C H A P T E R .
.O N E
The Monica-Gate/Israeli Connection
. . .Maybe Hillary
Clinton is right: there is a “right-wing conspiracy”
to destroy her husband. But don’t count on Hillary to tell
you whose “right-wing” is behind that conspiracy —
and how the scandal is being used to manipulate U.S. Middle East
. . .Hillary Clinton’s argument
that a “right wing conspiracy” in America is behind
the ongoing sex-and-perjury scandal that may topple her husband
has one big flaw: after all, it is the major media in America —
led by The Washington Post and Newsweek,
joined by the New York Times and Time
magazine — along with the major networks, that have been hyping
the scandal and suggesting that it may be Bill Clinton’s undoing.
Newsweek itself enlisted longtime Clinton
confidant George Stephanapolous to write of Clinton’s “betrayal,”
and young Stephanapolous, now an ABC commentator, even went on the
air to bring up the possibilities of resignation and impeachment.
. . .And nobody has ever accused any
of those major media voices of being a voice for the “right
wing”— or the “right wing” in America, at
. . .However, the first lady may have
put her finger on something when she claimed that a “right
wing conspiracy” is energizing the “Monica-gate”
scandal. But don’t count on the first lady to dare raise the
suspicion that it’s more than just certain elements in the
American right wing that have helped bring the scandal to the public
. . .In fact, if you dig deep enough,
you will find a connection that goes all the way to the hard-line
“right wing” in Israel, and all the way back to “Monica-gate”
right here in Washington, D.C.
. . .It thus may be no coincidence
that just as the American sup-
16 . . .
. . .. . ..>>. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . DIRTY
porters of Israel’s right wing — the
Likud bloc — were launching a major (and bitter) public relations
campaign against President Clinton, the major media in America picked
up the lead and suddenly began trumpeting the allegations about
yet another Clinton “sexcapade.”
. . .Let’s
look at some basic facts (reported in the major media itself) that
have somehow gotten buried in the midst of all the frenzy
over the allegations that have been bandied about. First of all,
although the media has focused on former White House staffer Linda
Tripp and her brassy New York promoter friend, Lucianne Goldberg,
as being the prime instigators of “Monica-gate,” The
Washington Post pointed out rather circuitously in
a story buried at the back of the paper on January 28, 1998 that
lawyers for Paula Jones ‘first received several anonymous
tips that Lewinsky may have had a sexual relationship with the president.’
It apparently wasn’t until after lawyers for Paula Jones contacted
Miss Lewinsky that the president was tipped off that his (presumed)
relationship with Lewinsky had been exposed.
. . .At this juncture, it seems apparent
neither the aforementioned Tripp nor Goldberg was the source, inasmuch
as they had other interests to exploit in the Clinton-Lewinsky caper.
In fact, Tripp instead went directly to Special Prosecutor Kenneth
. . .Therefore, the big question is
this: who tipped off the lawyers for Paula Jones that there might
be a “smoking gun” in the president’s relationship
with Monica Lewinsky?
. . .Monica Lewinsky — at least
until recently, it seems — was a Clinton loyalist, and it
was certainly not Miss Lewinsky who leaked the story to the lawyers.
So someone close to — or spying on — the president’s
inner circle had to have leaked the word about the president’s
relationship with Miss Lewinsky (however innocent or not so innocent)
to Jones’ attorneys.
. . .Could it have been someone in
Al Gore’s camp — close to the White House — eager
to move the vice president into the Oval Office? That’s speculation,
of course, but not beyond the realm of
. .. . ... ... .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .17
. . .But let’s go further. Although
Michael Isikoff of Newsweek (published
by the Meyer-Graham empire, which also owns The Washington
Post) was the first journalist officially “digging
into” the story, it now turns out that, according to the Post,
reporting in passing on January 28, 1998 that one William Kristol
— described generally as “editor of the conservative
Weekly Standard” — as having
been one of the first to “publicly mention” the allegations.
. . .Kristol’s role as being
one of the “first” to float the story publicly, you
see, is critical to understanding the big picture. Not only is Kristol
the front man for billionaire media tycoon Rupert Murdoch —
a major ally of Israel’s hard-line Likud — but Kristol
himself is the son of journalist Irving Kristol and historian Gertrude
Himmelfarb, two self-styled “former Marxists” who have
emerged as “neo-conservative” figures with long-standing
close ties to Israel’s “anti-communist right wing.”
. . .Young Kristol is, like his parents,
a “Likudnik” and has been a harsh critic of President
Clinton’s decision to “turn his back” on Israel.
. . .Also significant is that Kristol,
like Clinton, has been initiated into the Bilderberg Group, the
high-level elite foreign policy conclave dominated by the Rockefeller
and Rothschild families, although Kristol (obviously) is identified
with Bilderberg’s “Republican” wing.
. . .And on January 26, 1998 just as
the Lewinsky affair began escalating and engulfing Clinton, Kristol
released a letter to Clinton, pressuring the president to launch
a military attack on Israel’s hated enemy, Iraq.
