The Current Crisis
Another Clinton Scandal
I have been defamed by Taylor Branch.
WASHINGTON -- I have been defamed by Taylor Branch, and he will not reply to my repeated calls for clarification. The defamation takes place in his new book, The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President. The defamation he printed comes from the Boy President himself, so perhaps my reputation will emerge immaculate. By now I think it is pretty clear to all Americans that Clinton tells the truth only when he misspeaks.
Branch's book is a very personal chronicle of the Clinton Administration based on taped interviews Branch conducted with Clinton in the White House over Clinton's two terms and prefatory to Branch's assisting Clinton in writing his sloppy memoir. Branch's problem is that he artlessly has accepted everything that Clinton told him, even on those occasions when Branch was nearby and should have recognized that Clinton was bathing him in absurdity. The book's treatment of me is such an occasion.
It involves my by now well-documented encounter with Clinton at the Jockey Club not far from the White House July 17, 1995. I was dining with my 14-year-old daughter, Annie, and one of her girlfriends when the Clintons came in with fifteen friends to dine behind a partition in the restaurant's back room. Branch and his wife were with them. As the Washington Post reported with the utmost accuracy, I sent over a couple of bottles of champagne, for the sight of this big lovable lug of a president always puts me in a good mood.
"Next thing you know," reported the Post, "Clinton, the ever affable [obviously a trait we share], is having the champagne donor come back to meet and thank him." Unfortunately we disagreed on a recent piece of mine from The American Spectator. After characterizing the 42nd President's response as "ballistic," the Post reported me as sympathizing: "I didn't want to disturb his meal. I had to break off; he was getting worked up."
Now here is how the oblivious Branch reports the incident. Clinton came over to him and "whispered, leaning over," 'Did you see that?'" Branch said no. Nonetheless he dutifully records Clinton's version of our encounter: "Emmett Tyrrell, publisher of The American Spectator [actually I am editor-in-chief], had slipped through the partition to ask whether Clinton had read his new article, 'The Arkansas Drug Shuttle....'" Branch describes the piece as one that "vouched for the most lurid anti-Clinton fantasies in circulation, about how the former governor had nurtured a drugs-and-murder CIA ring from the airport in Mena, Arkansas." Where poor Branch got that interpretation of the piece I do not know. Probably he took Clinton's word for it.
Had Branch read the piece he would have never seen anything about a "drugs-and-murder CIA ring." All the piece reports is that Clinton encouraged one of his state troopers to do contract work for CIA during which the trooper discovered that another contract worker, the pilot flying arms from Mena into Central America, was bringing back cocaine. After he reported this to Governor Clinton, the trooper claims Clinton quipped as though he were aware of the trafficking. Possibly Clinton was just B.S.-ing, as he often does and really knew nothing about the drug trafficking. If so he opened himself up to a greater controversy than merely being aware of a CIA arms operation out of his state.
Clinton's lies often get him in trouble, as those familiar with the scandals of his presidency know. That night at the Jockey Club, Branch reports, Clinton went on "gasping" that "Tyrrell had brought two young teenage girls with him like shields, which made it hard to fend him off." Well, fending off intruders at a presidential meal is something the Secret Service does very well. Obviously the Post's report is accurate. I was invited over by Clinton. He bounded across the room, and I immediately introduced him to my daughter and her friend, whereupon he talked about his daughter's trip to camp. "Shields," indeed -- actually Clinton had invited them over too.
One would think that Branch, who by 1995 had been with the President frequently, would have understood one does not breach a Secret Service barrier. Why make me out to be a boor in an episode that is so patently absurd? Moreover, why mischaracterize a magazine piece that any curious reader can see has been mischaracterized? Is Taylor Branch (sounds like an upscale bourbon, no?) a willing accomplice with Clinton in defaming a Clinton critic, or is he another of Clinton's episodic apologists, whom the ex-President uses for his own purposes? I believe the latter, and I shall commiserate with him if ever he returns my telephone calls. But Branch's readers should beware. This book is very unreliable.
About the Author
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of the forthcoming The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn't Work: Social Democracy's Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (44) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From The Current Crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/15/another-clinton-scandal
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Evolve or Die
- Progressive Derangements
- Barney Shuffles Off
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Joellen| 10.15.09 @ 7:58AM
Why anyone would PURCHASE a book of lies perpetuared by Clinton is beyond me. At the Sept 12 DC march there was a sign actually stating the Clintons looked good compared to Obama. I thought to myself, "no they were the beginning of this nightmare that we find ourselves in and I still believe this. Sadly, fools will buy his blarney, and the lies and revision (distortion) of history will continue to take place. Thank GOD for those factual writers such as Michele Malkin, Mark Levine, etc. etc. who have documented the facts and are on the shelves now. I suggest we all keep our own diaries and journals for our future generations.
