About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Boy Tyrrell: still writing bad fiction

March 16, 2007 6:58 pm ET

SUMMARY: R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.'s new book, The Clinton Crack-Up: The Boy President's Life After The White House, follows in Tyrrell's tradition of smear books on the Clintons by featuring a series of unverified -- and, to the point of absurdity, poorly sourced -- claims about them.

30 Comments

On March 20, American Spectator founder and editor-in-chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is slated to release his new book on former President Bill Clinton, The Clinton Crack-Up: The Boy President's Life After The White House (Nelson Current). Anonymously sourced claims made in the book were featured on March 16 in the Washington Examiner, owned by conservative financier Phil Anschutz, in a review to which the Drudge Report linked with the headline: "'Conspiracy' comes back for Clintons; New Book Claims More Affairs..." Citing only "my sources," Tyrrell claims in the excerpt featured by the Examiner that since Clinton left office, "there have been other ladies," mostly, he says, in "one-night stands with hostesses on Clinton's speaking tours." Tyrrell recycles salacious rumors of "tirades and flying objects, directed by [his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)] at Bill's defenseless skull," and claims that "[t]here would be more spousal abuse during Clinton's retirement when his amours threatened Hillary's political longevity."

An advance copy of The Clinton Crack-Up obtained by Media Matters for America shows Tyrrell continuing in his own tradition of Clinton smear books by featuring a series of unverified -- and, to the point of absurdity, poorly sourced -- claims about the Clintons.

In a chapter named "The Ghost Ship," Tyrrell claims "a forlorn Bill Clinton" was "a flesh and blood modern-day reenactment of The Flying Dutchman," a legendary cursed ghost ship that is also featured in the movie Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Tyrrell details "grim evidence" of a "Clinton Curse," and, recounting the death of the Clintons' dog Buddy, "a fixture in the Clinton family since joining it as a pup just before the Lewinsky scandal broke," writes, "Even the animal world is not exempt from the Clinton Curse." In a later chapter, Tyrrell elaborates further on the "Clinton Curse," writing, "Its carnage has been awful, not just among Clinton's lackeys but even among the rich and powerful," and "sluts and virgins alike often suffered dreadful misfortune."

Tyrrell also baselessly speculates about Clinton sex tapes being acquired by foreign intelligence experts, writing, "What will happen if the tapes of President Clinton's phone sex with Monica (and probably others) make their way into the public domain, perhaps after being sold or leaked by the foreign intelligence agents who almost certainly have them?"

And, citing an anonymous police officer "during a September 2004 interview with anonymous interviewer" -- whatever that means -- he claimed regarding Denise Rich, ex-wife of financier Marc Rich, whom Clinton pardoned shortly before he left office:

In August 2001, in an unguarded moment of conversation with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, soon to be House Minority Leader, a currently serving Capitol Hill police officer standing two feet away heard Hillary snap, Bill "f---ed" Denise. [Page 78]

The excerpt made its way to a gossip column in the March 7, 2007, edition of the New York Daily News, and the account was "roundly denied by all parties." A spokesman for Denise Rich said, "There is no truth to this story."

Tyrrell has a long history of making wild claims about the Clintons in the Spectator and in previous anti-Clinton books he has written. Under his watch, the Spectator, once a little-known conservative monthly, sank to new lows, using tabloid journalism to smear the former president and first lady on a regular basis with no evidence. In his October 20, 1997, "Media Notes" column, Washington Post staff writer Howard Kurtz wrote:

The magazine has been staunchly conservative since Tyrrell and [co-founder Ronald] Burr launched it while they were at Indiana University. But in recent years, as its circulation has mushroomed from 30,000 to more than 200,000, the Spectator has dived headfirst into the scandal-mongering business, fueled in part by the [right-wing philanthropist Richard Mellon] Scaife donations.

Now the magazine, which broke the "Troopergate" story, runs such pieces as "Boy Clinton's Big Mama," "The Clintons' Brewing Micro-Scandal," "Hillary, the CIA & the Iraq Cover-Up" and "Fast Times at White House High." Tyrrell himself has weighed in with two pieces on Bill Clinton's supposed ties to drug-running at the Mena, Ark., airport and another titled "Is Clinton on Coke?"

In the same column, Kurtz noted that the Spectator "has run stories on [Vincent] Foster's death, one of them by British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard depicting it as an unsolved mystery."

