In Answer to a Continuing Lie
by Gary Aldrich - Volume 1 Issue 20 July 27, 2000
On July 20, 2000, the New York Times allowed former conservative writer David Brock to weigh in on Hillary Clinton’s alleged slurring of Jews, as if Brock is objective, or has an accurate leg to stand on. He isn’t, and he doesn’t. But that didn’t prevent the Times from giving yet another lying liberal a platform from which to falsely claim he’s an "expert" character witness on behalf of the "goodness" of Hillary Clinton.
Since 1996, Brock has relentlessly defended Hillary and Bill Clinton by attacking those who have the guts to come forward with the truth. But, before the election of 1996, Brock had quite a different opinion about the "First Couple."
You may recall that in 1993 it was Brock, writing for the American Spectator Magazine, who turned out a sensational article about Bill and Hillary Clinton’s scandalous conduct while they were Arkansas’ first family. Brock’s article was significantly inaccurate - it contained a factual flaw - a blooper that nearly doomed the Clinton presidency, but not in the way Brock had intended. He also missed the bigger story - the allegations that Bill Clinton was a violent sexual predator.
Brock wrote that a young woman named "Paula" was a willing one-night-stand for a then Governor Clinton. Paula Jones recognized herself in the article, denied the allegation, and went on to file a civil rights lawsuit. Jones’ lawsuit eventually surfaced the Monica Lewinsky scandal, again quite by accident.
Thus, Brock’s failure to get his facts straight almost cost Bill and Hillary Clinton the White House via impeachment, but not because Brock is an "accurate journalist."
In 1993 I was working at the White House as an FBI agent involved in national security matters. I didn’t like the conduct I was seeing. The Clintons and their senior staff were very crude, very profane, but most important to me was the fact that they were wrecking our national security systems. This was the big story.
My employment had me at ground zero inside the Clinton "nest" and Brock’s article certainly rang true. I found the senior Clinton staff profane, and highly emotional. To this trained investigator’s eye, some actually bordered on irrational, and I reported this to Clinton’s chief of staff, Mac McLarty. Many had prior drug problems, and serious emotional problems for which they were medicated.
I had heard the stories of the Clinton’s inappropriate conduct from residence staff members, as well as from the Secret Service agents, forced to be around them day and night. The Clintons’ profanity, incredible temper tantrums, and alleged extramarital activities saddened me, but my mission was to protect national security - not to police morals or conduct bed checks at the White House.
In spite of the obvious illegal acts and serious wrongdoing that took place in Little Rock, Brock’s article dwelled on the salacious. I knew Brock’s obsession with the sex lives of others was nothing new. In his book, The Real Anita Hill, Brock concluded Hill was "a little bit nutty, and a little bit slutty." Brock filled his Anita Hill book with petty observations of Hill, and ponderous, meaningless trivia. The book was described by one of the sales managers working for the publisher as "boring and difficult to market." I don’t know if this first book attempt by Brock contained any serious inaccuracies, but my first book was highly accurate, and a runaway bestseller. Nevertheless, Brock gets to be the judge of me!
Not only has Brock anointed himself as the judge of my book, but of all books that are critical of the Clintons. Scratch the surface, and there doesn’t appear to be any reasonable foundation for Brock’s assumed expertise.
Brock’s Anita Hill book launched the writing career of this supposed "investigative journalist," and because of his defense of Clarence Thomas, Brock became a darling of the political party circuit in Washington, and elsewhere. Brock had made powerful friends within the conservative movement, and they naively granted him access, highly paid writing opportunities, and their loyalty.
But why is David Brock considered by anybody to be an expert on the good character of Hillary Clinton? How could a guy who missed the biggest stories - about Clinton’s sexual assaults, or Whitewater, or the biggest stories about national security and illegal fundraising at the White House, be considered a definitive voice on any of these matters?
And how could a writer, guilty of inaccuracies and incomplete reporting, be the judge of the accuracy of any other works? Only the loony left could understand this.
During a 1995 post-retirement meeting with Brock at the American Spectator Magazine headquarters in Virginia, Brock (at that time very hostile to the Clintons) asked me questions about the Clintons’ White House sex lives. He told me he was writing a book about Hillary Clinton, but he seemed to be only interested in the personal side of her life.
During one conversation, Brock attempted to interest me in gossip he said he had heard about a senior Clinton male staff member who was allegedly hiding his homosexuality. I told Brock I was not interested in stories of that kind, unless national security was involved.
But there were no questions asked about national security or any illegal activities, even though Brock knew of my access and my official position as an FBI agent inside the White House. I gave him no information he could use in his planned book about Hillary, because I didn’t trust him.
