Your Influence Counts ... Use It! The SPOTLIGHT by Liberty Lobby

Reprinted from, home of The SPOTLIGHT archive

'Crisis' Explains Who's in Charge

  • Maybe Hillary Clinton is right, and there is a "right-wing conspiracy" to destroy her husband. But don't count of Hillary to tell you whose "right-wing" is behind that conspiracy -- and how the scandal is being used to manipulate U.S. Middle East policy.
By Michael Collins Piper

Hillary Clinton's argument that a "right-wing conspiracy" in America is behind the sex-and-perjury scandal that may ple her husband has one big flaw. 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 has hyped the scandal and suggested it may be Bill Clinton's undoing.

Newsweek enlisted longtime Clinton confidant George Stephanapolous to write of Clinton's "betrayal." 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 mainstream media voices of being a voice for the "right wing" -- or the "right wing" in America, at least.

However, the first lady may have put her finger on something when she claimed that a "right-wing conspiracy" is energizing the ongoing "Monicagate" scandal.

If you dig deep enough, you will find a connection that goes all the way to the hardline "right wing" in Israel and all the way back to "Monicagate" right here in Washington, D.C.


It may be no coincidence that just as the American supporters of Israel's right wing -- the Likud bloc -- were launching a bitter public relations campaign against President Clinton (see The SPOTLIGHT, February 2), the orthodox 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 that have somehow gotten buried in the midst of all the frenzy over the allegations that have been bandied about.

The media have focused on former White House staffer Linda Tripp and her brassy New York promoter friend, Lucianne Goldberg, as being the prime instigators of "Monicagate."

But the Washington Post pointed out in a story buried at the back of the paper on January 28 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 this that lawyers for Paula Jones contacted Miss Lewinsky, tipping off the president that his Presumed relationship with Monica had been exposed.

At his juncture, it seems neither Mrs Tripp mor Mrs. Goldberg were the "anonymous" sources, inasmuch as they had other interests to exploit in the Clinton-Lewinsky caper. In fact, Mrs Tripp instead went directly to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.


The big question is: Who tipped off the lawyers for Paula Jones that there might be a "smoking gun" in the president's relationship with Monica Lewinsky?

Monica -- at least until recently, it seems -- was a Clinton loyalist and it was certainly not she 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 her to Jones's 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?

But let's go further. 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, according to the Post, that William Kristol -- described generally as "editor of the conservative Weekly Standard" -- was one of the first to "publicly mention" the allegations.

Kristol's role as being one of the "first" to float the story publicly 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 and historian Gertrude Himmelfarb.

Kristol and Himmelfarb are two self-styled "former Marxist" who have emerged as "neoconservative" 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 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. Kristol is identified with Bilderberg's "Republican" wing.

And on January 26, 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 Rep. Vin Weber, a longtime close ally of House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Richard Perle, a notorious Israeli agent and former U.S. deputy secretary of defense who is now a highly- paid consultant for Israeli arms interests.

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-s 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.

Not surprisingly, some of the most tawdry stories to break in the burgeoning scandal have been in the New York Post, along with other Murdoch-owned news publications.


In her effort to once again "stand by her man," the first lady has named television preacher Jerry Falwell and his friend, Sen. 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 ahd Helms are especially close to -- once again -- the hardline "right-wing" Likud bloc in Israel. 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. The U.S. president was embarrassed politically when Netanyahu won by defeating the liberals led by the more moderate Shimon Peres. The later preached peace: Netanyahu, no compromise.

As The SPOTLIGHT reported on February 2, 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 Falwell, one of Clinton's most vociferous critics.

The SPOTLIGHT noted that even the Washington Post had revealed on January 22 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 obediently pro- Zionist "Christian right."

In Israel, according to the Post on January 24, 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 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 Jewess, born in Prague, named Madeleine Albright. Apparently, the fate of the peace process is, to no lesser degree, in he 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."

Parenthetically, it is interesting that by the time Barnea's comments were reported in the February 2 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 punishing Israel is concerned -- much to the delight of Israel-firsters both here and in Israel.

On January 27 the Washington Post again let the cat out of the bag when it reported that "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 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 button, labeled "Get Clinton," and someone has punched it.