YOU CAN READ MORE OF DOC'S PAST WORK BY CLICKING HEREYOU CAN READ MORE OF DOC'S PAST WORK BY CLICKING HERE
Doc's DIS-patch
Tuesday, March 17, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- Who's looking "slick" now?
After giving Kathleen Willey's appearance on 60 Minutes a cursory look on Sunday evening -- and coming away with a feeling that something didn't sit right with her appearance and story -- I sat down last night and replayed it on videotape, stopping to rewind, review and reflect on the sorry spectacle.
Willey & Bradley --
putting the BS in CBS. 
It only raised more questions in my mind about Willey's credibility. Ed Bradley's inexcusable stream of softball questions seemed tailor-made to elicit answers which would generate audience sympathy --- there was a complete absence of the hard-hitting, probing journalistic inquiry which was at one time the hallmark of the once-great 60 Minutes.
The warm, inviting set was also designed and shot to reflect a comfortable, intimate, "home" feeling -- rather than that of a journalistic forum for facts. Both Bradley and Willey were shot, lit and made up as if for a film drama rather than to discuss what is in fact a disputed story.
None of this stopped Willey from seeming as if she's not telling the whole story. Her cautious, calculated and careful answers and attitude lacked spontaneity and created many more questions in my mind than they answered. I know my colleagues at American Politics Journal suspect someone is putting the squeeze on Willey. Maybe someone in the independent counsel's office? Hickman Ewing or one of his confederates? After seeing the Willey interview, I'd believe it.
But my impressions of Willey do not outweigh my fury at CBS News. This was not journalism -- this was a hyped, sensationalized story, biased in its execution. Murrow and the boys are spinning in their graves!
Predictably, the President's political opponents piled on the next day. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) described Willey as a "credible witness." Uh-huh. Just like Newt's a credible House Speaker -- but not for long, take our word for it.
But the White House did not let Willey's 60 Minutes interview pass without comment. In fact, they released a stream of documents and appearances which, when taken as a whole, devastate Willey's already tenuous credibility.
Ann Lewis made a number of appearances yesterday, beginning at 7:09AM on NBC's Today Show. Her comments immediately bring Ms. Willey's motives and credibility into question: "What I saw last night was someone who talked about being angry, feeling that she has been taken advantage of. And yet in 1996 ...she came to see me and said I really want to work in [the Clinton re-election] campaign... She told me how proud she was to be associated with him."
The White House released a stack of letters from Willey written before and after the disputed meeting. Some excerpts:
July 21, 1993: "I'm so very sorry for your loss [the suicide of Clinton's friend Vincent Foster]. I know that your deep faith will get you through this."
Oct. 12, 1993: "I've just finished [Jeffrey Archer's 'Honor Among Thieves'] and thought that you'd enjoy it, if for no other reason than the fact that you just happen to be one of the characters!"
November 22, 1993: 
Dec. 20, 1993 (less than one month after the disputed meeting): "I just wanted to wish you a wonderful Christmas... Thank you for the opportunity to work in this great house. After this bittersweet year, my first resolution for 1994 will be the pursuit of a meaningful job -- I hope it will be here [the White House]."
June 17, 1994: "... how caring and heartfelt your speech was on D-Day... While you have had many shining moments, that day was for me the proudest I have been that you are our president."
Oct. 18, 1994: "Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with me. Since I've seen you, I have had the opportunity to talk with [various aides in the Clinton administration.] I have invested almost three years with your campaign and administration and am not very willing to depart yet. I would like to be considered for an ambassadorship or a position in an embassy overseas... I don't need to remind you of my willingness to help you in
any way that I can."
Nov. 11, 1994: "Take heart in knowing that your number one fan thanks you every day for your help in saving her wonderful state."
Feb. 14, 1995: "I would very much like to be considered for" a position on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
Dec. 5, 1995: "I have just returned from Jakarta, Indonesia, where I attended the Convention on Biological Diversity as a public member with the United State delegation. Thank you once again for allowing me the opportunity to be with such a fine group representing you and our country. Our delegation was comprised of knowledgeable, well-respected members whose advice and counsel was constantly sought. I learned so much and made many new friends ... I also spent one day in a rain forest, followed by a day diving the coral reef on the island of Sulawese, experiences which I will never ever forget. ... while I am very much in need of employment, I think that the Clinton-Gore campaign needs me too. I am free to travel and work on your behalf for the next year... Fondly, Kathleen."
Nov. 13, 1996: "Congratulations on your outstanding win on November 5th. How fortunate for us all that you will lead us into the 21st century."
Nov. 10, 1997 (to Nancy Hernriech): "Before Ed's death we were promised faithfully by the DNC that we would be included in one of the White House's Christmas parties in recognition of our efforts and fund-raising during the 1992 campaign.
"Somehow, we slipped through the cracks and we were never included. I would be so appreciative if I and my guest could be included this year."
Do these sound like the words of an "angry" victim of a crude and "reckless" pass by Clinton? We sure don't think so!
The President himself replied yesterday afternoon during an appearance at a school in Silver Spring, Maryland, where he said "I have said that nothing improper happened. I told the truth then, I told the truth in the deposition. I am mystified and disappointed by this turn of events... I have a very clear memory of the meeting."
Clinton's lawyer, Bob Bennett, added to the questions surrounding Willey last night on CNN's Larry King Live, when he said that Willey's attorney, Daniel Gecker, is trying to negotiating a $300,000 book deal for his client. "She owes hundreds of thousands of dollars, which might partly explain the book... You draw your own conclusions." The book has so far been turned down by Beverly Hills publisher Michael Viner , who made a fast killing on a series of O.J. books.
In fairness, Willey's not the first person in history to want a quick and slick book deal -- already the projected tome count surrounding the post-Whitewater allegations tops the O.J. trial by a wide margin!
There are also questions surrounding comments made to Newsweek by Julie Steele, a friend of Willey's, who last year confirmed for them that Willey described a pass made by Clinton but later told Newsweek that Willey told her to lie. Bradley softballed this question on 60 Minutes.
Which leads me to one last question -- can ANYONE in Ken Starr's office explain to me in 25 words or less what exactly Kathleen "Slick" Willey has to do with Whitewater?
'Nuff said.
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot |
