|
|
75 of 107 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Apologia At Any Cost, May 28, 2000
As a reader of nonfiction, specifically history or politics, I'm an avid highlighter. I underline or highlight passages for easy reference, jot a few margin notes for consideration for future research, and a few sticky notes for bookmarking. This book is filled with my personalization. Unfortunately, for the authors, virtually every marking point out factual problems, statements contradicted by the public record, or totally implausible explanations. What follows are a very small subset of the countless shortfallings. "The presiding federal judge, Henry Woods, was one of Hillary Clinton's mentors . . . An appeals court disagreed and stripped Woods of the case, citing appearance of bias in his Whitehouse connections." P 10. The problem here is that the authors fail to tell the reader the nature of the appeal. Ken Starr used newspaper stories to support this contention. A brief review of the evidence shows the "mentor" contention came from an op-ed published in the Washington Times, written by Jim Johnson. Johnson, known as Justice Jim, along with Wesley Pruden, father of the editor-in-chief of the Washington Times, cofounded the Arkansas White Citizens Counsel. The alleged mentor concept arose from Woods asking Hillary Clinton to serve on a board that reviewed school desegregation in Little Rock. Woods was a longtime enemy of Johnson, who succeeded in removing Johnson's pro segregation clause in the Arkansas constitution. The facts reveal that Woods had often ruled against then Governor Clinton, including a case involving a planned nuclear power plant. The authors clearly fail at providing any of these facts, and instead stick to the Ken Starr line of the smear of Judge Woods. The authors never mention that the appeals court was headed by Jesse Helms sponsored Judge Pasco Bowman. Schmidt and Weisskopf missed the most basic logical fallacy in the above passage. Even if it were correct, how do the authors square the "bias" in light that the McDougal Tucker prosecution presented the Clintons as victims, not criminals. Oh that's right, Schmidt also failed to inform the Washington Post readers of this prosecution summation in that trial. Yet another inconvenient fact that the authors chose to ignore. The book's reporting of the Ritz Carlton room 1012 episode, (pp 38-46) contradicts Monica Lewinsky and Marcia Lewis' memory in salient details. Since it's a clear disagreement, one must rely on which version appears more plausible. One is strained to believe the Schmidt version. Can one really believe that someone who's being threatened with 27 years in prison and having their mother similarly indicted for obstruction (a fact which both Truth At Any Cost and Monica's Story agree), would not demand to speak to a lawyer? "Monica's Story" claims that she was threatened with indictment if she chose to do so. Schmidt claims that Monica was told she could leave at any time. Can anyone seriously believe she stayed for 10 hours of threats and abuse, if the TAAC version is correct. I'm strained to believe the Schmidt version. What is clear is that if the actual events are even slightly skewed to the Lewinsky rendition, the Office Of Independent Counsel clearly violated Ms. Lewinsky's constitutional rights, and committed severe breaches in law. "In fact, Hale had not changed his story. [regarding the illegal loan from Hale to McDougal]." P 95. Sorry Ms. Schmidt, but there are at least three different versions of the story told by Hale. They include different ways that Clinton arrived, what Clinton was wearing when he arrived, and in his latest rendition added paid Clinton hater LD Brown as being present at the time. Can one seriously believe that these supporting facts would have changed over time if in fact Clinton asked Hale to commit a crime? I would assume any reasonable person would remember virtually every detail of such a significant event. But the authors never seem to want to dig beneath the official Ken Starr version, never realizing how implausible that version is. Another reviewer gave the book two stars, calling it a page turner. Initially I concurred with that evaluation, until I realized I was turning the pages, with slacked jaw, wondering how they might next distort reality. Their premise that Starr is politically niave, is contradicted by countless examples of sophisticated acumen. The book fails miserably to support the argument the authors adduce. The basic dishonest merits my one-star rating.
|
by Dave Cullen
See all 12 books citing this book
