The Big Lie
March 27, 2001
by Gary Aldrich - Volume 2, Issue 16
This article appeared on WorldNetDaily.com on Thursday, March 21, 2002.
With David Brock, it’s hard to know where to begin. His newest book, Blinded by the Right, purports to lay it all out there to tell the truth once and for all. And according to Brock, this is it!
Brock sets out to explain all that happened while he was purportedly covering the Clinton administration, and why it happened. The trouble with this book is that what has been established as truth, is presented as a lie, and what has been clearly established as lies, now becomes the truth.
Brock is counting on people who are interested in politics including those in the media to be predictable. He’s quite certain, I imagine, that it doesn’t really matter what he writes about, as long as he slams conservatives. The liberal media will enthusiastically advertise his book of lies, as long as he’s willing to attack and smear conservatives.
So far, Brock is correct in his theory. The mainstream liberal media is giving him ample airtime and even a few of the "fair and balanced" crowd are getting into the act. Meanwhile, most of these same media are ignoring two runaway bestsellers, Bernard Goldberg’s Bias, and Kenneth Timmerman’s Shakedown, an exposé of Jesse Jackson.
Brock’s book is a joke it’s a fantasy for liberals a comic book. Brock talks endlessly about his journey from a self-closeted homosexual, to an open, honest champion of the truth!
But Brock’s "comic" book isn’t comical at all. The sneaky, smarmy attacks that this real-life Gollum launches against friend and foe alike are mean, nasty, unwarranted and unfair. Brock does his best work at night, perhaps in damp caves where he can blind-side people. Don’t ever turn your back on David Brock that’s what I learned when I read his book.
The other day, NBC’s Matt Lauer had Brock on his show giving him the opportunity to explain why he lied before and why we should believe he’s telling the truth now. Brock stumbled through a few confusing explanations, but made certain that Lauer understood that he was a victim of manipulation and had unwittingly become a tool of the Right Wing a political operative, not a journalist.
The fact that Brock earned a six-figure income while writing his "Hillary" book and pocketed a reported million-dollar advance from his publisher for this colossal commercial failure probably had nothing to do with his true motivations, right? When Lauer asked Brock if he would make up for his treachery against the innocent Clintons and other misunderstood liberals by giving away some of the profits from his newest effort, Brock appeared stunned. Give away money? What?
Brock’s actual words were, "Well, you know, in an ideal world I’d give it all away. And I will try to give, you know, what I can away. You know, I do make a living as a writer, so I’m not in an ideal world." Indeed.
Apparently, all is forgiven by the liberal print media as well. Frank Rich of the New York Times and Howard Kurtz at The Washington Post recently wrote pages about Brock’s history, his betrayals, his personal life, his lovers, the people he hates, his decorating tastes and so on.
The biggest lie he tells is that he started all of Clinton’s legal troubles. As I peer at my library shelves, I see dozens of lengthy, serious books written about Clinton’s notorious conduct. Many were written before anyone had heard of "Paula." Many more were written after we knew of Clinton’s reckless womanizing, but contained information more comprehensive than Clinton’s amazing infidelities.
My point is, sooner or later Clinton was going to be nailed in some infamous or criminal act it was just a matter of time. Brock had no power to start this process, nor did he have any power to stop it. He was a bit player who wrote one salacious magazine article. The book that Brock finally did write about Hillary Clinton (with the assistance of no less than five research assistants) was boring, filled with recycled press clippings and other useless trivia. Some called it a "love letter to Hillary," but if it was, it certainly failed to excite her or anybody else.
Amazingly, Brock holds himself responsible for setting into motion a chain reaction that impeached Bill Clinton by writing a story about "Paula" whom he slandered by claiming she was Governor Clinton’s girlfriend. Paula Jones, recognizing herself in Brock’s American Spectator article dubbed "Troopergate," took exception and came forward to reveal that Clinton had in fact sexually attacked her in a Little Rock hotel room. The Jones’ lawsuit teed up a chain of events surfacing Clinton’s conduct in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky. Linda Tripp did that Brock had nothing to do with it.
I, personally, am the subject of an entire chapter in Brock’s book. Lucky me. Brock claims that my actions, and my #1 New York Times bestseller, Unlimited Access, made him realize that he had been naughty and had done bad things to liberals. He says that he’s sorry he set off a chain reaction causing people, including me, to take a closer look at "Clinton and Clinton." Brock is simply nuts. I would have written my book with or without Brock’s Troopergate stories.
I predict Brock’s latest misuse of perfectly innocent trees will also end up on remainder tables at a lot of bookstores. Clinton lovers will buy them perhaps as something handy for swatting cockroaches as they scurry across the floors of those who voted for Bill Clinton. For example, everyone’s "Aunt Martha." Lovable old "Aunt Martha" just knew those Vast Right Wing Conspiracy meanies were out to get Bill and Hillary Clinton!
David Brock just told her about it, on television so it must be true!