On GMA, Gerth and Van Natta dodged discussion of claim that alleged "pact" included two terms as president for Hillary Clinton
SUMMARY: In an advance copy of Her Way, Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. claim that Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made a "secret pact" early in their careers to "capture the presidency for Bill," which the Clintons later expanded to include two terms as president for her. In an appearance on Good Morning America, Gerth and Van Natta dodged questions about the latter claim.
In an advance copy of Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown & Co.) obtained by Media Matters for America, co-authors Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. claim that former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) made a "secret pact" early in their careers to "capture the presidency for Bill." Gerth and Van Natta also assert that after Bill Clinton assumed the presidency in 1993, he and Hillary Clinton expanded this so-called "twenty-year project" to include two terms as president for her. As Media Matters has noted, historian Taylor Branch -- the authors' purported source for the allegation of a "plan" for a Hillary Clinton presidency -- has reportedly described the story as "preposterous." But when asked generally about Branch's objection during a June 4 appearance on ABC's Good Morning America, Gerth simply pointed out that the first allegation -- that the Clintons devised a "plan" in the 1970s that included a Bill Clinton presidency -- "has not been refuted." Additionally, while Van Natta defended the first claim in a June 4 post on the Huffington Post weblog, he ignored the dispute surrounding the second allegation.
In the advance copy of Her Way, Gerth and Van Natta claim that "in the earliest days of their romance," the Clintons made a "secret pact" to "revolutionize the Democratic Party and, at the same time, capture the presidency for Bill" -- their so-called "twenty-year project." Gerth and Van Natta cite former Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta and an anonymous "former Clinton administration official" as their sources for the Clintons' original "twenty-year project." Panetta has neither confirmed nor denied the statements attributed to him by Gerth and Van Natta.
The source for Gerth and Van Natta's claim that the Clintons revised their "plan" is a secondhand account by former New York Times reporter Ann Crittenden and her husband, John Henry, of a conversation they told the authors they had with Branch. Crittenden and Henry claim that during the conversation, Branch disclosed that Clinton had told him in 1993 that their "plan" was for both Clintons to become president, a claim that Branch has reportedly dismissed as "preposterous."
During Gerth and Van Natta's appearance on Good Morning America, co-anchor Chris Cuomo brought up Branch's response. Cuomo said: "The proof, in part, you use Taylor Branch, the famed historian, friend of the Clintons. He now says it's preposterous." In his reply, Gerth did not address the disputed claim and instead said of Branch, "That's not the source of the 20-year project. The source of the 20-year project is Leon Panetta, who was President Clinton's chief of staff in the mid-1990s." Gerth added: "The words 'the 20-year project' and the description of it ... ha[ve] not been refuted."
But Gerth and Van Natta did not cite Panetta as a source for the additional claim that the Clintons updated their "plan" soon after Bill Clinton became president to include a two-term presidency for Hillary Clinton, the only source for which was, again, Crittenden and Henry, who claimed Branch told a story that Branch reportedly says he did not tell.
Likewise, in Van Natta's June 4 entry on The Huffington Post, he addressed a "a recent denial by Senator Clinton's aides of her early political ambition" by conflating the two versions of the alleged plan -- the first version, attributed to Panetta and an unnamed former Clinton administration official, in which Bill Clinton would become president, and the second version, attributed by a secondhand account to Branch, in which Hillary Clinton would also become president. Van Natta responded to the aides' "recent denial" by simply noting that Panetta's "on-the-record description [of the first version] has not been disputed." However, he made no mention of Branch's objection to the second version.
Van Natta wrote:
This "20 year project" came out of the mouth of Bill Clinton. He said it to Leon Panetta, then his chief of staff, aboard Air Force One in the fall of 1996. Panetta had asked the president why he had depended on someone like Dick Morris for political advice. "You need to hear from the dark side, and Morris represented that," the president confided to Panetta. Morris was a crucial navigator to help Bill and Hillary "understand the [former House Speaker Newt] Gingriches of the world," the president explained.
Clinton went on to say that Morris was part of a larger strategic plan conceived, he said, by Hillary and him more than two decades ago -- their "twenty-year project," Panetta explained to us.
Despite a recent denial by Senator Clinton's aides of her early political ambition, this on-the-record description has not been disputed.
In his separate entry on The Huffington Post, Gerth did not address the alleged "secret pact" at all.
From the June 4 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
CUOMO: And with that setup, Cuomo's next question goes right to the marriage, showing how deep I am. There has been a lot of speculation about the marriage, and interestingly, in your book, you offer an explanation for maybe why Hillary stayed with Bill through all these things, Monicagate and the like. A 20-year pact of ambition. Don, explain to me, what does that mean?
VAN NATTA: Before they exchanged their marriage vows in 1978 in Arkansas, they exchanged their political vows. They decided, in the mid-'70s, they were just in their 20s, in Arkansas, that they were going to remake the Democratic Party, and within 20 years, Bill Clinton was going to be president of the United States. Now, this is an audacious kind of goal to set, and they went about and did it. And it's been the glue that's held their relationship together since.
