The Bush-hating media and cocaine
Joe Cambria
BrookesNews.Com
Monday
8 September 2003
Bush-haters never give up. The
leftist SBS broadcast a so-called documentary (Horns and Halos)
about Fortunate Son, an alleged biography of George W. Bush by J. H.
Hatfield. Without a shred of evidence the book claimed, among other things, that
Bush was a cocaine user. Hatfield's accusations were easily debunked and he was
totally discredited, at least among reasonable people. His imprisonment for a
1987 car bombing and his role in a credit-card-fraud scheme should have alerted
people, including leftist journalists, to his complete lack of credibility.
However, it seems that it was not
Hatfield but Howard Kurtz of the partisan Washington Post who was
responsible for this anti-bush canard being planted in the media. That Kurtz did
this while admitting he had no evidence of any kind that Bush had been a cocaine
user gives us another example of the left's contempt for journalistic standards.
Despite the absence of evidence,
Kurtz gleefully published this baseless rumour along with an arrogant demand
that Bush be made to answer the allegation. Compare Kurtz's demand with his
supine support for Clinton when in 1991 the latter declared to America's
mainstream media that "there are certain questions in the past that I won't
answer." This was code for please don't ask me embarrassing questions. They
didn't. And that includes Australian journalists.
Come the 2000 election and these very
same truth-loving journalists try to do to Bush what they would never dream of
doing to a Democratic candidate, and that is smear his character.
For example, Cameron Forbes, one
of The Australian's US reporters, argued that that it is only reasonable
that Bush answer questions about cocaine use (The rumours that get up Bush's
nose, 21/8). The same Forbes, however, refused to investigate well-founded
allegations of cocaine abuse by Clinton.
The Bush-hating Spencer Street
Soviet, as Melbourne's Age is sometimes called, also jumped on the
Democrats' smear wagon. On the 3/6/2001 it ran an item that directed readers to
Salon (a net magazine funded by Democrats) which had published a truly
nasty heap of garbage by Gary Kamiya that accused Bush of being a cocaine user.
Fast forward to the present and we
have the despicable Zack Exley peddling the same foul lies. This fanatical
Democrat set up a site in 2000 which accused Bush of taking cocaine. His
evidence? He didn't need any. Bush was a Republican and Exley hates Republicans.
By definition this made Republicans, especially Bush, guilty of any imaginable
crime. This is the way of the politically pathological. Exley now works for the
extreme leftwing MoveOn.Org where Leninist-Stalinist tactics of personal
destruction are the order of the day.
As it turned out, this contemptible
accusation quickly withered on the media grapevine because leftist journalists
could not find any evidence, not even a whisper, that Bush had used cocaine. On
the other hand, there is abundant evidence that Clinton was a habitual user.
We have the 1990 sworn testimony of
Sharline Wilson to a Federal grand jury that Clinton took cocaine. This is how
Wilson described to the London Telegraph's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard one
incident of snorting by Clinton: "I watched Bill Clinton lean up against a brick
wall . . . he casually stuck my tooter up his nose. He was so messed up that
night, he slid down the wall into a garbage can and just sat there like a
complete idiot.'"
Then we have Sally Perdue who gave a
detailed account of Clinton using cocaine several times in her presence, saying:
"He had all the equipment laid out, like a real pro. "There is also the question
of Clinton's connection with Dan Lasater, Clinton confidant, heavy party
contributor and a convicted drug-dealer with mob connections. (Incidentally,
though Lasater's driver was a convicted murderer and drug dealer and a known mob
heavy, Clinton allowed him access to the governor's mansion.) Also overlooked by
our intrepid and unbiased newshounds was Lewinsky's comment about Clinton to
Linda Tripp: "I think he's on drugs."
Dr. Sam Houston made the damning
claim that it is well-known in Little Rock medical circles that when Clinton was
governor he suffered a cocaine overdose and had to be taken by a state trooper
to a Little Rock hospital for emergency treatment. Hillary Clinton was told by
phone of her husband's condition, after which she immediately went to the
hospital.
On arrival her first response was to
forcefully tell the two doctors on duty that she would destroy their medical
careers if a single word about the drug incident leaked out. Dr. Sam Houston is
not man to doubt. He is a well-respected Little Rock doctor and was Hillary
Clinton's father's personal physician.
Contrast our media's oh so
accommodating attitude toward Clinton with this London Times headline:
Former Lover Drags Clinton into Drug Row. Directly quoting Gennifer
Flowers, Times' readers were told that Clinton "made it very clear that,
if I ever wanted to do cocaine, he could provide that".
There is also the police surveillance
video tape of Roger Clinton telling his dealer: "I've got to get some [cocaine]
for my brother, he's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner." None of this was
reported by Cameron Forbes, or any other Australian paper. But then the
Washington Post and the New York Timesalso ignored the story.
Despite the case against Clinton,
Martin Walker of the Guardian still claimed in his book, Clinton, the
President They Deserve 1996, that "there was no suggestion that Governor
Clinton ever took the drug [cocaine]." How Walker arrived at this conclusion is
a mystery only he can apparently solve.
The left's hatred of conservatives is
certainly no mystery, neither is its hypocrisy. What some do consider a bit of a
mystery is our establishment right's refusal to expose the rampant bigotry of
the Australian media.
And please, don't mention blogs to
me. Only frequent and detailed exposés can possibly do the trick. Smart-aleck
comments and playing favourites will never work.
Joe Cambria was a Wall Street
trader for 15 years