In his new book, Tyrrell does concede that Foster "killed himself."

The Spectator's focus on what Kurtz described as "shadowy Arkansas scandals supposedly involving President Clinton" was a result of the so-called "Arkansas Project," which, as The Atlantic Monthly wrote in its November 2001 issue, was "a $2.4 million effort, financed by Scaife, to uncover wrongdoing in Clinton's past, which ultimately led to the investigation of the Spectator itself." Tyrrell, a Scaife aide and other conservative activists came up with the idea for the project on a 1993 fishing trip.

Indeed, the Spectator was the subject of a 14-month Justice Department investigation spurred by a March 18, 1998, Salon.com article alleging that "David Hale, the key witness against President Clinton in Kenneth Starr's Whitewater investigation, received numerous cash payments from a clandestine anti-Clinton campaign funded by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife." Though the investigation did not result in any charges, the "Arkansas Project" was generally regarded as an expensive failure. According to a May 2, 1999, Washington Post article, the operation "skirted close to the tax laws, and failed to learn damaging information about Bill and Hillary Clinton."

While in The Clinton Crack-Up, Tyrrell disputes the assertion that the "Arkansas Project" "failed to unearth any credible information," neither of the two investigations to which he specifically referred -- of John Huang or James Riady -- led to charges being brought against the Clintons, much less to convictions. Indeed, none of the investigations of the Clintons led to any findings of criminal wrongdoing on their part. From The Clinton Crack-Up:

Also false is the claim that The American Spectator's Arkansas Project "failed to unearth any credible information." Nothing in the Spectator has ever been disproved. Some of the magazine's stories inspired fruitful congressional investigations into Clinton; for instance, the magazine's early reports on Travelgate. What is more, the Spectator's reporting was helpful to other journalists. As William Safire wrote in a May 17, 2001, New York Times column, "I found early Spectator material useful in writing columns that helped trigger a reluctant investigation and ultimate conviction of both felons." He was referring to fund-raising jugglers John Huang and James Riady.

Tyrrell authored several other anti-Clinton books, the first of which is Boy Clinton: The Political Biography (Regnery), published in 1996. In the book, Tyrrell recycled many of the same tabloid smears that originally appeared in Spectator articles. In a December 8, 1997, article for The Nation, Joe Conason, co-author with columnist Gene Lyons of The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton (Thomas Dunne Books, 2000) and now a columnist for Salon.com and the New York Observer, wrote that Boy Clinton "includes a long and credulous exploration of charges that as Governor of Arkansas, Clinton benefited from 'a cocaine-smuggling ring operating out of an Arkansas airport' and was somehow behind a 'peculiar pattern' of deaths of certain former associates and enemies." Conason described Tyrrell as "a controversial personage on the right because of his magazine's single-minded pursuit of supposed conspiracies connected to the Clintons."

In a January 17, 2000, American Prospect article, Nicholas Confessore wrote of Boy Clinton:

Tyrrell's Boy Clinton follows the future president from alleged cocaine benders with Little Rock entrepreneur Dan Lasater to his sojourn with communists in Prague during the late 1960s. ("Inquiries I had made about his trip to Moscow turned up little that was new," Tyrrell writes breathlessly. "People were still wondering where he had gotten sufficient funding for such a trip. Some still suspected a KGB front. Others suggested the CIA.")

Boy Clinton's dust jacket summarizes, "He [Tyrrell] presents strong evidence, for instance, that Clinton knowingly benefited from the profits of a cocaine-smuggling ring operating out of an Arkansas airport. He also delves into the 'peculiar pattern' of deaths of people connected to the Clintons during their rise to power - a serious matter that has been too quickly dismissed with accusations of conspiracy-mongering." From Boy Clinton:

The lawlessness of Arkansas had obviously come to afflict many in the Clinton administration, but what of the violence? That is a murky question entoiled in partisanship, usually the partisanship of the ideologically transfixed. The liberal diehards deride any suggestion of homicides, mysterious suicides, and mayhem; the right wing enthusiasts draw a line from every unnatural death in Arkansas directly to the Oval Office. Historians will someday settle the question as to whether the Arkansas machine had a hand in the untimely deaths that overcame the Clintons' friends, associates, distant acquaintances, and enemies during their rise to power. We do know that in the summer of 1994 the sober Economist listed eight unpleasant incidents in warning of the "peculiar pattern of suicides and violence" surrounding "people connected to the Clintons" [Page 140]

Later, in a May 21, 2003, column for The New York Sun, Tyrrell ridiculed the Clintons "and their most ardent apologists," who he said "were left insisting that their critics were accusing them of murder and drug running." Tyrrell apparently thinks there is a significant difference between accusing the Clintons of "murder and drug running," which he implies is an accusation stemming entirely from the imaginations of the Clintons and their "apologists," and what he wrote about the Clintons -- claiming that there was a "'peculiar pattern' of deaths of people connected to the Clintons" and that Clinton "knowingly benefited" from "a cocaine-smuggling ring." From Tyrrell's column:

In the end, the Clintons and their most ardent apologists were left insisting that their critics were accusing them of murder and drug running. I did not make this up. Mr. Clinton says it himself from time to time from a dais, and no one notices the sleight of hand. To find someone accusing the Clintons of these enormities one has to take one's butterfly net to the farthest reaches of politics. There some glassy-eyed loon may indeed accuse Mr. Clinton of killing Vince Foster or poisoning his cat. There are those zanies who insist Mr. Clinton was a drug runner, possibly at Mena Airport, possibly in the White House mess. But no sensible journalist I know of ever made such charges. The Clintons and their loyal defenders would have you believe that the charges were common fare among conservatives. Show me the citations.

In 1997, Tyrrell co-authored an account of a fictionalized Clinton impeachment called The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton (Regnery). The novel, which blended fact and fiction, was published the year before real-life impeachment proceedings began against Clinton. In a December 19, 1997, article for the Forward -- headlined "Bernard Nussbaum Rebuts a Novel Impeachment: R. Emmett Tyrrell Shows His Primary Colors in a Semi-Futuristic Fantasy" -- Nussbaum, a former White House counsel under Clinton, wrote:

In the case of Mr. Clinton, Mr. Tyrrell fantasizes about specific criminal violations and imagines some smoking gun tapes being produced at the last minute. The thing to remember as one reads this novel is that the tapes about which he fantasizes don't exist. Nor do such scandals as "Travelgate" or "Filegate" or "Whitewatergate," which take up so much of Mr. Tyrrell's novel... In the end, one has to conclude that the reason Mr. Tyrrell has resorted to fantasy is that years of reporting by his magazine and by others have failed to come up with anything that would force the hand of anyone looking at these matters, whether it be the independent counsel or the House of Representatives.

In 2004, Tyrrell co-authored a book that attacked Hillary Clinton, Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House (Regnery). The book was a commercial failure. According to a June 26, 2006, New Republic article:

In fact, after years of harping on Clinton's days as a student activist at Wellesley, conservatives even appear tired of the notion that she's a liberal ideologue. In Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House (9,000 copies), R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. couldn't captivate readers with his dissection of her early political influences (such as Saul Alinsky) or his argument that she would start 'a national Cambodian re-education camp for anyone caught wearing an Adam Smith necktie or scarf.'

Tyrrell also writes a column that appears in The American Spectator and The New York Sun, which regularly features Clinton smears. In recent columns, Tyrrell has written that Hillary Clinton "is a renowned liar and a bully to boot" and that Bill and Hillary Clinton "are two of the most inveterate liars in American political history." He also wrote that Bill Clinton "ran his campaigns with foreign money and his office like a heterosexual Mark Foley" and that "[t]he sudden whitening of his [Clinton's] hair since his retirement from the White House and shrinkage of his once fleshy physique should admonish voluptuaries everywhere of the potential health threats from recreational sex."

From The Clinton Crack-Up:

"On he went, a forlorn Bill Clinton, a flesh and blood modern-day reenactment of The Flying Dutchman, that spectral ship of legend, that roams the world from port to port, a dreadful curse upon it. Though in Clinton's case, it was not so much a curse that was upon him as a ringing in his ears: Hillary's rant: "Avoid Rich Babes!"

Sir Walter Scott, in his note to Rokeby, sees the ghostly vessel as a ship plying the seas, bringing eerie calamity to those it encounters. Clinton, too, was a Ghost Ship, driven from home by an angry wife and an irate public. As for calamity, both Clintons have a history of having brought eerie calamity to friend and foe alike.

There has always seemed to be a strange curse attending the Clintons. So many of their friends and associates have suffered instant catastrophe. The sad fate of the McDougals, one dead and the other in the clink, is grim evidence of this Clinton Curse. So is the fall of Webb Hubbell from high office in the Justice Department to jail and disgrace. Hillary's old law partner was not even repristinated with a last-minute pardon. Another of her law partners, Vince Foster, was the Curse's most tragic victim. Once Hillary's lover, he found himself overwhelmed and rejected in the turbulence of the Clinton White House. Fearing he had failed his friends as White House lawyer, and doubtless stung by Hillary's coldness, he killed himself. Almost all the Clintons' Arkansas pals went down. Even some of their White House staffers suffered the Clinton Curse. As for the Curse's effect on the Clinton's enemies, I leave that for chapter four. [Page 53]

[...]

In the first week of his retirement he suffered another famous fall after going out on the driveway at Chappaqua to throw a tennis ball for Buddy, his chocolate Labrador. Still the clumsy kid forever teased by his Arkansas classmates (his public jogs during the presidency were always studies in slow motion), Clinton tripped over the dog and fell to the ground. "You guys got a good shot," he whined to nearby reporters. "That's the first time he's knocked me down in all the time we've been together." Well, most probably it was not the first time; but it may have been the last. A year later, almost to the day, Buddy, having been abandoned by his absentee owners, was hit by a car after bolting from the house. Only the Secret Service's backup team was around to take the ex-presidential dog to the Chappaqua Animal Hospital. There Buddy, a fixture in the Clinton family since joining it as a pup just before the Lewinsky scandal broke, was pronounced dead. Even the animal world is not exempt from the Clinton Curse. At the time, the Clintons were in Acapulco. Soon thereafter, Buddy's bereaved owner was off to Dubai, $300K; Cairo, $175K; back to Dubai, $300K; on to Tel Aviv, $150K. After Tel Aviv he returned home briefly, then on to Palo Alto, $125K, and to Santa Barbara, $125K. There he ended the sad month, dogless but much closer to the millions he envisaged." [Page 58]

[...]

"What will happen if the tapes of President Clinton's phone sex with Monica (and probably others) make their way into the public domain, perhaps after being sold or leaked by the foreign intelligence agents who almost certainly have them? The Starr Report states that... "After phone sex late one night, the President fell asleep, mid-conversation." But did foreign intelligence eavesdroppers -- most likely from France, Israel, and Russia -- fall asleep? Intelligence experts know that the aforementioned countries had the capacity to snatch these calls from the airways, which summons another thought. The most controversial recipient of a Clinton pardon, Marc Rich, was close to agents from at least one of these countries, possibly all three." [Pages 70-71]

[...]

"As we have seen, many bystanders in the Clintons' lives have suffered misfortune, many without breaking any laws whatsoever. All they had to do was be in the neighborhood when the Clinton death wagon lumbered by. Hubbell and McDougal broke the law, but they have probably also been a part of this mysterious phenomenon, the Clinton Curse. Its carnage has been awful, not just among Clinton's lackeys but even among the rich and powerful." [Pages 97-98]

[...]

"Clinton cannot blame all this carnage on an independent counsel. Something larger, more mysterious, is going on. Many of the Clintons' Arkansas enemies suffered almost as terribly as their Arkansas friends. To list them would take more pages than could comfortably be bound into a one-volume work. Doubtless some were as worthy of diabolical retribution as Hillary would have us think, but what of the unsuspecting women who caught Billy's eye? Some, of course, were sluts; but many were true ladies, totally innocent of unchaste thoughts. Nonetheless, sluts and virgins alike often suffered dreadful misfortune." [Pages 98-99]

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by worrierking (March 16, 2007 7:08 pm ET)
         

      Is this a joke?

      "Nonetheless, sl_ts and virgins alike often suffered dreadful misfortune."

      Now I'm not a literature major, I never finished college, but a group of termites could write better prose than this guy.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (March 17, 2007 8:31 pm ET)
           

        What was that phrase Democrats were repeatedly whapped about the head with after the 2000 Presidential election theft?  Oh yeah, I remember:

        GET OVER IT!