. . .Signing the letter along with
Kristol were a bevy of other famed American supporters of Israel’s
“right wing,” including former Representative Vin Weber,
a longtime close ally of House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Richard
Perle, a former deputy Secretary of Defense who is now a highly-paid
18. . . . . . . . ..>>.
. . . .. . . . . . . . . . DIRTY
Israeli arms interests.
. . .Then, in light of the Kristol-Murdoch
connection, it is interesting to note that Murdoch’s Fox television
is essentially leading the charge in the Establishment media forcing
the other networks to compete.
. . .The Fox News Channel has carried
the story almost non-stop around the clock. Even when other features
have been telecast, they have been subject to interruption for any
breaking developments in the Clinton scandal, regardless of how
mundane they might be. . . .
. . .One daytime Fox tabloid show even
brought in a reported specialist in “body language”
to view a videotape of Clinton and Miss Lewinsky meeting in a receiving
line, after which the so-called specialist declared that Clinton
was treating the young girl as though she were “the first
. . .In addition, some of the tawdriest
stories to break in the burgeoning scandal have been in the New
York Post, along with other Murdoch-owned news publications.
. . .Also notice that in recent days,
Starr has been “going slow” in pursuing the scandal,
which, when all facets of it are examined, could fizzle. After all,
nothing has been proven — yet.
. . .Even consumer advocate Ralph Nader
has been pointing out publicly that despite all of the media frenzy
and reportage, the press has been reporting mere allegations as
though they were proven facts.
. . .Could it be that a powerful pressure
group is waiting to see how Clinton will react against Iraq?
. . .At a recent town hall meeting
in Charlotte, North Carolina, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.),
a strong supporter of the Netanyahu regime, brought boos from the
crowd, which was mostly Republican, when he called the president’s
treatment of the Israeli prime minister “below the dignity
. . .Gingrich was referring to Clinton’s
efforts to get the Israeli leader to take a more conciliatory view
toward achieving a peace
. .. . ... ... .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .19
settlement in the Middle East.
. . .In the meantime, in her effort
to once again “stand by her man,” the first lady has
named television preacher Jerry Falwell and his friend, Sen. Jesse
Helms (R-N.C.) as among those who are part of the “right wing
conspiracy” that is out to get her president.
. . .What Hillary has not mentioned
is that both Falwell and Helms are especially close to — once
again — the hard-line “right wing” Likud bloc
in Israel, and both are adamantly opposed to President Clinton’s
perceived support for Likud’s rivals in Israel’s Labor
Party, which has been far more amenable to the peace process.
. . .Clinton was not a backer of Netanyahu
in the Israeli elections that brought the current Likud extremist
coalition to power, and was embarrassed politically when Netanyahu
won by defeating the liberals led by the more moderate Shimon Peres.
The latter preached peace; Netanyahu, no compromise.
. . .As The Spotlight
reported on February 2, 1998 even prior to his official meeting
with President Clinton, the Israeli prime minister had already met
with (and appeared at a pro-Likud rally in the company of) Rev.
Jerry Falwell, one of Clinton’s most vociferous critics.
. . .The Spotlight
noted that even The Washington Post had
revealed on January 22, 1998 that “a senior Netanyahu official
had said the Israeli leader was prepared to respond to opposition
from the White House by demonstrating his ‘own ammunition’
in U.S. political circles” — namely Falwell and the
boisterous pro- Zionist “Christian right.”
. . .In Israel itself, according to
the Post on January 24, 1998, the press
has “lapped up the Clinton allegations.” The Post
said that “interest seemed particularly sharp because Monica
Lewinsky is Jewish.”
. . .Writing in the January 22, 1998
issue of the Israeli daily Yedioth Aharonoth,
Nahum Barnea wryly commented: “We innocently thought the fate
of the peace process was in the hands of a
20. . . . . . . . ..>>.
. . . .. . . . . . . . . . DIRTY
Jewess, born in Prague, named Madeleine Albright.
Apparently, the fate of the peace process is, to no lesser degree,
in the hands of another Jewess, named Monica Lewinsky, 24 years
old, a Beverly Hills native, who spent a fun-filled summer three
years ago as an [intern] at the White House.”
. . .What is interesting is that by
the time Barnea’s comments were repeated in the February 2,
1998 issue of Newsweek, which devoted
a special issue to the scandal, Newsweek
had carefully edited Barnea’s words so that they now read:
“It turns out that the fate of the peace process depends on
a different woman.”
. . .In fact, the Lewinsky scandal
has forced the president into retreat as far as pushing Israel is
concerned — much to the delight of Israel’s Likud.
. . .On January 27, The
Washington Post again let the cat out of the bag when
it reported, “Last week, Clinton demonstrated he could not
compel the Israelis to meet their responsibilities for a further
military pullback. This week [in the wake of the scandal] he is
even less capable, if only because people in his own party, not
to mention the Republicans, will not support a policy of greater
pressure on Israel.”
. . .Those watching the Clinton scandal
unfold must surely wonder why the Establishment media is, in fact,
rushing to judgment in many instances, while trying, unsuccessfully,
to display an image of impartiality.
. . .It is almost as if there is, somewhere,
a large switch on the wall labeled “Get Clinton,” and
someone has flipped it on.