The
Clintons’ War on Women
A review
Good people can’t understand how truly bad a bad person can
be. Good people are good, but
they’re also a little bit stupid. - Jon Roberts (nee John Riccobono)
The first thought of anyone reading Roger Stone
and Robert Morrow’s blockbuster, The Clintons’ War on Women (309 customer reviews
on Amazon.com currently), with anything approaching an open mind is likely to
be, “How is it possible that a person of Hillary Clinton’s known sordid history
could ever be seriously considered as a candidate for president?” What the authors amply and convincingly lay
out and document throughout their book is what they call, “The Clintons’
lifelong history of lying and violating the law, seemingly without consequence
or punishment.”
Rather than being punished for their criminal
behavior, in fact, the Clintons have been rewarded with enormous wealth and
political success. The authors attempt
to explain what has happened with the term “elite deviance.”
Elite deviance is an anomaly in which a tiny few
people who have enough material wealth, political influence, and personal
connections can immunize themselves from considering the consequences of their
most abhorrent, destructive, vile, and even criminal behavior. This describes the Clintons perfectly.
It might describe their current situation, but
it hardly explains the charmed political life that they have led since they
left Yale Law School with few resources of their own. A better way of understanding the
Clintons is to look at the particular context for their success. A poem I posted on November 22, 2003,
sums up that context:
Forty years and counting
Since Kennedy was killed,
And our vacuum of leadership
Still has not been filled.
Why should those shoes present
Such difficulty in
filling?
The candidates are weeded out
By those who did the
killing.
Those who were responsible for the coup d’état
that resulted in the replacement of John F. Kennedy by Lyndon B.
Johnson—and who can doubt that the CIA was in it up to their eyeballs—have
been in the saddle ever since, and that explains better than anything else why
we get to choose a mystery man like Barack Obama, a
dimwit like George W. Bush, or racketeers like the Clintons to be our nation’s
putative leaders. A true leader who
would put our nation’s best interests first would, I
fear, be no more tolerated than JFK was. President Obama let the cat out of the
bag when he confided to a New York Times reporter
that he sometimes felt like “going Bulworth,” and jumping the
traces of his handlers.
We can see the outlines of the Kennedy coup
connections in the book under consideration:
Terry Reed, who later wrote a book about the
Clinton-Bush-CIA-Oliver North drug smuggling said, “The first day I met Barry
Seal he was in the company of Dan Lasater and Roger Clinton. Roger was the driver for Dan Lasater at the time.
With Dan Lasater and
Bill Clinton it was about drugs, parties, cocaine, women, and drug money
laundering. Arkansas was wide open
for the drug trade. It was a
diseased narco state being run by a cocaine-addled
Governor Bill Clinton.
Notice the “Bush” there in the criminal
nexus. That is George H.W. Bush
whose heavy involvement with the CIA drug smuggling through Arkansas when
Clinton was governor is detailed in the Reed book referenced and in other
sources that the authors site. We
might expect more detail in Stone’s upcoming Jeb and the Bush Crime Family.
The elder Bush’s early CIA ties as well as his
connection to the JFK assassination have long been known. I have a telling quote from Stone and
Morrow on Bill Clinton’s CIA connections in my previous article, “Sidney Blumenthal, Vince Foster, and the Deep
State.”
The Clintons’ War on
Women
will predictably be attacked as the work of Clinton-hating right-wingers, but
the revelations of the Clintons’ connection to the illicit drug network of the
Bushes, the CIA, and inevitably organized crime—also players in the JFK
assassination—show it is really a book about the criminal Deep
State.
Still Sleazy after All These Years
The Clintons’ sleazy associations continue to
the present day. Stone and Morrow
reveal that Bill is very close to billionaire and convicted sexual abuser of
under-aged girls, Jeffrey Epstein. He has flown overseas on Epstein’s
private plane on at least ten occasions and visited his private
island numerous times. Quoting
Virginia Roberts, a woman who said she was Epstein’s longtime teenage sex
slave, Stone and Morrow write:
Bill must have known about Jeffrey’s girls. There were three desks in the living
area of the villa on the island.
They were covered with pictures of Jeffrey
shaking hands with famous people and photos of naked girls, including one of me
that Jeffrey had at all his houses, lying in a hammock.