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by bittermarv (March 17, 2007 8:33 pm ET)
             

          (I should point out that I'm directing that comment to Republicans, and not to his lordship, the King of Worries.)

          Report Abuse
      • Author by iflurry8094 (March 19, 2007 1:38 am ET)
           

        Actually, I rather like the phrase "sl_ts and virgins". Sounds like a naughty board game.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by DorisRussell (March 16, 2007 7:22 pm ET)
         

      This book is trash

      More GOP talking points to attempt to stop Senator Clinton and to smear President Clinton. I think we all know the Clinton years were something we wish we could have back , at least we had respect for our nations actions back then. Today we can not defend our President to other nations.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (March 16, 2007 10:24 pm ET)
           

        I'm with you, Doris.  Today, we have no moral standing in the world on many different political fronts, the most crucial of which, in my view, is how we expect our soldiers to be treated when they are taken prisoner.  Bush has tarnished our nation's image for years to come, and it will take many years more to undo the damage.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by captfoster2 (March 18, 2007 3:43 am ET)
             

          PETE,

           We could make those years turn into months or even weeks by offering the Bush regime and all those that aided in purposely destroying all that was good about America (Rummy, Condi, Dick, Karl, Paul Wolfie, Alberto, Ashcroft, every signing member of the PNAC, and of course W!) to the ICC and/or the World Courts and let the International Community have their collective way with them, while we simultaineously create an energy independant, transparent, Rule of Law following government!

          Or we could simply..........

          blame Bill Clinton and hope that this was all just a nightmare these last 6 1/2 years and that we will all wake up together and sigh in relief that it was all just a bad dream and Al Gore is actually the president and that this crummy book that this thread is about will have been written by a pathetic insect with no ability to use his knowledge wisely.......well......the last part IS real!

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Pithaughn (March 16, 2007 7:27 pm ET)
         

      This bodes well for the Dems in 08. If attacking a popular ex president is thier best strategy, then Dems attacking Bush et al is a sure fire winner!!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (March 16, 2007 10:30 pm ET)
           

        Good point.  How many liberal/progressive authors are going out of their way to dig up enough dirt to justify an entire book about Bush '41?  Even if they are, do any of them think we're interested in his post-presidency personal life?

        Granted, there are plenty of titles being written about Bush '43, but we're still bogged down in his presidency.  But I think there will be MUCH more to write about when his reign finally comes to its much anticipated end, and it won't be a bunch of unsubstantiated garbage about his marriage and personal life. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by redking75687 (March 17, 2007 1:52 pm ET)
             

          Check out the book section over on Counterpunch.org. It's amazing how many liberal books there actually are. But NONE get the plug from the corporate press. Can't have the masses actually reading about how corrupt and criminal the system really is, can they?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by halfaworldaway (March 16, 2007 11:52 pm ET)
         

      isnt smearing a former president with a view to hurt his presidential candidate wife not silly Tommy ???

      Report Abuse
      • Author by jeter2 (March 18, 2007 2:28 pm ET)
           

        Under his watch, the Spectator, once a little-known conservative monthly, sank to new lows, using tabloid journalism to smear the former president and first lady on a regular basis with no evidence[Howard Kurtz]

        Now the magazine, which broke the "Troopergate" story...[Howard Kurtz]

        Mmmmm...wonder who once wrote for the American Spectator and under Tyrrell??

        Mmmmm...wonder who authored THAT Troopergate article??

        Wonder WHY that information is OMITTED here?

        Funny eh?

        Now I'm thinking IF you're gonna call out others for NOT revealing information, ya out to make the effort to call yourself out.

        Double Standards Mr. Brock?

        Why no admonishment directed at Kurtz for failing to INCLUDE that David Brock, founder of MMFA was also culpable in some of the American Spectator articles?

        And why no link to Kurtz's  October 20, 1997, "Media Notes" column?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by chimpevil (March 18, 2007 8:56 pm ET)
             

          Oh how clever of you, Jeter, to smoke out the nefarious Mr. Brock!  Who knew he was once part of the repub slime machine he now helps expose through MMFA?  That he was knee deep in the muck of the Arkansas Project and so many other "Get-Clinton" hit pieces in the 90's?  Who knew?  PRACTICALLY EVERYBODY ON THIS SITE, THAT'S WHO!!!  And if you get on the google, Jeter, you will find that Brock wrote a whole freakin' book about those days called Blinded By The Right, though I'm sure you know about it, as does, I don't know, probably EVERYBODY ELSE WHO READS MMFA!  Sorry to shout, but your smarmy little "outing" of Brock strikes me as more than a little disingenuous and frankly aggravates the heck out of me!

