by David J. Gonzo

Friday, March 19, 1999 -- Washington, D.C. -- For the first time in nearly a year, President Clinton faced down members of the press lynch mob -- and showed class and finesse in handling cheap-shot questions that bordered on the incredulous.

Ostensibly, the main topics of the news conference dealt with international issues: impending action against Serbia by NATO for slaughter in Kosovo, and allegations of Chinese espionage at Los Alamos.

In his opening remarks, Clinton was laying the groundwork for the distinct possibility of NATO action against Serbia. He emphasized the fact that stability in the region is in America's interest, and the U.S. would vigorously back any actions by NATO. And he succeeded in doing something that critics of our Kosovo policy avoid assiduously: putting a human face on the volatile situation, emphasizing "the thousands of people facing cold and hunger in the hills of Kosovo last fall" and "women and children taken from their homes to a gully, forced to kneel in the dirt, sprayed with gunfire -- not because of anything they had done, but because of who they were."

Some of the questions were comically shallow, for example: "After so many threats in the past, why should President Milosevic take this one seriously?" And President Clinton's answer skewered the foundation of the question: remember Bosnia? Intervention destroyed the designs of Milosevic on annexation of Bosnia -- and, in fact, Milosevic and the Serbs have endangered their risky policy of denying Kosovars autonomy that they were promised a decade ago by stepping up atrocities in recent times.

Helen Thomas, who has customarily gone first, got the second questions: "How long have you known that the Chinese were stealing our nuclear secrets? Is there any trust left between the two nations? And some Republicans are saying that you deliberately suppressed the information from the American people and because of the election and your trade goals."

The first question implied, "You're letting those wily Reds get away with destroying our national security!!" And, of course, those "some republicans" in the last section of her questions would exaggerate any inter-party dust-up to make Clinton look bad.

But Thomas had in fact given the President a clear path to spell out the real situation -- he started by skewering the Republican assertion as "simply untrue," reviewing the chronology of what really happened, then himself asked the real questions: "Now I think there are two questions here that are related but ought to be kept separate. One is, was there a breach of security in the mid-'80s? If so, did it result in espionage? That has not been fully resolved, at least as of my latest briefing."

Note the words "fully resolved." For obvious reasons, Clinton isn't talking -- but our Congressional sources tell us that the White House and congressional committees are focusing on the privatization of security at Los Alamos as a direct cause of the alleged breaches, and Republicans are doing everything possible to hush this up.

A follow-up question on Kosovo contained this juicy line: "In fact, Senator Nickles actually suggested that it might take a significant massacre before such a move would get public support." And once again, Clinton used the opening to fire back at one of his most shrill, hard-right critics in the Senate: "I believe they have already taken provocative actions. And there was in the very recent past the massacre at the village that I mentioned in my opening statement -- plus there is the long, unquestioned record of atrocity in Bosnia."

Translated, this means: "Okay, Donny-Bob, how many dead bodies do you want before we act? 10,000? 50,000? How much slaughter is acceptable to Conservative Republicans?" Clinton was sly and subtle in his wording, but make no mistake -- he is developing our Kosovo policy to distinguish Democrats from Republicans, using the GOP's harshest legislators.

Wolf Blitzer set up what sounded like a question on what Mrs. Clinton was planning for 2000 ("how do you feel about that, do you think she would be a good senator?") and followed it with a loaded question ("how are the two of you doing in trying to strengthen your relationship, given everything you and she have been through over this past year?)

His mission -- depict the Clinton marriage as a shambles. This has been a key goal of Clinton's fiercest enemies -- destroy the presidency by destroying the marriage with "bimbo eruptions." And in asking this question, Wolf is a material accomplice in the sleaziest, most immoral political tactics this nation has seen.

Clinton ended his lengthy answer by saying he himself is not sure what Hillary will decide vis-ˆ-vis politics -- but it's clear from the length of his answer that something is in the offing.

As for how he and Hillary have handled the assault on their marriage: "I think we're working hard. We love each other very much, and we're working at it."

That's all he said -- sixteen words that give lie to the "family values" of Bill "The Death of My Sincerity" Bennett, "Waterbed" Bob Barr, George Will and other serial matrimonialists. In the face of the meanest onslaught on a political family in American history, The Clintons have shown more family values than the rest of the Beltway combined.

There was a gem of a question from an unnamed member of the press: "Sir, will you tell us why you think people have been so mean to you? Is it a conspiracy? Is it a plan? They treat you worse than they treated Abe Lincoln?"

Now that's a first -- a question sympathetic to Bill! You could hear the rest of the press responding with a combination of chuckles and mumbling. They hate it when "one of their own" dares to make Clinton look sympathetic, let alone the victim of a near-seven-year assault by hard-righters. Clinton answered with a joke, but it was the press reaction that spoke volumes.

Sam Donaldson went on the attack with this question: "Mr. President, when Juanita Broaddrick leveled her charges against you of rape in a nationally televised interview, your attorney David Kendall issued a statement denying them. But shouldn't you speak directly on this matter and reassure the public? And if they are not true, can you tell us what your relationship with Ms. Broaddrick was, if any?"

This was an appalling affront to decency -- another "presumed guilty" from the man who predicted the Clinton Presidency would be "measured in days" when the Lewinsky flap developed. Right, Sam, make the President appear to be hiding behind his lawyer -- when in fact anything he might say himself would leave him vulnerable to civil suit thanks to the "wisdom" of the Supreme Court. And then imply that Broaddrick had a "relationship" of some kind with Clinton over twenty years ago.

Tell you what, Sam -- why don't YOU come clean about your own family life and relationships? Huh? Not willing to? Wonder why?

Here's a relationship you should look into, Sam -- Juanita's ties to Lucianne Goldberg. Her son's ties to right-wing hate sites on the World Wide Web. Are you too lazy to investigate -- or too partisan?

Clinton also revealed how he would handle post-impeachment ramifications in response to this: "I wonder what your feelings are after some period of reflection on the impeachment process, how you were treated, and if you feel resentment, relief, and how you think people will deal with this and see it ten to 20 years from now."

His response: "I think it's best for me not to focus on that now. I think it's best for me to focus on my job." As he went into detail, the real meaning of the answer became clear: "It's over -- and who needs to gloat when they know darn well that the public supports their positions and overwhelmingly approves of the job they're doing?" The President handled the question deftly -- and no doubt infuriated those parties that tried in vain to destroy him and who now stand isolated.

Some blonde woman reporter from Fox News asked a question no doubt formulated by Brit Hume and Roger Ailes: "Mr. President, many young Americans learn the importance of telling the truth based on an allegory about our very first president. George Washington reportedly said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' What do you think your legacy will be about lying, and how important do you think it is to tell the truth, especially under oath?"

How hypocritical and hilarious -- her question is based on a fairy tale about Washington -- A LIE ITSELF! And there's no reason to believe Clinton wasn't telling the truth under oath, deceptive though he may have been to protect his family and the privacy of others.

You know, if Fox news cared so much about "young Americans," they wouldn't be running salacious news stories about oral sex during the daytime -- and would have reported thoroughly and repeatedly on the President's efforts to apologize to those he deceived over a private matter in an effort to set things right. By doing this, Clinton set a great example for kids, greater than any set by a President in my lifetime -- when you do personal wrong, make every effort to set it right.

But you won't hear about that on Fox News -- because their only care is money, not young Americans. Nor do the vast majority of kids look to the President as a role model in the first place.

If the little blonde no-name from Fox wants a legacy of lies, how about George "No New Taxes" Bush and Ronald "Iran-Contra" Reagan? These were lies about policy, not private lives.

Clinton responded by mentioning a "box score" about "this one negative [and] thousands of positives." At first we felt he should have brought up the private nature of his deceptions and their use by Fox News to attack his family -- but he didn't, no doubt for the sake of his family.

In fact, we've got to admire Clinton for taking two questions from Fox reporters -- in fact, the last question came from Fox: "Sources tell Fox News -- and we are reporting this evening -- that China stole the technology for electromagnetic pulse weapons from several nuclear labs during your first term in office, sir, and that the Chinese have successfully tested these weapons in China. And the sources also say that the Administration at least was aware of this. Can you tell us, sir, were you not personally aware? Are you concerned about this? And what will be your administration's response to the report?

Wow! Talk about a plug for tonight's program! "See the full appalling tale tonight on Fox News!!" We're sure this went over real well with the folks at NBC, CBS, and ABC. And yalk about Asia-bashing! Once again, those wily Chinese are stealing from us!

Well, it figures Fox would pull this stunt-- with impeachment dead and All-Monica TV over, Fox needs something to shore up their failing ratings, so how about fomenting a New Cold War? And don't forget to imply that the Clinton Administration is lazy, or incompetent, or maybe even kowtowing to those Evil Commie Reds to boot!

But Clinton was fast on his own feet: "Well, you didn't say what the source of what they sold was -- you say they "stole?" Is that the word you used?" The reporter's reply: "Yes, sir, the technology for EMP weapons from four of the eleven nuclear labs."

But it was too late -- Clinton had already put into question both the vagueness of the report and the very words chosen. And he went on to say that "Not only do I spend a great deal of time every day on national security measures, I try to prepare for these things. To the best of my knowledge, no one has said anything to me about any espionage which occurred by the Chinese against the labs during my presidency."

This sets up issues which Fox certainly will not address: why security took such a downturn during twelve years of Republican stewardship in the Executive branch, and why, if it is true, word never got to Clinton or national security authorities. Could some in the intelligence community have been withholding information from their superiors?

Everybody knows that Clinton just plain doesn't like the press. Which is the reason we feel he should do more news conferences -- he, unlike any President of the television era, is naturally adept at exposing the bias and venom in his questioners -- and deftly undermining their efforts.