Reproduced with permission of The Progressive Review, 1739 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20009, 202-232-5544, Fax: 202-234-6222. Editor: Sam Smith, ssmith@igc.org.

The Final Days II: Growing Turmoil

Despite the outward calm, there is growing turmoil in Washington. Yet unlike their predecessors, the current generation of capital correspondents seems to think their job is to convince everyone that not much is happening. Your editor covered his first Washington story in 1957 and he's never seen anything like it. No, not even Watergate. In Watergate, most roads led to the Nixon White House (although intelligence agencies were clearly involved in the dŽnouement, and in all likelihood deep throated Bob Woodward). In Whitewater, the Clintons were only two of the beneficiaries of rampant corruption of American political, financial, and law enforcement circles that followed in the wake of the drug war and the economic hedonism of the 1980s.

Not to understand the bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of what went wrong -- to treat it as a pro- or anti-Clinton matter -- is to miss the point massively. This is not merely the story of a few deeply corrupt politicians -- although it is certainly that -- but of a deep corruption of many of those responsible for running the American system.

The pervasive quality of the scandals makes getting to the bottom of them incredibly difficult. For example, there is probably not a federal law enforcement agency that has not been badly corrupted by the war on drugs. Republicans were equal opportunity employers of the Mena airport and the S&L industry. Intelligence agencies -- including the FBI, CIA and NSA -- not only have political agendas but fear Whitewater exposing some of their best keep secrets. The New York Times and Washington Post -- which sadly are bellwethers for much of the media -- have been more than willing to censor and manipulate the story for their own purposes. And so forth.

As Whitewater reaches a climax, all the parties to it are becoming more agitated. This is an extraordinarily dangerous period because of the lack of honest and vigorous leadership in Washington. This capital of the cruel and the craven seems more than willing to take the rest of the country down with them as they play out their sordid struggle.

Here, though, are a few tips on whom to trust and discount as you follow the story:

Unreliable sources:

With a few exceptions, the New York Times and the Washington Post have been unreliable on Whitewater from the start. Jeff Gergen broke some of the early material and the Times periodically is editorially troubled by it all, but continues to back page stories that are front-page material. The Washington Post has soured on Hillary Clinton, but in a typically pompous, ineffective and long-winded fashion. It also remains far too close to its contacts at Langley to be taken seriously on any matter that involves intelligence agencies.

The networks have been a bust (one exception: Bill Plante of CBS) as has public radio (one exception: Jon Greenberg's straight-forward accounts of the Little Rock trials). Diane Rehm of NPR is useful only as a gauge of the most conventional thinking in media and political circles. And 60 Minutes runs occasional interference for the White House.

There are currently no left of center columnists other than Sarah McClendon -- Alexander Cockburn seems to have lost interest -- who take this story seriously and plenty who have played nurse's aide to the White House spin doctors. Most egregious of late has been Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe, but even the sainted Molly Ivins has sullied herself with gratuitous sycophancy.

The left wing media -- Nation, Mother Jones, etc. -- have been so terrified of Dole's shadow that they have failed to tell the story. And the ACLU is still trying to decide whether purloining a thousand FBI files is a good idea or not.

Finally, for all the liberal outrage at the D'Amato hearings, those who have followed Whitewater give D'Amato & Co. low marks for aggressiveness and some suspect that the committee deliberately shied away from key areas for reasons best known to itself.

Reliable sources:

On the whole, the best coverage of Whitewater has come from the British and American conservative press. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and his paper, the Telegraph, has kept London readers far more current on the scandals than has any American daily. The Times of London has periodically beaten the American press. Contrary to the impression in some quarters, the Washington Times's reporting is generally quite accurate and has been absolutely essential to following the story. Jerry Seper of the Times got on Clinton's case early and, fortunately, won't let go. One criticism you hear about the Times, however, is that it has failed to stay on the Foster case (Rush Limbaugh, by the way, gets upset if a caller suggests it was murder).

Other good by-lines to follow include Christopher Ruddy out of Pittsburgh and John Crudele out of the New York Post, but you won't find their stuff being picked up by other media because it cuts too close to the bone. If the Foster death is ever solved, a lot of credit will have to go to Ruddy. The American Spectator has also broken major stuff.

Finally, the best book on Whitewater is Partners in Power by Roger Morris, which the New York Times still hasn't reviewed despite it being on its bestseller list. And we, of course, will continue to keep you informed as best we can.