View Full Version : Gerth's Lies Never End & WhiteWater

Gayle in MD
06-11-2007, 11:15 AM
Gerth, whose original WhiteWater article in the NY Times, spawned the White Water Investigations, which eventually led Republicans witch hunt inside President Clinton's pants zipper, digging for dirt, is now pushing his new book, Her Way ...yet another act of fiction presented as fact. Gerth, whose wife is working for Chris Dodd's campaign, is known for spreading false slander, and then never acknowledging his journalistic, shall we say,... mistakes.

More on this...


06-11-2007, 11:27 AM
Run Gerth, Run. It is best to hear all sides of the story because we all know the Clinton's will lie about everything.


Gayle in MD
06-13-2007, 07:43 AM
Peers have criticized Clinton bio co-author Jeff Gerth for flawed reporting
Summary: Former New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth, co-author of a soon-to-be-released biography of Hillary Clinton, has been the subject of harsh criticism by some fellow journalists for his previous investigative reporting on a number of subjects, including the Clintons.
On May 22, The New York Times reported that on June 3, the day of the Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire, it will excerpt a new biography of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), co-authored by former Times reporter Jeff Gerth and current Times reporter Don Van Natta Jr. in The New York Times Magazine. The on-sale dates of the Gerth-Van Natta book, titled Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown), and that of a second Clinton biography, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Carl Bernstein (Knopf), have been moved up twice by their rival publishers. According to the May 22 Times report, the Bernstein book will go on sale June 5, the Gerth-Van Natta book on June 8.

The May/June 2001 edition of the Columbia Journalism Review included a lengthy profile of Gerth by Ted Gup, a former Washington Post and Time reporter, author and professor of journalism. In the interview, Gerth stated both that "I have assiduously avoided writing about people's private lives in my career," and that "I don't go out and write books about stories I wrote. I don't go on TV to discuss my stories. If I really were heavily invested in my stories I would do all those things. ... That's not the kind of person I am."

According to the book description of Her Way, "although dozens of books have been written about her [Clinton], none of them have come close to uncovering the real Hillary -- personal, political, in all her complications." The description continues:

Drawing upon myriad new sources and previously undisclosed documents, HER WAY shows us how, like many women of her generation, Hillary Rodham Clinton tempered a youthful idealism with the realities of corporate America and big-league politics. It takes readers from the dorm rooms at Wellesley to the courthouses of Arkansas and Washington; to the White House and role as First Lady like none other; inside the back rooms of the Senate, where she expertly navigates the political and legislative shoals; to her $4 million mansion in Washington, where she presides over an unparalleled fundraising machine; and to her war room, from which she orchestrates ferocious attacks against her critics. Throughout her career, she has been alternately helped and hindered by her marriage to Bill Clinton. HER WAY unravels the mysteries of their political partnership -- one of the most powerful and enigmatic in American history. It also explains why Hillary is such a polarizing figure. And more than any other book, it reveals what her ultimate hopes and ambitions are--for herself and for America.

Gerth and Von Natta were reportedly offered a $1 million advance to write the book. It remains to be seen whether the media will challenge Gerth to reconcile his writing of Her Way with his reported statement to Gup that he has "assiduously avoided writing about people's private lives" and is "not the kind of person" who would "go out and write books about stories I wrote."

On March 27, the New York Daily News' George Rush and Joanna Rush Malloy wrote that according to a "publishing source," Her Way "is filled with 'explosive stuff' and 'may force her [Clinton] to answer ethics charges in the Senate' in a partisan game of Hacky Sack to throw her off course." However, unlike the May 22 Times report, the Daily News identified co-author Jeff Gerth as "the New York Times reporter who first wrote about Whitewater," and touched on criticisms of his reporting regarding both Whitewater and scientist Wen Ho Lee. From the Daily News:

Gerth's writings about the Whitewater land deal in Arkansas spawned a highly politicized, $73 million federal investigation, which, as Joe Conason wrote on Salon.com, "found that Bill and Hillary Clinton had done nothing that could be prosecuted as a crime."