CUOMO: Big charge. Judging the marriage as something. You know, there's no other way to look at that allegation. The proof, in part, you use Taylor Branch, the famed historian, friend of the Clintons. He now says it's preposterous.
GERTH: That's not the source of the 20-year project. The source of the 20-year project is Leon Panetta, who was President Clinton's chief of staff in the mid-1990s. He heard this in a conversation with President Clinton in 1996 on Air Force One. The words "the 20-year project" and the description of it come from President Clinton himself, as recounted by Leon Panetta in an on-the-record interview, which has not been refuted. And by the way, we even have an additional source. All of which is spelled out in the book.
CUOMO: That you believe is fair to take as fact as opposed to a colorful characterization? Because it's a heavy charge to judge a marriage that way.
GERTH: Sure. Look, no outsider can get inside somebody else's marriage, and we don't pretend to. But we do say that they did have this political pact that they forged. They were married, I think, in 1975, and before they were even married, they had this audacious plan. And Leon Panetta -- in fact, the question that prompted the reply from the president was, "Why have you used Dick Morris all these years?" -- the controversial political strategist. And Bill Clinton's answer was, in essence, "Well, we had this plan. We had to do what we had to do. We had to, you know, understand our enemies, and that's why we relied on Dick Morris."















Sounds like a disingenuous explanation to me!
According to Gerth, Bill Clinton employed Dick Morris because they wanted to understand their enemies, and Morris was an enemy.
How much do you want to bet that this revelation won't stop the rightwingers here from claiming that Dick Morris was once an ally of the Clintons, and therefore he has some credibility that another opponent of the Clinton's wouldn't have?
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
Big surprise, Hillary made a pact with the devil. She stayed with a man with an overactive libido, allowed his antics to humiliate her and now she wants her come-up-ance. Big fricking deal. That describes most of the couples in Arkansas. If not for politics, who would care about these people and their Jerry Springer lives?
So, if a man and a woman get a divorce in arkansas, are they still legally brother and sister?
Sorry, couldn't resist!
huh? "if not for politics?" the guy was a two-term president and she's a senator. you've got a talent for stating the obvious. and somebody from the "europeans are evil," newg gingrich, tom delay, fox news, etc. side of the political spectrum is throwing around jerry springer jokes?
Does anyone else notice the quiver in Gerths voice? Nervous or just can't help it because he knows he is lying through his teeth??
As for Dick Morris, I guess the saying that you "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" has proven to be true.
I wish I could have know in 1975 what would be my future twenty years later. My crystal ball broke right after I enlisted in 74.What a joke this website has become. Hillary Clinton is not even a liberal. Please just come out and admit that this website is a Hillary for President website.
STEVE:
Why wait for an admission? Simply post the information from MMFA where they endorse Hillary for president, say VOTE FOR HILLARY, or participate in any Hillary fundraising and/or rallies.
Should be simple, as those are the things that a Hillary for President website would do.
Of course, if you CANNOT FIND these things, then it will by default be that you are full of crap, desperate to somehow discredit a site that has for years skewered ALL rightwing disinformation, with the fortunes of the GOP dropping like a stone simultaneously. Coincidence? LOL
I think that calling me names is not really making your point. I said that they should just come out and admit that that's what they are rather than pretending that they are an accuracy in media site. It wouldn't make much sense to pretend you are an accuracy in media site and put up a Hillary for President post. What you would more likely do is spin Hillary's war vote as if it wasn't a war vote and defend everything negative said about her to the near exclusion of other candidates and other alleged inaccuracies. If you have signed on here for the past two weeks, you have seen almost exclusively Hillary Clinton defense posts. If you look back over the past year, you will see them constantly spinning Hillary's war vote and never mentioning, for example, her call for MORE troops in '05. This website gets linked by Atrios and Kos, etc. They wouldn't link to a Hillary for President site. You know, this is almost like arguing with the pro-war guys before the Iraq War. Reality seems not to matter. Just look at the site and what do you see? Hillary defense after Hillary defense. What other proof do you need?
We need proof.
What you attempted to provide was not proof.
The fact that you think you provided proof when you really didn't do that at all means you're a numbskull.
STEVE:
Sports Illustrated covers pretty much all sports. BUT, when the Super Bowl or the World Series is on ... guess what? Their coverage seems enormously biased towards the teams that make the finals. How could this be? Why don't they just ADMIT that they are not a sports magazine after all, but instead are shameless defenders of the Colts or the Pirates?
The misinformation is flowing in overtime from the rightwing smearmongers, faux-expose book writers, and propagandists of every medium. Hillary is being singled out, because she is the person most feared by the rightwing ... so OF COURSE there is more misinformation ABOUT HER in the media these days.
MMFA should not admit a LIE that is your desire for them to admit, because you cannot see reality, and instead wish to see a specific bias. MMFA is biased ONLY against "conservative" misinformation, so if you wish to see less about Hillary, you should address your concern to those who CONTROL how much misinformation is flowing: the rightwing media machine. It is THEY who control the amount of garbage and at whom it is directed. MMFA only REACTS.