          Report Abuse
          • Author by jeter2 (March 18, 2007 9:32 pm ET)
               

            Missing the point here Chimp.

            How many threads to we get here where the main complaint is that some journalist or TV host has failed to mention every last fact & historical minutia about their subject matter, be it person or event.

            Here's a thread dealing not only with Brock's former boss, BUT even mentions the articles he [Brock] was a least fully or partially responsible for. Yet no where is Brock even mentioned.

            My post was meant to be dripping with sarcasm & pointing out the irony that the site that zeros in on these OMITTED facts & info by OTHERS would conveniently fail to even mention David Brock's rather prominent role in many American Spectator stories dealing with the Clintons.

            Disingenuous? Me? Nah, that would be the poobahs here at MMFA for not practicing what they preach.

            Sorry you're aggravated. Well, no actually that would be disingenuous...because quite frankly, I'm not.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by iflurry8094 (March 19, 2007 1:46 am ET)
                 

              How many threads to we get here where the main complaint is that some journalist or TV host has failed to mention every last fact & historical minutia about their subject matter, be it person or event.

              This seems to be the first one I've ever encountered, and the author is YOU. 

              Here's a thread dealing not only with Brock's former boss, BUT even mentions the articles he [Brock] was a least fully or partially responsible for. Yet no where is Brock even mentioned.

              Like Chimp said, there's already been a book about it. Brock is only tangentially relevant to this piece, and you're making it seem like he's integral.

              My post was meant to be dripping with sarcasm & pointing out the irony that the site that zeros in on these OMITTED facts & info by OTHERS would conveniently fail to even mention David Brock's rather prominent role in many American Spectator stories dealing with the Clintons.

              Do you even know what sarcasm is? What you were doing is called "clutching at straws".

              Sorry you're aggravated. Well, no actually that would be disingenuous...because quite frankly, I'm not.

              Yeah, don't apologize for your lame post. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by jeter2 (March 19, 2007 8:19 am ET)
                   

                How many threads do we get here where the main complaint is that some journalist or TV host has failed to mention every last fact & historical minutia about their subject matter, be it person or event...by jeter2

                This seems to be the first one I've ever encountered, and the author is YOU....by iflurry

                =====

                Nope, that would NOT be me, it would be MMFA. Here's just several threads [starring Wolf & CNN] in which they did just that:

                -------------------------------------------------------

                CNN's Blitzer interviewed Toensing after Libby verdict, did not disclose her legal work for CNN during probe 

                CNN failed to inform viewers that GOP critics of anti-terrorism bill later voted for it 

                Blitzer left out Richardson's diplomatic credentials in report on North Korea meeting 

                After touting GOP's "remarkable" feat in 2002 election, media ignored historical context for Dem victories in 2006 

                Blitzer failed to ID Matalin as Allen campaign adviser, even as she claimed that Democrats are "not going to win" Virginia Senate race

                --------------------------------------------------------------

                Like Chimp said, there's already been a book about it. Brock is only tangentially relevant to this piece, and you're making it seem like he's integral....by iflurry

                Integral or not, MMFA also demands ALL info should be revealed. What's good for the goose...

                Do you even know what sarcasm is? What you were doing is called "clutching at straws"....by iflurry

                Nope, just pointing out the double standards here. And laughing at how you very "fair-minded" Liberals react. 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by bruce1ace (March 19, 2007 11:49 am ET)
                     

                  Laughing with you, my good friend.  Well done.  Maybe we're the only ones who get the joke? ;-)

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jeter2 (March 19, 2007 1:47 pm ET)
                       

                    Thanks Bruce, yes one is actually required to have a sense of humor to fully understand my posts... it seems that some Liberals here lack a *funny bone* ;-)

                    Report Abuse
    • Author by papabearkrb (March 17, 2007 1:09 am ET)
         

      And if I heard correctly on Hannity's smearfest Friday afternoon, he was going to either have Tyrrell on his show or just discuss the "new" revelations about Clinton. 

      He DID mention the various countries where Tyrrell says that Clinton had some of his various alleged trysts.