Writer Gene Lyons made a detailed criticism of Gerth's work in his book "Fools for Scandal," and Alexander Cockburn said reading his writings "is like bicycling through wet sand."

Gerth later wrote about Wen Ho Lee, a scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory who was accused of stealing nuclear secrets and spent nine months in solitary confinement. Lee settled his lawsuit with the government for leaking damaging information about him to the press.

Indeed, Gerth's investigative reporting on a number of subjects -- including the Clintons -- has been the subject of harsh criticism. If Gerth's new book is as flawed as his previous reporting on the Clintons and others, Media Matters will no doubt analyze the book and his previous work in greater detail. Until then, journalists covering Gerth's book should keep in mind the following examples of his flawed reporting.


The publication of Her Way will likely necessitate a more thorough review of Gerth's Whitewater reporting in the Times and in his forthcoming book. For now, we offer only a brief overview.

As Jeffrey Toobin wrote in his book, A Vast Conspiracy: The Real Story of the Sex Scandal that Nearly Brought Down a President (Random House, 2000), Gerth's original Whitewater article "was as notable for what it didn't say as for what it did: there was no allegation of illegal conduct on the part of the then governor." This is particularly noteworthy given that the initial Gerth article would be described years later as containing the bulk of what was known about Whitewater.

Much of the criticism of Gerth's (and the Times') Whitewater reporting focused on a pattern of over-hyping innocuous facts. It is important to note that this criticism has come not only from those close to the Clintons, but from working journalists as well.

CNN reporter John Camp, for example, was quoted in an October 29, 1994, Washington Post article as saying that "the documentary evidence did not support the premise of [Gerth's] initial story."

Miami Herald executive editor Tom Fiedler (best known for revealing the affair between Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart and Donna Rice in 1987) harshly criticized Gerth's Whitewater reporting in an August 4, 1996, column:

Reporting on Whitewater and all its aspects is beginning to become a textbook example of ready-fire-aim journalism run amok. Ironically, about the only place in America that wasn't sucked in on all the alleged misdeeds has been Little Rock, where the local news media -- even the newspaper long dedicated to trashing the Clintons -- has pooh-poohed Whitewater as a non-story concocted by Arkansas Republicans that only the most gullible outsiders would swallow.

And we almost did.

The first reporter to fall for the tale was The New York Times' Jeff Gerth, an investigative reporter. He produced an almost incomprehensible report on the Clintons' Whitewater land investments in early 1992. But incomprehensible or not, the fact that it appeared in so prestigious a paper as The New York Times insinuated that something must have been wrong. And that meant that every other baying hound in the pack had to give chase.

The tale of the resulting journalistic feeding frenzy is artfully told in a new book titled Fools for Scandal, by Gene Lyons and the editors of Harper's Magazine. Lyons is a columnist for The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a paper that, despite its title, has historically been anti-Clinton. He is also a former editor at Harper's and Newsweek, and has been widely published as a literary critic.

Lyons begins by showing how Gerth was duped by Clinton's GOP enemies and how Gerth's original stories were so error-filled, intentionally or otherwise, that one of the key figures, former Arkansas state securities director Lee Thalheimer, called them "unmitigated horseshit."

Beverly Bassett Shaffer, Thalheimer's successor in that department and another figure upon whom Gerth heavily relied for his reporting, was so upset by the story -- although she was treated favorably -- that she considered filing a libel suit.

Nonetheless, with The Times' imprimatur, the parade of reporters from Washington, D.C., to Little Rock began, and most, like Gerth, ended up dining on the table scraps served up by Clinton's GOP enemies.


I know neither Gerth nor Lyons. But I have reason to worry about the former's work. The New York Times reporter ventured to Florida before the 1994 governor's race to report a story alleging dark dealings by Republican-candidate Jeb Bush with a Broward savings and loan.

