The American Spectator

TAS Live

(Page 3 of 10)

The experiences of Patterson and Perry, only a selection of which will be described here, show that, in addition to lying to the American public when he denied his relationship with Gennifer Flowers and claimed that any infidelity had occurred only earlier in his marriage, Clinton had an elaborate damage-control operation that was reminiscent of John Kennedy's -- and for a very good reason: For at least a decade, Clinton has been prone to extramarital affairs, often more than one at a time, and to numerous one-night stands. According to the troopers, the clandestine sexual encounters occurred even after the presidential election and continued through Clinton's final days in Little Rock.

Clinton is a man of gargantuan appetites and enormous drive, and not only in relation to women. "When he would eat an apple," said Roger Perry, a stout 6'2" chain-smoker who does not seem easily offended, "he would eat the whole thing, core, stem, and seeds. He would pick up a baked potato with his hands and eat it in two bites. I've never seen anything like it."

The troopers said their "official" duties included facilitating Clinton's cheating on his wife. This meant that, on the state payroll and using state time, vehicles, and resources, they were instructed by Clinton on a regular basis to approach women and to solicit their telephone numbers for the governor; to drive him in state vehicles to rendezvous points and guard him during sexual encounters; to secure hotel rooms and other meeting places for sex; to lend Clinton their state cars so he could slip away and visit women unnoticed; to deliver gifts from Clinton to various women (some of whom, like Flowers, also had state jobs); and to help Clinton cover up his activities by keeping tabs on Hillary's whereabouts and lying to Hillary about her husband's whereabouts.

How important such revelations are in any assessment of Bill Clinton as a man, and as a political leader, can be left for the reader's judgment. The Newsweek reviewer of the Reeves book identified the dilemma for journalists and historians:

Kennedy scholars have by now proved that his private life was less than admirable. He was a compulsive womanizer and, like most such men and many presidents, an accomplished liar. A biographer has to decide how far to interpret Kennedy's public performance as president through the medium of his private foibles.

Surely, it is nothing new that many politicians use their positions to solicit sexual favors and come to believe that the laws and mores that govern others don't apply to them. So far as the troopers knew, Clinton's activities did not include abuse of drugs or alcohol, and all of the women appear to have been willing participants in the affairs and liaisons. Some may well conclude, therefore, that Bill and Hillary Clinton's loose sexual morals and their habitual foul language are irrelevant to their public roles and, in any event, are not uncharacteristic of their generation as a whole.

p>Still, the Clintons hold positions that, it is possible to argue, ought to be subject to a higher standard, particularly for people so inclined to argue for their public policies in a moral context. While rumors of extramarital dalliances have surrounded many presidents in this century, the scale of Clinton's past indiscretions, if it has been sustained in the White House, as has been widely rumored, would appear to far exceed that of any of his predecessors, with the possible exception of John Kennedy. If, as the troopers describe it, he is a sexual predator and exploiter of women, his behavior may be more egregious than that which destroyed the political careers and reputations of Gary Hart, John Tower, and most recently Bob Packwood. br> /p>

III

But there is a larger point in the case of Clinton that goes well beyond any moral or ethical judgment about -- or prurient interest in -- his private life. When sources come forward of their own volition to describe how Clinton's private activities have caused lies to be told, threats to be made, and cover-ups to be undertaken, an issue of public integrity is raised, and the public's right to know outweighs a public figure's claim to privacy or journalistic discretion. Thus, even if one is inclined to give the issues of character, judgment, and self-control raised by the troopers' account of Clinton's behavior little weight -- much of the material should strike readers as more farcical than scandalous, a view shared by the troopers, who chuckled through some of the telling -- it became evident in the reporting of this story that Clinton and his surrogates continue to regard his private behavior as a political time bomb. Their effort to try to thwart publication of the story is itself newsworthy -- and quite illustrative of how this information was kept from voters during the 1992 campaign.

Shortly after my first session with the troopers, three of the four (Perry and the two who wished to remain off the record) received telephone calls from their former supervisor on the governor's security detail, Captain Raymond L. "Buddy" Young, who last July was named by Clinton to head a regional Federal Emergency Management Agency office in Texas. Perry said Young told him that he was aware that they had hired lawyers and were thinking of going public with a book or a story. Perry said that Young told him, "I represent the president of the United States. Why do you want to destroy him over this? You don't know anything anyway.… This is not a threat, but I wanted you to know that your own actions could bring about dire consequences." Patterson said Young sent him a handwritten note expressing concern for Patterson's health.

In an interview, Young confirmed that he had been in contact with the three troopers to discuss this matter. "I called Roger as a friend, and I told him I thought this was wrong, it was unethical, and it was a disgrace to security people. But I never said I spoke for the president, because I don't." Young denied having been in contact with the president or anyone in the White House on this subject. Young also confirmed that he sent a note to Patterson about his health, but denied any implication that the note was a veiled threat. "Larry has heart problems, and I was concerned about his cholesterol," Young said.

He went on to say that the thrust of Patterson and Perry's account was not true and that I should look closely at their motives. "These boys made this up to sell a book and because they were mad that Clinton didn't give them promotions," he said. [FOOTNOTE 4: Young is currently being sued in Arkansas for allegedly lying in federal court to discredit a witness who claimed to have information about illegal drug money being funneled through the Arkansas bond market during Clinton's tenure.]

Young also confirmed that one of the two troopers who decided not to go on the record -- but whom Young voluntarily named, Danny Ferguson -- subsequently obtained part-time employment at a Little Rock company, National Safety Consultants, in which Young owns an interest. "I started this consulting service for safety training for truck drivers a few years back as a part-time deal. I own an interest, but I don't have anything to do with the operation. They subcontracted with Danny. But it had absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. It was totally unrelated." Young also confirmed that the second trooper interviewed by me who decided not to come forward -- whom he also voluntarily named, Ronnie Anderson -- had a part-time job at this same company that pre-dated our first meeting. The job provides several thousand dollars a year in supplemental income to Anderson, Young said.

topics:
Education, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Business, Books, Law, Military, NATO, Oil