Sandy C| 10.15.09 @ 12:31PM
Joellen- You are absolutely correct, the Clintons started all this Progressivism. During one of the primary debates, do you remember when Hillary was asked if she considered herself a Liberal, and, she answered that she preferred to be called a Progressive? The Communists have always preferred to be called Progressives, as the description Communist, had become a curse word to Americans. There was as much behind the scenes, backroom deals with the Progressives and their goals going on in the Clinton Whitehouse, as there is now with Obamas "shadow government" czars, that are really running the show. Look at the number of Clinton has-beens, who are now in Obama administration, including some like Podesta, who have more power as unaccountable czars. It astounds me that so many Democrats are now saying that they wish Clinton was elected, as she would have been much better. There is a recent article claiming that Clinton is now more popular than Obama. The only reason I can see for this phenomena, is that some believe that certain Progressives can promote/institute Socialism (at best) better than some others, such as Obama. They completely miss the fact that the United States will wind up in exactly the same place, no matter what Progressive accomplishes it. I guess the problem with Obama is that he isn't as smooth and convincing a liar as Clinton was. And, Clinton didn't need a teleprompter to read the lies from, they just rolled across his lips. Even though Obama is supposed to be such a great speaker, Clinton had him beat by a long shot.
Alan Brooks| 10.15.09 @ 9:38PM
still, Clinton CONSERVED more than Dubya.
And you cannot PROVE otherwise.
It doesn't matter what you SAY,
Obama WILL be re-elected, because his opposition is so conflicted AND compromised.
Alan Brooks| 10.15.09 @ 9:40PM
Do you all remember the term 'Reagan Democrat'?
Alan Brooks| 10.15.09 @ 10:30PM
look, that Clinton lied or forgot that your daughter and her friend were not buffers (or in Clinton's case, potential sex objects) is a very small issue-- if not for 1995, than for 2009.
My overarching concern is that Jeb Bush not run for POTUS in '12.
It IS understood that Bush 41 was Reagan's Veep. But why did his son HAVE to be elected POTUS in 2000?
Was it God's will?
Point is, I'd much rather Clinton run again in '12 and be elected, than have another mediocre GOP candidate run and win-- or run and lose.
The latter would be the outcome.
Patricia Weir| 10.16.09 @ 9:17AM
Alan; Clinton "CONSERVED" because he did NOT respond to attacks on our country. Need i remind you? World Trade Center 1993, Two American embassey bombings in Africa, Kobaur Towers, USS Cole, etc. Oil was cheap and the internet bubble was in its hayday. Grow up!
alyeska| 10.16.09 @ 10:07PM
actually, after the first twin towers attack clinton hunted down, captured, tried and sent the people who did it to jail!
now where is that bin laden? not under here :)
Anthony| 10.15.09 @ 9:49AM
Bob, Since the Left operates in its own echo chamber, this article will have no effect on Mr. Branch. And even if it did, it will only enhance his bona fides with his fellow leftist travelers.
You're much too kind to Mr. Branch, frankly, he is more stooge than apologist and accomplice, yet he remains , no doubt, unashamed. This is what insulated hegemony has done to the Left.
Pingback| 10.15.09 @ 9:59AM
10/15/09 interesting articles from around the interwebz « Beagle Scout links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Doug| 10.15.09 @ 10:03AM
So, is the common trait among liberals then that they only tell the truth when they lie?
Makes sense, in a sort of ..ehhrrr... 'liberal' way.
Turk| 10.15.09 @ 10:27AM
OK Bob, a liberal has lied about you. For days they have been lying about another significant conservative. Racism;slavery-you name it ! They have been successful in their effort to preclude Rush from partial ownership in the pristine NFL that trifles no dubious participants.
Get used to lying: they've run out of everything else!
Son Of Sam| 10.15.09 @ 10:47AM
Heavens to Mergatroid: Bill Clinton told a lie! I would like to add to this article by stating that the sun is hot, water is wet and the tax cheats have got our damned money.
btw, don't call them liberals: ObamaNazi is a much more precise term
stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/
alyeska| 10.16.09 @ 10:09PM
again with the nazis! yawn....
Interested Conservative| 10.15.09 @ 11:03AM
Is Taylor Branch (sounds like an upscale bourbon, no?) a willing accomplice with Clinton in defaming a Clinton critic, or is he another of Clinton's episodic apologists, whom the ex-President uses for his own purposes?
Yes, he is.
Pingback| 10.15.09 @ 11:14AM
10/15/09 interesting articles from around the interwebz - LJMiller96’s blog - RedSta links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim| 10.15.09 @ 11:45AM
The Jockey Club? How appropriate.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.15.09 @ 12:27PM
Heh!
Best joke today... "... Clinton tells the truth only when he misspeaks".
