Starr Report. Wrap it in plain paper, please.

There's much to criticize in Blumenthal's book -- a detail, an omission, a
partisan spin on events. But the book's reception reminds me of the events
it chronicles -- a warped obsession with this or that tree when Ken Starr
and his Republican allies were clear-cutting much of the forest.
Blumenthal's book, describing what a madhouse Washington became back then,
has for some reason been given to the inmates to review.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company



--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
---Theodore Roosevelt

"Feels Good!"
---George W. Bush on the Brink of Declaring War on Iraq.