And I refused to become Brock’s "source," but Brock seemed intent on telling me his life story, anyway. He said he had once been a liberal journalism student, attending radicalized Berkley, but grew unhappy with the Left Wing when they would not allow the publication of one of his missives. Brock explained that having been told, "No" he veered to the "Right." Of course after the marketing failure of his inaccurate and incomplete Hillary book, Brock very publicly veered back to the Left.
That much-anticipated book about Hillary Clinton missed most of the big stories about the Clinton White House, and became an "October Dud." After receiving a reported two million dollar advance, Brock missed the national security implications of Hillary Clinton’s actions as "apparent" White House Counsel, and her other obvious corrupt conduct that has been the subject of endless major investigations.
Because Brock takes his current position as judge and jury without qualification, he gives new definition to the words, "arrogant" and "hypocrite." Now Brock has openly criticizing me again, and my vindicated book, and my publisher, along with Jerry Oppenheimer’s new book, alleging the Hillary verbal slurs.
Brock rehashes his groundless and disproved allegations against my book in his latest inaccurate piece. For example, he mislabels my #1 New York Times bestseller, Unlimited Access - An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House, as the first of a series of "anti-Clinton" books, designed to cash in on what Brock identifies as a mysterious and unexplainable hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Brock’s claims are simply incorrect. Most informed Americans know that there were several major, highly critical works about the Clintons before mine was published in 1996, including the thinly disguised Primary Colors, a novel that fairly nailed the Clintons’ and their supporters’ patterns of smarmy conduct.
Then, Brock goes on to gratuitously slam my publisher, Alfred Regnery, claiming that the success of my book, and Regnery’s many other New York Times best-selling Clinton books are somehow fiction, disguised as fact. I was a 26-year veteran FBI agent, trained as an investigator, and an accurate reporter of facts. The other authors also had serious credentials and experiences enough to produce very accurate views of this power-hungry couple.
In his piece, Brock attempts to connect Regnery, Oppenheimer and me together in some convoluted alignment that only a loony left-winger could possibly appreciate. But, Brock has written it that way on purpose. This is a classic Clinton misinformation technique - Brock’s claims do not need to be truthful - he just has to deny the truth, and that will be good enough for the blindly loyal liberals.
Brock counts on the "Loony Left" to pick up his nonsense, and keep it going.
In yet another example of how far Brock will go to diminish the work of others, he explains away the success of my book (and presumably the failure of his) by falsely claiming that it reached New York Times #1 bestseller status for weeks and weeks because Regnery sold it though a conservative book club. Brock infers that this is the way all successful anti-Clinton books are marketed on to the best-selling status.
Of course this is false, and even the New York Times knows better. They designed the bestseller list, and they control it. You can bet it was very painful for them to watch my book climb up, and up, and stay on the top of their list. If there had been anything "funny" about the sales of my book or any of the other Regnery books about Clinton, you can bet the Times would have kept those bestsellers off of their vaunted list.
Brock knows nothing about me, my book, my sources, or my stories, but with the assistance of a gleeful White House, and with some in the liberal press egging him on, Brock has led a relentless, sometimes frenzied, always false and malicious attack on my credibility, designed to discourage American citizens from finding out the real truth about the Clintons, and their sleazy friends.
Brock has clearly enjoyed every minute of this undeserved attention. But his constant access to the liberal mainstream media, plus efforts by the Clinton White House to intimidate any television networks from giving me a chance to prove my allegations has created doubt in the minds of many potential readers of my book.
Nevertheless, American citizens would later learn the ugly truth that I, and others were trying to tell them. The rude awakening came with revelations of Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, and Chinese intelligence agents and drug dealers having the run of the White House, in return for campaign cash. The Clintons had turned the White House into a sleazy "X" rated motel - and seemed willing to do anything to maintain their power.
In spite of the glaring nature of Brock’s propaganda piece, I predict the hallelujah chorus of the "Vast Left Wing" will embrace his editorial as "truth," and continue to deny the obvious, then attack the messenger - in this case, Jerry Oppenheimer - in their usual, all-out effort to destroy the messenger and the message.
Did Hillary ever slur Jews and use obscenities after she became furious with a campaign worker when she lost her taxpayer-funded luxurious mansion, as well as her much coveted, loved power trip? I’m surprised that anybody would believe that Hillary Clinton would not say those words or words very much like those words.
Sadly, Brock’s own particular style of ugliness is not quite over. He’s announced a tell-all book he’s putting together about his former associates on the "Right." First Brock betrayed the Left, and now he further betrays the Right. Is there any group left to betray? If you happen to be in such a group, you’d better keep a close eye on David Brock - and don’t tell him anything you don’t want to read about in the New York Times!
Can those on the "Right" learn anything from David Brock’s deception and treachery? Perhaps only that if the Right decides to have a real "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" they’re going to need a better background check than the one the Right used to "vet" David Brock.