Those same dealings had previously been examined by The Herald and found quite legitimate, thus producing no story. Yet when Gerth's again-incomprehensible version appeared in The Times, it became the basis for a long-running attack on Bush's integrity and furnished material for political ads insinuating near criminality.

In addition to criticism that Gerth's Whitewater reporting over-hyped innocuous details (and downplayed exculpatory information like the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) report), Gerth's Whitewater articles also drew fire for factual errors. In The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton (Thomas Dunne Books, 2000), co-authors Joe Conason and Gene Lyons explained one memorable example in which Gerth incorrectly reported that a client of Hillary Clinton's friend and investment adviser James Blair, benefited "from a variety of state actions, including $9 million in government loans." Conason and Lyons noted no such loans took place. From The Hunting of the President:

His [Blair's] client Tyson Foods, Gerth wrote, had benefited "from a variety of state actions, including $9 million in government loans."

In fact, those alleged loans were imaginary. Arkansas had no state loan program for Fortune 500 companies, and more that a month late the Times conceded in a published correction that there were no such loans to Tyson. Rather, it said, Tyson had enjoyed $7 million in state income tax credits -- investment incentives available to every corporation, as the correction failed to mention. By then the fictive $9-million loan had been featured in scores of accusatory editorials and columns. [Page 150]

Wen Ho Lee

In a feature article in the November 2000 edition of American Journalism Review, Lucinda Fleeson criticized Gerth's coverage of Wen Ho Lee, a Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist accused of stealing U.S. nuclear secrets and passing them to China. From Fleeson's article, titled "Rush to Judgment":

Investigative reporters Jeff Gerth and James Risen reported from the Times' Washington bureau that nuclear weapons secrets had been stolen from the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Federal authorities were focusing on an unidentified Chinese American who worked in the division that helped design the W88 nuclear warhead and had failed a polygraph test. The massive espionage, the story said, had allowed the Chinese to make a "leap in the development of nuclear weapons: the miniaturization of its bombs."


After that first New York Times story appeared on March 6, 1999, more explosive stories would appear, including one with accusations that Lee had placed the nation's entire nuclear arsenal at risk by downloading top-secret files for his own personal library. [...] The Times itself would become part of the story, as media critics, scientists and an outraged Chinese American community assailed its reporting as a one-sided parroting of the theory developed by a source who would later be denounced for constructing a case out of "thin air."

In the end, the government's case collapsed. The major points outlined in the Times' first blockbuster story were found to have little resemblance to what eventually became clear was the truth. And the distinguished newspaper, while defending the accuracy of much of its reporting, conceded significant editing errors in an unprecedented 1,600-word "From the Editors" note. It acknowledged problems with the tone of some articles [the specific article cited in the editor's note as an example of problematic "tone" was not written by Gerth] and said it had failed to assign stories that it should have, including a profile that might have humanized Lee. And it said the paper should have been more skeptical about the information it was receiving and should have explored other possible scenarios.

The Wen Ho Lee saga will be remembered as a case study of what can go wrong when politics infect criminal investigations, when even highly regarded reporters rely on unnamed, inside-the-Beltway sources and leaks about law enforcement investigations, and when cutthroat competition and pressure to match stories encourage news organizations to repeat instead of challenge reporting by others.


TWO DAYS AFTER the first New York Times story ran, Lee was fired. He was indicted December 10 on 59 counts of mishandling nuclear secrets, and held in solitary confinement, at times shackled, for nine months. By the end, the government's case was shown to be so weak that Lee was allowed to plead guilty to a single count of mishandling secret information. The presiding federal judge excoriated "top decision makers in the executive branch," apologized to Lee from the bench and said officials had embarrassed the entire nation.