- America is safer, but we are not safe yet - Pres. Bush
- We're safer, but not safe enough" - Hillary Clinton
mmfa has repeatedly pilloried Pres.Bush for making the statement...and spreading conservative misinformation. When Hillary makes the same statement...a deafening silence from mmfa.
The liberal Huffington Post...while praising Hillary's debate performance adds their take on her statement..."Obama also let Clinton get away with making the astounding claim that "we are safer than we were" before 9/11 -- something that is simply not true."
mmfa cannot legally solicit votes or funding for Hillary...yet there are many other ways to solicit that support...under the guise of reporting conservative misinformation. The avalanche of articles defending Hillary by mmfa is proof of that.
Well, what about it mmfa? Is Hillary spreading conservative misinformation? Or, does your mission statement exclude Hillary?
WESLEY:
Interesing point. You posit since Bush said, "America is safer, but we are not safe yet." ... and Hillary said something similar ... that MMFA should give the SAME "misinformation" attention to HILLARY as they did to BUSH. For making that statement.
I agree entirely. Now all you have to do is pull up the MMFA threads where they raked Bush over the coals for making the "safer/not safe yet" comments, and we're OFF with that hypocrisy thing, and your point is validated.
I believe you have a big problem with making this point, however. I don't remember this statement of Bush's being TREATED as misinformation by MMFA. I could be wrong, but since YOU are making this point of "hypocricy" to bolster your other point that MMFA has obviously become a shill for Hillary ... it is up to YOU to back up your claim with PROOF.
I PERSONALLY submit that MMFA has not singled out Bush's "safer" remarks as an example of MISinformation by the Rightwing media.
If I am wrong, then YOU are right. Where's your proof?
Here's how you find the proof...mmfa has a search function...and it works pretty good.
There you will find lots of info from mmfa discounting the "safer now" claim by the Bush administration...
The most laughable rebuttal to the "safer now" by mmfa is that the reason we have not been attacked has nothing to do with the efforts of the Bush administration...it's because al-Qaeda simply has chosen not to attack American soil...roflol.
Pres.Bush and Hillary both believe that we are safer now...mmfa disagrees...repeatedly.
There's your homework assignment...should you choose to accept it...mission impossible.
LMAO.
I guess this is the new righwing mantra. The burden of proof is not on the accuser, but on the accused or even those who are skeptical of the accuser's claims.
Not only do you pathetically throw the burden of proof back at Tex, you level another accusation with no links:
"The most laughable rebuttal to the "safer now" by mmfa is that the reason we have not been attacked has nothing to do with the efforts of the Bush administration...it's because al-Qaeda simply has chosen not to attack American soil...roflol."
It sure is easy to throw this S*** around without backing it up, isn't it?
In the pursuit of knowledge, and due to your laziness, I went ahead searched MMfA for examples of your claims. The search for "safer" produced 119 results. Examining these results revealed exactly 0 (nil, nada, nothing, zilch) articles chastising Bush for stating the US was safer now.
My question is this: How can we distinguish when you're telling the truth from when you're making things up, and in fact can we ever believe that you're telling the truth?
When confronted by this republican (non)logic, note thatwe haven't been hit by a killer meteor either. Should we take that as proof positive that Republicans keep us safe from meteors? Conversely, democrats are obviously soft on near-earth objects; if the dinosaurs had just voted republican, they would still be in charge of the planet.
MMfA did cover Bush's statement.
Bush 9-11 prime-time address "nonpartisan"? Then why the echoes -- verbatim -- of recent campaign speeches?Tue, Sep 12, 2006 8:40pm EST
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609130001
America is "safer, but not yet safe." Early in the September 11 speech, Bush asserted, "Today, we are safer, but we are not yet safe."
During his 2004 campaign, Bush repeated this line verbatim from the stump on numerous occasions, as the weblog Martini Republic noted:
"America is safer, but not yet safe." [Wilmington, Ohio, 11/1/04]
"[W]e are safer, but not yet safe." [Grand Rapids, Michigan, 10/30/04]
"America is safer, not yet safe." [Davenport, Iowa, 10/25/04]
"America is safer, but not yet safe." [Second presidential debate, 10/9/04][T]he actions we've take [sic] have made America safer, but not yet safe." [Las Cruces, New Mexico, 8/26/04]
"[O]ur homeland is safer, but we are not yet safe." [Grand Rapids, Michigan, 7/30/04]
Good find, but this article does not take Bush to task for what he said about "safe". It was taking him to task for trotting out an alleged un-partisan speech which had deep roots in his partisanship. It didn't argue against his points, just pointed out that he had used the similar, or the same wording before in other speeches which were highly partisan.
I am shocked, shocked to find out that people who run for the Presidency have a history of ambition. Why is this news?
I'm with you on this. I think we sometimes spend too much time and energy trying to disprove assertions that could easily be met with "Yeah? And...?"
Admittedly, "put up or shut up" is an underused expression in our media. But so is "So what?"