We learn from the book that Epstein’s plane was
known as the “Lolita Express” for the orgies with underage girls that took
place on it and that such activities were commonplace on the private
island. From what is certainly
common knowledge about Bill’s proclivities, we must imagine that he was in
(razorback?) hog heaven. Bill’s close association with such a man
as Epstein seems not to have caused offense within his nuclear family, because
Epstein’s longtime girlfriend of the more seasoned variety, Ghislaine
Maxwell, the daughter of the late shadowy British media mogul Robert Maxwell, was a photographed guest at Chelsea Clinton’s
wedding.
The term “elite deviance,” as previously
defined, fits Epstein much better than it fits the Clintons. Again, we quote Stone and Morrow:
There is currently a lawsuit by several of the
child sex victims of Epstein to overturn a questionably light plea bargain that
resulted in this prolific pedophile Epstein having to serve only thirteen
months in jail with a sixteen-hour-a-day pass. After molesting perhaps up to one
thousand girls (as Epstein confessed to his sex slave Virginia Roberts),
Jeffrey Epstein was allowed to just sleep nights in the county jail while the
rest of his day could be spent in the luxury of his Palm Beach mansion. Based on what thirty-three child victims
who have actually settled lawsuits with him have said, Epstein should be
serving a twenty-year sentence in state prison.
---
The Palm
Beach Post, to its credit, went to court to get this wrist-slap deal
unsealed. Only after two years of
litigation did the public learn of the toxic terms of the secret deal. Why George W. Bush’s DOJ gave Epstein a
pass after a flawed state investigation seems to be a mystery.
Well, perhaps it is not a mystery when one
learns of the names and social statuses of the people who were involved with
Epstein.
At this point elite deviance meets the Deep
State. The prime lawyer for Epstein
who got him the sweet plea bargain deal was none other than supposed Clinton
nemesis Kenneth Starr. Also on the Epstein legal team was super
lawyer, arch-Zionist and fellow frequent guest of Epstein, Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz, as we noted in a previous article, is now a close crony
of another previous putative nemesis of the Clintons, Christopher Ruddy. Dershowitz now
serves on Ruddy’s Newsmax
as a legal commentator.
Further closing the Deep State circle, we might
remind readers that Starr served as the Solicitor General in George H.W. Bush’s
Justice Department. After Starr’s
chief investigator of the Vince Foster death, Miguel Rodriguez, resigned in disgust over what he perceived
as an ongoing cover-up, he was replaced by Brett Kavanaugh. President George W. Bush made Kavanaugh and another member of Starr’s legal team, John
Bates, federal judges. In their
chapter 15, Stone and Morrow connect Kavanaugh and
Bates to the harassment and attempted discrediting of the aggrieved witness in
the Foster case, Patrick Knowlton.
Stone and Morrow are probably not aware of it because they never
interviewed Knowlton for their book, but, for some reason, another member of
the Starr team investigating team was renowned FBI profiler, Jim Clemente, an expert on sex
offenders. According to Knowlton,
Clemente interviewed him five times. At the time, Knowton
was unaware of Clemente’s specialty.
Perhaps the Foster death was related to some
high level skulduggery that up to now has not even
been hinted at. Maybe there’s a
clue in another quote from the book related to Clinton crony Lasater:
If one were to summarize the Clinton-Lasater relationship, one could say that Bill Clinton
provided the official political protection for the cocaine and drug smuggling,
while Lasater took care of the nuts and bolts of
laundering the hundreds of millions of dirty drug money. And in their spare time it was drugs,
parties, and corrupting teenage girls.
The “Women’s Advocates’” War on Them
Readers may gather at this point that there is a
good deal more in this book than the title suggests. In fact, the book that
the title best fits was written by the lawyer Candice E. Jackson, and
Stone and Morrow draw heavily upon it for that part of their book. The title is Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine.
Jackson interviewed seven women who
allege abuses of them by Bill Clinton that range from outright rape to threats,
intimidation, and various smears in an attempt to silence them. They direct a good deal of their animus
toward Hillary because they see her as the principal orchestrator of the latter
category of abuse.
Another powerful book that the current title
well fits is Kathleen Willey’s Target:
Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton. “Hillary is included in the title,” I
say in my review, “not just to make it
timely during her first run for the presidency. One gets the distinct
impression from reading the book that in spite of the indignity she suffered at
Bill’s hands, Willey genuinely regards Hillary as much the worse of the two.” It is fitting that Willey has written the
foreword for Stone and Morrow.