Yet despite the rampant pack journalism displayed on this story, several reporters including some working for the New York Times eventually clarified and corrected many aspects of the original article by Gerth and Risen. By late summer 1999, many of its key points had been knocked down. But by then too much erroneous and speculative information was in play, and the story of the country's secrets stolen from Los Alamos had become fuel for another assault on President Clinton by Capitol Hill Republicans.

The power of the New York Times -- the preeminent newspaper in the country, if not the world -- propelled this story onto the national agenda and kept it there like no other news organization could. By the time Lee was freed from jail, the Times' coverage had been thoroughly castigated by Asian American groups, scientists and media critics as hyped, sensational, irresponsible and just plain wrong.


After 19 months of sensational reporting and demagogic politicking, none of the major points made in Gerth and Risen's original March 6, 1999, story hold up.

In April 1999, Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler wrote a four-piece series critical of Gerth's coverage of Lee (here, here, here and here).

Loral Communications

In her American Journalism Review article, Fleeson also criticized Gerth's reporting in his Pulitzer Prize-winning series on allegations that two satellite companies shared sensitive information with China:

In 1998, Gerth, already well-known for his Whitewater coverage, wrote a series of stories reporting that federal investigators were looking into whether two commercial satellite companies -- Loral and Hughes -- had shared too much sensitive information about rocket crashes that had "significantly advanced Beijing's ballistic missile program." At the time, U.S. companies needed a presidential waiver to launch in China.

Gerth focused on Bernard Schwartz, the chairman of Loral and the Democratic Party's largest individual contributor in 1996. The Gerth stories strongly suggested -- but never proved -- that Schwartz made campaign contributions to continue getting waivers to work with Chinese companies. The implication was that Clinton had sold out national security for campaign cash.

The stories were ultimately undercut two years later when the head of a campaign contributions investigation, Charles G. LaBella, cleared Schwartz and Loral of trying to buy influence, and said that Schwartz was "a victim of Justice Department overreaching," based on a "wisp of information."


The Gerth-Risen piece was essentially a longer version of what had been reported by [Carla Anne] Robbins in the Wall Street Journal, but with two main differences: it quoted Redmond comparing the extent of the spying to the Rosenberg case, and it added the possibility of a Clinton cover-up.

"The impression of the story was that all our secrets were gone," says Dan Stober of the San Jose Mercury News. Stober wrote extensively about an alleged espionage case in the late 1970s at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California involving a Taiwan-born scientist who supposedly passed classified information to Beijing about the U.S. neutron bomb. "The tone [of the Times story] was clearly that this espionage had happened and this unnamed guy had done it, and that every weapon in the nuclear arsenal had been compromised," Stober says. "It was way over-the-top."

Gayle in MD
06-13-2007, 08:26 AM
NY Times excerpt of Her Way falsely claimed Clinton "first" accused Bush of misusing Iraq authorization in 2006
On May 29, The New York Times published an excerpt of Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.'s upcoming book Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown & Co., June 2007). The excerpt asserted that Sen. Clinton's June 21, 2006, floor statement marked "the first time in her public speeches" in which she offered "a new interpretation" -- or "revised account" -- of her 2002 vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq: "The authority Congress given [sic] the president and his administration four years earlier, Clinton explained, had been 'misused' because they acted 'without allowing the inspectors to finish the job in order to rush to war.' " In fact, Clinton has been claiming that President Bush misused the Authorization For Use Of Military Force Against Iraq since at least October 2003.

The Her Way excerpt appeared online on May 29 and will appear in the June 3 issue of The New York Times Magazine. In the excerpt, Gerth and Van Natta examined Clinton's support for a nonbinding amendment, introduced in June 2006 by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI), that called for "the beginning of a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year":

What Clinton had accomplished was symbolic and important, even if it went unnoticed by reporters. Clinton could take credit for a compromise that garnered 39 votes, one independent and one Republican in addition to 37 Democrats. Still later, as the war worsened, she could argue that she had long backed some kind of withdrawal. She could also showcase on her campaign Web site her role as a "leader" in the Senate on national security.

In her impromptu remarks on the Senate floor, Clinton presented the usual litany of criticism against Republicans. Then, for the first time in her public speeches, she offered a new interpretation of her own actions in 2002. The revised account contained an ironic twist with respect to Levin, who had just graciously granted her the floor.

The authority Congress given [sic] the president and his administration four years earlier, Clinton explained, had been "misused" because they acted "without allowing the inspectors to finish the job in order to rush to war." In other words, Bush had given short shrift to diplomacy. Clinton did not mention her own vote against Levin's 2002 amendment, the one that would have required the president to pursue a more diplomatic approach before any invasion of Iraq. Her singling out of President Bush for misusing the authority from Congress played so well it soon became a staple of her campaign speeches.

Clinton said on the Senate floor on June 21, 2006:

CLINTON: As we debate our next steps in Iraq, it is critical that we recognize and fix as best we can the mistakes that have already been made and not repeat them. The Bush Administration misused the authority granted to it, choosing to act without allowing the inspectors to finish the job in order to rush to war, without a plan for securing the country, without an understanding of the insurgency or the true human, financial and strategic costs of this war, all the while viewing the dangerous and unstable conditions in Iraq through rose-colored glasses and the prism of electoral politics here at home.

However, Clinton had been making the same argument since at least October 2003. From a Senate floor speech Clinton delivered on October 17, 2003:

CLINTON: I know, from having heard the brief remarks of the Senator from Florida, that in a few minutes we will hear his usual thoughtful exposition as to why he, too, voted against the $87 billion.

I think it is imperative we all agree that, whichever way one of us voted, for or against this funding, all of us are united in our support for our brave men and women who are literally risking, and all too tragically losing, their lives on a daily basis in Iraq.

This was a very difficult vote for many of us. There are those of us, such as myself, who voted to give the President authority. We disagree with the way he used that authority. We have many questions, and still most are unanswered, about the choices the President and his team have made over the last year. But the idea of giving our President authority to act in the global war against terrorism, if necessary in his opinion, against Saddam Hussein, was one I could support and I did so. In the last year, however, I have been first perplexed, then surprised, then amazed, and even outraged and always frustrated by the implementation of the authority given the President by this Congress.


CLINTON: Time and time again, the administration has had the opportunity to level with the American people. Unfortunately, they haven't been willing to do that.

Among the many questions that I and others raised and the many criticisms we lodged against the use of the authority , which I and the majority of this body voted for, was the administration's aborting of the United Nations process and the inspections regime in order to launch military action.

There was never any doubt in anyone's mind with any knowledge of the American military what the outcome would be. I, for one, knew there was no worry whatsoever; that we have the finest equipped, trained, and motivated military probably in the history of the world, and they would do the mission they were assigned. So they did.

Clinton expressed the same position in a February 9, 2004, interview with the Poughkeepsie Journal (printed in the paper on February 10):

Q: I want to ask you about Iraq -- and if you had any regrets about the vote that gave President Bush the authority to use force and the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

A: I don't regret giving the president authority; I regret the way he used it, and that's connected with the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue. I believed, like the majority of my colleagues and people from the previous administration as well as this one, that Saddam Hussein did have remaining stockpiles and capability for biological and chemical weapons, and was still intent upon achieving nuclear weapons.

I believe that the Security Council's unanimous resolution to reinstitute inspections was, to a significant extent, influenced by the American Congress resolution. But, from that point on, (it is) a deeply concerning puzzle to me as to why the administration made the decisions that they made, starting with their refusal to permit (U.N. chief weapons inspector) Hans Blix and the inspectors to actually do their job, going through to the fact that they had no plan for the post-military conflict in Iraq, despite numerous questions by me and others on the Arms [sic] Services Committee about how long we are going to be there, how many trips it was going to take, what would the cost be, what would the expected reception from the Iraqis be. They just basically ignored those very important questions ...


Q: All the more reason, though, to ask why you wouldn't listen to, say, someone like Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who spoke passionately about the fact that Congress was abrogating its responsibility by giving the president this much authority.

A: Well, I think there are three reasons why I made the decision I made. First, perhaps as the senator from New York, what happened to us on 9/11 played a bigger role than it did in the calculations of other senators, and I fully understand and accept that. But, having seen the horrors of the attacks we suffered and knowing as I do that, despite the horrific loss of life on Sept. 11, the introduction of a chemical, biological or radiological weapon would have made it even worse, caused me to be very thoughtful on how I proceeded with the president's request.

Secondly, I think that the Congress was wrong to deny (President Clinton) authority with respect to Kosovo, and they did it for politically partisan reasons, and I don't think that's right. I don't care whether the president's Republican or Democratic. I think you have to take the president at his word, and this president said to us, "We believe there are weapons," which many of us also believed, and "We are going to do everything we can to try to get inspectors in to determine how we can get to the bottom of the evidence that would show us what Saddam has and then finally to disarm him." I found that a legitimate objective because we have been dealing with Saddam Hussein since 1991 in the Gulf War ...

And, finally, I think when you are asked by a president to give him authority to proceed in one manner with the ultimate decision to use force, granted, assuming the following steps would be taken, that doesn't seem to me to be unreasonable. What happened here is that we gave authority to a president who in my view misused the authority. So I think we all have to take a hard look at what happened in the intervening months, and now more than a year, and try to get answers to the questions that we now have to have.

On January 28, 2006, during an interview conducted by former NBC host Jane Pauley, Clinton similarly criticized Bush's misuse of the authority granted to him by Congress. From a Sacramento Bee article published the following day:

Replying to a question from Pauley about why she voted in 2002 to give President Bush authority to wage war in Iraq, Clinton said Bush insisted he needed that authority to prod Iraq into allowing inspectors back into that country. But Bush ultimately misused that authority, Clinton added.

"No matter what one thinks about how President Bush used that authority, we cannot root for failure," Clinton said. "We cannot take actions now that would further undermine whatever chance of stability the new Iraqi government might have."

On the May 31, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Clinton campaign aide Howard Wolfson noted that Clinton had made this claim before:

MATTHEWS: Well, there are a lot of people that supported the Vietnam War in '63 and by '68 said it was a mistake to proceed that far. Has she made that kind of a judgment? She doesn't have to recant like in some old inquisition, but can she say looking at it from all the perspective of these last three years, we're just getting deeper and deeper into the sand. That's not recanting, that's not reconsidering, that's looking at new facts.

WOLFSON: Well, she has certainly said that the administration has not gone about it the right way and that the administration misused the authority that Congress gave them.

Indeed, it was no secret that Clinton was making this allegation prior to June 2006. From the September 18, 2004, edition of CNBC's Tim Russert:

RUSSERT: And, yet when you ask Hillary Clinton, who also voted to authorize the war, she'll say, "Yes, I voted to authorize the president, and he misused the authority." And if you asked her, "Knowing what you know today, would you vote for the war?" She said, "There wouldn't be a vote because if there's no weapons of mass destruction, there's no reason to have a vote." A decidedly different tack than John Kerry has taken.

Gayle in MD
06-13-2007, 08:28 AM
On Hannity & Colmes, Morris falsely claimed Gerth book says Media Matters was "set up by Hillary's staff"
On the May 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist Dick Morris falsely claimed that in Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.'s Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown and Co., June 2007), the authors "point[] out that Media Matters ... was actually set up by Hillary's staff, and she had a large amount to do with setting it up." In fact, Her Way does not state that Media Matters for America was "set up by Hillary's staff," nor does it claim that Clinton "had a large amount to do with setting it up." Rather, the book notes that Media Matters is "independent" and "had among its earliest supporters and advisers long-standing allies of Hillary and the Democratic Party."

Morris later added: "I haven't read either book, and I really will comment more after I've read it, but I understand good things about the Gerth book."

From Her Way (Pages 268-269):

One of the attendees at the meetings that led to CREW's [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington] creation was David Brock, a former enemy turned ally of Hillary's who was starting his own nonprofit group about the same time. Hillary and Brock had forged a seemingly strange alliance. Brock's nonprofit, a Washington-based media-monitoring venture called Media Matters for America, found a temporary home in early 2004 at the Center for American Progress. Already providing its daily news summary to Hillary, the center helped [Jodi] Sakol get the daily media analysis prepared by Media Matters in order to help shape the Senate war room activities.

Although it was independent, Media Matters had among its earliest supporters and advisers long-standing allies of Hillary and the Democratic Party. One of them, Kelly Craighead, who planned Hillary's trips for eight years when she was First Lady, advised Media Matters "on all aspects" of its launch. The new group wasted no time becoming an aggressive protector of Hillary's reputation and boasting about its role as a truth police, forcefully going after journalists for what the group deems to be leaving out key information, or cherry-picking material. In three years, the group has cited more than seven thousand examples of "conservative misinformation," Brock said.

Hillary, though not a close friend of Brock's, advised him and "quietly nurtured" his nonprofit empire. The watchdogs at Media Matters often rushed to Hillary's defense.

Moreover, in an endnote on Page 401, the authors note:

Brock, in an e-mail to an author in 2007, said Hillary "was one of a large number of progressive leaders who were interested in the issue of building progressive infrastructure." One of Hillary's closest friends, Susie Tompkins Buell, held a fund-raiser for Brock's cause, and almost half of the Susie Tompkins Buell Foundation's grants in 2004 and 2005 went to Media Matters. (Clinton, Living History, 334, for discussion of their friendship. Form 990 Annual Reports of the Susie Tompkins Buell Foundation for 2004 and 2005 show grants of $300,000 out of total grants of $636,000. See Byron York, "David Brock Is Buzzing Again," National Review, June 14, 2004, for discussion of the fund-raiser.)

From the May 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

MORRIS: Well, I think that it's silly to go after her over the state of her marriage. I felt that Ed Klein (ph) made a mistake when he did that. And, as I understand it, the Gerth book -- I don't know anything about the Bernstein book -- but the Gerth book has a lot of stuff that's really within the foul lines, really fair.

I think he points out that Media Matters, one of the left-wing media critics that periodically unloads on you guys, was actually set up by Hillary's staff, and she had a large amount to do with setting it up. I think they have ethical violations that she committed while a United States senator. So I think that you don't have to go back to archaeology and ancient history. You can talk about the stuff that she's done since she was elected.

COLMES: Well, you say set up by her staff. David Brock set up that site, and he was not a Hillary acolyte, as far as I know.

MORRIS: Well, uh -- but it was set up --

COLMES: But, by the way, the Van Natta book and the Gerth book talk about this plan, this 20-year plan, which has been discounted. They got exclusive, apparently, access to Diane Blair's records, a [unintelligible] friend of Hillary, that says that that's absolutely not true. And it's also discounted by other people like Taylor Branch, who is quoted in the book. And Taylor Branch says, "Absolutely untrue." So that's pretty much been discounted.

MORRIS: Well, I think that Gerth's comment about that 20-year plan, in fact, came from Leon Panetta. And Clinton asked -- Panetta asked Clinton why he was working with me. And Clinton answered that, "Hillary and I have this 20-year plan," and then he went into it. But, listen, I haven't read either book, and I really will comment more after I've read it, but I understand good things about the Gerth book.

06-13-2007, 02:58 PM
Run Gerth run. We all need to see both sides of the story. The Clintons are the biggest liars ever to step in the White House. I thought it was hilarious when Hillary was trying to cover up her Rose firm documents and said she never remembered seeing them and then they were found in her room. This is just a quick example.