      I changed the station before I had to vomit, so I'm not sure which way that "great American" Hannity went.

      Keith Bearman

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Conchobhar (March 17, 2007 2:51 am ET)
         

      Regarding that alleged cocaine smuggling ring run out of that "Arkansas airport,"  did boy Tyrell (the name of Richard III's hired murderer, btw, who killed the princes in the Tower.) include the factoid that convicted felon, neocon, and member of the Bush Administration, Elliot Abrams is supposed to have been the ringleader?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (March 17, 2007 3:13 am ET)
           

        "What will happen if the tapes of President Clinton's phone sex with Monica (and probably others) make their way into the public domain, perhaps after being sold or leaked by the foreign intelligence agents who almost certainly have them?"

        Hey, Leatherhelmet got a book deal!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by sasami (March 17, 2007 3:44 am ET)
             

          If it requires a FOIA to get them, then they'll probably never see the light of day. Or is there a special office that handles any information that might be damaging to Democrats?

          "Sir, there's a request for some information that could be damaging.."

          "Well, don't let it out. Sit on it for as long as you can."

          "But Sir, it's about the Clintons."

          "WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY SO?! In that case, send it pronto and CC a copy to Fox News!"

          Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (March 17, 2007 8:59 am ET)
         

      Dear Mr. Tyrrell Jr.,

      I hate to inform you of this but you are not are Jr....How do I know this because my daddy impregnated your mom. Also, your boss, Mr. Scaife is angry because I slept with his wife, of course she paid me for it 300K. Now there are some true facts for your book. If there is a reprint(after Scaifey buys all the 1st. printing to make it a #1 best seller) please include these "facts".

      Thank You, your New Source

      Bill

      P.S. And I do have pictures of you and Hannity and your dog.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Janus (March 17, 2007 9:19 am ET)
         

       

      I note that Richard Mellon Scaife is still funding the cost of this right-winger vermin's fish-wrapper, The American Spectator.  It brings joy and pleasurable reading to the plutocrats, and like all of the ultra-right propaganda (especially from Fox Noise) whips  the slack-jawed dimwits in Dupedom South--those who can read-- into a squalling frenzy against "them libruls" (just tune in C-span's Washington Journal any morning and listen to them as a sure source of comedic yet pathetic entertainment).

      Janus

       

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by redking75687 (March 17, 2007 1:58 pm ET)
           

        But the good thing is that they aren't pointing their hordes at liberals, they're pointing them at Democrats. Gives us liberals a change to sneak up on 'em.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by miti386629 (March 17, 2007 3:28 pm ET)
         

      I know it's probably good to ignore this stuff, but can't it be considered slander??

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (March 17, 2007 8:42 pm ET)
           

        It's my understanding that it's next to impossible to get anyone for slander (or, in this case, libel) of a public person like a Clinton.  Happens now and then.  Carol Burnett is one of the more famous such cases, I think, when she sued the National Enquirer for saying she was seen drunk in public.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by fantagor (March 17, 2007 10:46 pm ET)
             

          Interesting you should mention Carol Burnett. She's suing "The Family Guy" for copyright infringement for an 18-second segement that PARODIED the cleaning lady cartoon in the Carol Burnett Show credits. Odd, but the CBS made living parodying 1970s pop culture. Carol's coffers must be light.

          Randy

          Report Abuse
    • Author by MickD (March 17, 2007 6:00 pm ET)
         

      It is a disgrace that The Spectator began at my alma mater, Indiana University.

      A fellow alum and I once debated whether IU was a conservative, moderate or liberal campus (we attended from 1978-82). We came up with moderate because there was mix of Southern Indiana conservative (close to a former hotbed of the KKK) and liberal as campuses tend to be (for example, they had gay/lesbian organizations there 8 short years after Stonewall).

      It pains me to think that this moderation has changed, enough to allow anti-intellectual Rovian propaganda within the glory of the old cream and crimson.

      Things just ain't what they use to be. Indiana we're all for you.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by sportsguydave (March 19, 2007 12:27 am ET)
         

      This little twerp pretty much owes every dime he has to the Clintons.

      I don't think anyone should pay much heed to the stupid little ramblings of this stupid little man.

       

      Report Abuse
The Fox Effect
Media Matters Connect

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.