The involvement of Hillary was also captured in
an Amazon.com review of the Jackson book in
2012 by the co-author Morrow of The
Clintons’ War on Women, which he begins this way:
Let
me assure that the women in this book are not the only women that Bill and
Hillary Clinton have personally violated in so many ways over the years.
I include "Hillary" because she was
with Bill every step of the way, covering for him, hiring an army of private
detectives to harass, intimidate and terrify any of Bill's sex victims or
girlfriends who might go public.
Morrow would get his chance to go beyond Willey,
Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Corbin Jones, Elizabeth
Ward Gracen, Sally Miller Perdue, Gennifer
Flowers, and Monica Lewinsky. We
can see a partial list of the cases Stone and Morrow address in this 1999 Capitol
Hill Blue article. Examining Bill’s history of sexual predation, in fact, perhaps the
most remarkable thing is that to my knowledge no allegations have arisen from
his time as an undergraduate student at Georgetown University. One is tempted to say that living with
Hillary, whom he met at law school at Yale, has not been conducive to proper
sexual behavior on Bill’s part, but Stone and Morrow reveal that he was one of
the few Rhodes Scholars at Oxford not to complete his course of studies because
he was expelled for the hushed-up sexual assault of a nineteen-year-old student
there.
By far the worst of the sexual allegations
against Bill Clinton remains that of Broaddrick. When he was attorney general
of Arkansas and she was a political supporter, she says he violently raped her
not once but twice in a hotel room.
You can hear her account on national television here. She later had an encounter with Hillary in which it was clear
to her that Hillary knew about it and made it clear to her by her manner that
she would expect Broaddrick to keep her mouth shut
about the incident. Willey tells of
a similar encounter with Hillary in the wake of Bill’s thwarted assault on
her.
Elite deviance, indeed! When I was young, at least, rape was
treated as a capital offense.
The Hildebeast
Now one might raise the objection that the worst
of the misconduct here is Bill’s, not Hillary’s, and she’s the presidential
candidate now. But recall that the
Clintons presented themselves throughout his tenure as sort of a co-presidency,
two for the price of one, as they put it.
Taking them at their word, what they are offering us is a sort of end
run around the 22nd Amendment, limiting a president to two
terms. It may not violate the
letter of the amended Constitution, but a third term of the Clinton
co-presidency would certainly violate it in spirit.
This book hardly spares Hillary in her own
right, though. Here is the skeleton
of their take on Hillary, before they begin to hang the meat on the bones:
Far from her public image, Hillary Clinton is a
violent, scheming, ambitious, foul-mouthed woman with an insatiable appetite
for luxury, money, and power.
Hillary is also a physically violent person, famous for hitting,
scratching, and throwing things at her cheating husband. She is a classic abuser of anyone who
gets in the way of her drive for power.
This is precisely the impression I already had
of the woman from the writings of others who have been close to her and seen
her in action. One summing up of Hillary
is so good that the authors use it in three separate places in the book. It comes from Arkansas state trooper
Larry Patterson as he was witnessing one of Hillary’s tirades at the governor’s
mansion. The cook, known to him
only as Miss Emma said to him, “The devil’s in that woman.”
Stone and Morrow also remind us that just as
Bill has been held to much lower standards of sexual conduct than other public
figures such as Bill Cosby or Gary Hart, Hillary has been held to lower
standards of veracity.* I had almost forgotten about Hillary’s
Brian Williams moment when I got to this passage from Stone and Morrow:
Hillary’s lies caught up to her during her failed
2008 campaign. In the heat of the
primary against Obama, Hillary repeatedly said in a March 17 speech and several
interviews that she was caught under sniper fire in 1996 as First Lady and “ran
for cover under hostile fire shortly after her plane landed in Tuzla,
Bosnia.” Eight days later, a video
became public that showed “Clinton
arriving on the tarmac under no visible duress, and greeting a child
who offers her a copy of a poem.”
Further, more than “100 news stories from the time documented no
security threats to the First Lady.”
Williams was banished from his anchorman post
for his fanciful, self-promoting war stories while Hillary continues to be a
viable candidate for president.
We don’t even need their further reminder that
she has told the good people of New Zealand that she was named for their native
son Mount Everest conqueror Sir Edmund Hillary (many years before he emerged
from beekeeper obscurity with his famous feat) to understand why polls show
Hillary to be the least trusted of all the candidates
in the race.