Thanks for the chuckle, Mr. Tyrell
Oldefarte| 10.15.09 @ 12:27PM
Like everything else with BillyBob, I'm sure that it must certainly depend upon what THE MEANING OF IS, IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Margie| 10.15.09 @ 4:57PM
Check the body language of Clinton in that pic. The world is filled with farcical men, isn't it?
Pingback| 10.15.09 @ 6:03PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Another Clinton Scandal [spectator.o links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.15.09 @ 6:28PM
Anita Dunn: I turn to Communist Killer Mao Tse-Tung as my Political Philosopher (vide links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
PCP Smoker| 10.15.09 @ 7:01PM
You should have given him that blue handball you gave "Clinton Lover" Al Franken. It would have been funny to see him going ballistic
Liberal Reader| 10.15.09 @ 9:00PM
Thank God the Clinton years are past. I believe Mr. Tyrrell's account of this incident without hesitation. Clinton was never in love with the truth, and his self-pity was positively titanic.
I doubt he had anything to do with cocaine deals or any such business; but I also have no doubt he was capable of seeing "hit jobs" in the most straightforward reporting.
Douglas| 10.15.09 @ 9:18PM
The book may be unreliable, but remember: this is the same Taylor Branch that penned the immortal "Blind Ambition."
Liberal Reader| 10.15.09 @ 9:30PM
The Branch book IS interesting on some points.
The so-called "enemies list" did NOT include -- say -- Rush Limbaugh, or Linda Tripp.
The top three names on Clinton's enemies list were -- alley oop -- The New York Times (Maureen Dowd gets her own entry), the Washington Post, and the Journal!
I think politicians SAY they hate great newspapers because they're biased.
But it's not true.
Politicians hate the Times and the Post and the Journal because they are SOURCES of INFORMATION.
Next time some conservative blabberer instructs you to hate newspapers, ask yourself why they don't want YOU to have good information.
Bydand76| 10.18.09 @ 9:34PM
Hmmmm.........
I think I remember Dan Rather saying something similar to this, Liberal Reader.
Maybe thats why the Obama White House is attacking Fox News right now eh? They are a "source of Information"... maybe.....Oh Crap! I mentioned Fox News to a Liberal. Watch out everyone here comes the obligitory, apopolectic response!!
Margie| 10.16.09 @ 2:41AM
LOL~ "conservative blabberers."Now this coming from someone who calls themselves a "Liberal Reader", so if a Liberal Reader is telling you which newspapers to read? Well let's see.... The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal! You cannot get any more Liberal Biased than the Times and Post, and as for the WSJ, the only thing conservative about it is the editorial page. If you want a great newspaper read The Washington Times. There's a reason newspapers are losing readers in droves. It's because they are Liberal, and they are appealing to a shrinking base of readers. You get the best news in general from online sources anyway, such as Drudge, CNS, WND, FOXNEWS, Human Events, to name just a few.
Margie| 10.16.09 @ 2:44AM
P.S. Conservatives don't "instruct" you to hate certain newspapers. People are smart enough to figure it out for themselves. It's actually the hate filled Liberals and other readers who infect you with their poison and tell you what to do and how you should think. Everybody else be damned. Or called a racist. Or bigot, or... well you get the pic.
ed. taylor| 10.16.09 @ 11:40AM
Naturally, Hillary and Obama can't reveal who they really are. They are genuine Marxist-Leninist!!! The major tools of the Marxist-Leninist are "secrecy and deceit". In fact, J. Edgar Hoover authored a book in the late 1950's, “Masters of Deceit", which describes the nature and tactics of the Communist Party. Lenin authored a publication titled "What Is Too Be Done". He outlined the strategy of subverting and overthrowing capitalism by using a small cadre of professional conspirators that would bring about world revolution for the masses. Its success would proceed from, secrecy, discipline, and deception. The real would be hidden and the false displayed. A lie would be proclaimed the truth and the truth proclaimed a lie to justify their ends. The opponents would be confused, diverted and ultimately misled into collaborating in their own destruction. In Obama's recent trip to Venezuela, Chaves reportedly gave or was going to give him a copy of this book. The American people are the most trusting people in the world and most susceptible to this technique of subversion, especially when it sounds good. In addition, they are “lazy” when researching what they hear or read.
RHO1953| 10.16.09 @ 11:57PM
The current occupant of the White House inspires feelings in me that I never thought possible, nostalgia for Bill Clinton. By comparison, Clinton seems like a very reasonable sort. I guess it's all relative, but this clown we have now is not an American in the sense of having any kind of traditional value system, at least in regards to economics or freedom.
Seriously| 11.3.09 @ 10:41AM
Its ridiculous all the stuff these presidents do. Its like no one cares anymore. when your electing a president its like your choosing one of the lesser evils. It doesnt make any sense that we cannot get ONE just ONE president who really really cares!!!!!!!!!!!
ghdmanufactoryoutlet| 4.4.10 @ 5:29AM
dfh