Hillary’s lack of truthfulness continues on
brazen display with the almost every aspect of her ongoing saga concerning her
private email accounts while she was Secretary of State. The reason that Stone and Morrow offer
for Hillary’s circumvention of the legal requirement that she conduct all her
official business with the government email account has the solid ring of
truth. The Clinton Foundation, they
say, while presenting itself as a charitable endeavor, has been little more
than a great big bribe receptacle for these partners in crime.
For how that has worked, the best source is
probably Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign
Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. If you were giving
government favors in return for contributions to your slush fund, and
outrageous speaking fees for your sidekick, you wouldn’t want the record to be
accessible through a FOIA request, either.
So, in short, it is her venality that she is attempting to conceal with
her mendacity concerning the emails.
But for the “elite deviance” factor, her use of an insecure private
email account to conduct highly sensitive government business amounts to out-and-out
criminality.
Serious Shortcomings
Indeed, The
Clintons’ War on Women delivers far more than what its title and Ann
Coulter’s touting blurb on the cover promise, but it has very nearly crippling
flaws. To gather what is wrong with the book, one hardly need go further than my review of Richard Poe’s Hillary’s Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle
Internet Journalists:
The tip-off as to who is expected to read this
book is at the top of the dust jacket: "This book is required
reading," it says in bold italics. And right under the quote in
bigger, bolder, all capital letters is the name of the professional polarizer
being quoted, none other than Ann Coulter. With such a recommendation,
the publisher is assured that the only people likely to spend more than five
minutes with the book are hard-core Fox News junkies.
Like Poe, hard-hitting as they may seem, Stone
and Morrow actually pull their punches.
Nowhere is the punch pulling more evident than in their treatment of the
July 20, 1993, mysterious death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W.
Foster, Jr. They accept the
official conclusion that a depressed Foster blew his brains out with a .38
caliber revolver, firing the gun while pressing the muzzle against the roof of
his mouth. But in an
explanation that manages to make the official story look good by comparison,
they theorize that he was depressed because the once intimate friend Hillary
had badly hurt his feelings by freezing him out and verbally mistreating him in
public and that the suicide took place in his White House office after he crept
back unnoticed late in the work day, likely between 4:30 and 5:00 pm, after
going somewhere all afternoon after he had eaten a cheeseburger lunch at his
desk.
They offer essentially no evidence for their
theory. Has anyone said that they
saw Foster come back to the office, or even to the White House? No.
Has anyone at the White House, on the White House grounds, or in the Old
Executive Office Building next door or out on the sidewalk of Pennsylvania
Avenue said they heard the loud report of this high-powered weapon? No. At the same time they make a big to-do
about the fact that no one in the houses that are much farther away from the
eventual body discovery site in Fort Marcy Park heard the sound of a gunshot.
Their theory also shares many of the weaknesses
of the official conclusion of suicide from depression. Was any prescription for
anti-depressants that officially was filled by the Morgan Pharmacy in
Georgetown ever presented into evidence?
No. Were any telephone
records of a call to Little Rock, Arkansas, to the Foster family doctor that
precipitated the drug prescription presented into evidence? No.
Did a post-mortem test of Foster’s blood detect any drugs? No.
Were Foster’s two sons ever asked if the .38 revolver officially found
in Foster’s hand at Fort Marcy Park belonged to the family? Officially, no. Was the widow Lisa ever shown the black
revolver depicted in an official photograph in Foster’s hand? No.
She was shown a silver gun that she said she thought was his. Did any of the 25 people at the general
body site, many of whom saw the body, see any exit wound in the back of
Foster’s head, much less the half-dollar-sized one such as was shown on the
official autopsy sketch? No.
An astute reader will notice, as well, that this
theory of self-murder in the office is in direct conflict with their generally
quite good subsequent chapter 15 that is constructed around the observations of
the previously cited witness Patrick Knowlton. That chapter mentions in several places
a small wound in Foster’s neck that could likely have been caused by the bullet
from a small caliber weapon.
Several people, either in person or in a photograph, saw it. That wound is inconsistent with the .38-in-the-mouth
suicide scenario.
The authors’ theory is essentially the one that
journalist Marinka Peschmann
presents in her 2012 book Following Orders: The Death of Vince Foster, Clinton White
House Lawyer. The title of my review of her book sums it up, “Latest Foster Cover-Up Book Not Completely
Worthless.” Like Stone and Morrow, she manages to
throw a lot of sand in people’s eyes by trotting out various misdirections from
the misdirection expert, Christopher Ruddy, from the FBI, and from,
among others, the very curious supposed first discoverer of the body,
“CW.” Stone and Morrow call him by
the name by which he was known, Dale Kyle.
His full name was Kermit Dale Kyle, and he has passed away.
Peschmann, Ruddy, and Stone and
Morrow put a lot of stock in Kyle’s observations. Ms. Peschmann
actually made an attempt to defend her work and to attack my review of her book
in an online forum. My guess is that she has never set
foot in Fort Marcy Park, and it’s very likely that neither Stone nor Morrow has
either. She had no rejoinder to
this observation of mine:
Now let’s say a thing or two about that “confidential witness”
who, she and the authorities like Kenneth Starr agree, “found Foster’s body”
and whom she and Starr both label only with the initials “CW.” As a somewhat
aging country boy and veteran of hundreds of alfresco urinations of the type
that KK (initials of his real first and last names) says nature forced upon
him, I can say with solemn assurance that there is not one chance in ten
million that he would have stumbled upon Foster’s body where it was had he just
been looking for a secluded place to pee. The whole damn park, for goodness
sakes, is a secluded place. The body was way up on the other side of the park
behind a berm, and you first have to walk through a large space cleared of
trees to get there. It’s a long ways, it’s mainly uphill, and it was a hot day.
The parking lot itself is completely ringed with trees. The notion that KDK
went where he says he did in search of a place to relieve himself, to anyone
with the slightest familiarity with Fort Marcy Park, might be the most
outrageous lie in the whole Vince Foster death case. No serious person could
possibly believe it.
Oh, nothing much else about KDK’s
story, shall we say, holds water, either, but I think I’ve written enough for
now.
At the beginning of the Stone and
Morrow book we have this:
Dedicated to the women and men
violated by Bill and Hillary Clinton in their scramble for power.
And also to Sean Hannity, Nick
Bryant, Matt Drudge, Peter Schweitzer [sic], Daniel Halper,
Michael Goodwin, Christopher Hitchens, David Sirota,
Paul Sperry, Ed Klein, Brent Scher, Victor Thorn, Marinka Peschmann, Ambrose
Evans-Pritchard, Jim Nelson, Roger Morris, Sally Denton, and Chris Ruddy. These journalists have done more than
anyone else to expose the Clintons’ epic transgressions.
No informed person who is
interested in the truth could possibly make that last statement. I am not familiar with all the people
named, but I know enough of them.
One can search his name on my web site and see that I would put
Evans-Pritchard pretty close to the top of the list. Morris’s book Partners in Power, the Clintons and their America also strikes me
as very honest and informative. I
have not read it but Schweizer’s book, referenced
above, appears helpful. Klein, on
the other hand, is an obvious master of deceit while
Ruddy and the upstart Peschmann appear to be cut out
of the same mold as Klein. And
putting Hannity right up front rivals putting Coulter on the cover as a way to
drive away the politically moderate-to-liberal reader.
A man whose writings were popular with college
students in the 1960s, Paul Goodman, supposedly once made the observation, “In
America you can say anything you want as long as it has no effect.” Roger Stone
and Robert Morrow have said a great big mouthful about the quintessentially
corrupt political couple, Bill and Hillary Clinton. If everyone were to read it and were to
take even a small part of it to heart Hillary Clinton would never be elected to
any position, no matter how lowly it might be (What with our dodgy electronic vote counting system, there is a legitimate
question as to whether this very unlikable woman ever has been elected.). By having their book plugged by Ann
Coulter, by paying tribute to and repeatedly citing mainstream journalistic
hacks as worthy authorities, and by pulling their punches and employing in
places some rather sloppy scholarship they have made certain, unfortunately,
that their efforts are likely to have a minimal effect. Whether or not that is by design I’ll
leave for readers to decide.
* The authors also address the question of
Hillary’s sexual conduct, citing evidence of intimacy with Webb Hubbell and
Vince Foster as well as evidence that she swings both ways. In the latter category, among lots of other
things they quote from this writer’s “Is Hillary Clinton a Lesbian?” although they fail to
give the Web address.
David Martin
December 3, 2015
Home Page Column Column 5 Archive Contact