The sordid saga of The Telegraph and Bill Clinton!

It is funny you (Liz Fabian) brought up Bill Clinton in relation to Cain because we just spent a few days at the library on Washington Street refreshing our memory. 

We wanted to make sure that we were correct when we referred to the sordid way The Macon Telegraph handled the Clinton situation and the “hi-tech” lynching of Cain which can be seen here. The Telegraph's "hi-tech" lynching of Herman Cain!

Jan. 23^rd 1992 – The Star broke the Gennifer Flowers story. The Telegraph and AP began to prepare their attack mode to be used on the messenger.

Jan. 25^th – The Telegraph put out their first feelers in a story titled “Clinton prepares to battle allegations of infidelity”, telling us how “The Star reported that Flowers taped phone calls last year in which Clinton urged her to remain quiet.” Note, at this point the messenger is just the “Star”.

According to The Telegraph’s story Clinton instructed Flowers in what she should do if reporters contacted her. Does this sound familiar?  His instructions to her were “If they ever hit you with it, just say no and go on.” According to The Telegraph story this was “on Sept. 23 1991” Clinton continued “There’s nothing they can do. I expect them (reporters) to look into it and come interview you. But if everybody is on record denying it – no problem.”

We are then told that “Clintons campaign conceded the taped conversations took place, but insisted Clinton was counseling her on how to deal with malicious and inaccurate rumors.”

The Telegraph and AP took their cue, “malicious and inaccurate rumors.” and ran with it. They have never looked back!

On the same day they went into the defence mode for the Clintons. They ran an AP article titled “On the road – Clinton’s wife campaigns for husband, disputes allegations.” Hillary put forth what was to become the theme that The Telegraph was to adhere to. “I don’t know what to do about that other than say it’s not true and trust the American people to make the calculation themselves.” They now had their theme, “…say it’s not true and trust the American people…” to bite.

Jan. 26^th – Bill and Hillary appeared on “60 Minutes” and the Nation got a taste of things to come from both the Clintons and the media.

Jan. 27^th – Gennifer Flowers played the tapes according to an article run in The Telegraph dated Jan. 29, 1992.

On this same day The Telegraph ran another AP article titled “Clinton, wife say fidelity questions are irrelevant”.  This article was written in order to help put Gennifer Flowers behind Bill and Hillary Clinton.  The messenger had become “the super-market tabloid, the Star.” Then The Telegraph and the AP gave Clinton free range and helped establish The Clinton defence. Again they took their cue from the Clintons. The article tells us “In an interview with The Associated Press, Clinton said his message to voters was, ‘We’re putting this in your hand – you get to decide.”

The instructions here were to get Clinton’s “…message to voters…”Now let us look at what The Telegraph and AP do.

Jan. 28^th – The Telegraph ran on the front page above the fold an article titled “Woman says Clinton lied about affair”.  This was a Knight-Ridder story. Knight-Ridder at that time owned The Macon Telegraph.

The article explains how “The woman” tells a “supermarket tabloid” how she was “…Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton’s long time lover….”  We are also informed she had “…offered excerpts from tapes of telephone conversations that she said proved her claims….”

In this case it was “The past weekend of he-said-she-said has come from a single question: Who’s lying?

The article then covers rhetoric about the other candidates in the race and one individual that thinks the entire thing is a “non-issue….”

The article is closed out with the story of Larry Nichols and his tale that “…Clinton had been involved with six different women.”

Of course to put this to rest we are told that “…Arkansas press investigations could not corroborate anything Nichols said. John R. Starr, managing editor the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette newspaper in Little Rock, said he interviewed Nichols and concluded he was lying.”

We would have to assume this was an attempt to put things to bed before it got out of hand.

Jan. 28^th – Here comes the clincher, only five days after Gennifer Flowers, The Telegraph in an editorial titled “Can one sleazy story destroy Clinton candidacy?” began to issue instructions.

The Telegraph tells the people of middle Georgia how they are to handle what they have characterized as “one sleazy story.” Their instructions were “Let’s be very careful and very specific in judging Gov. Bill Clinton, a leading Democratic presidential candidate in trouble with his past.”

The Telegraph assures us that “Clinton’s problem is not so much that his marital background includes infidelities; he’s admitted rough spots in his marriage.” But Clinton, the poor thing: “His problem stems from allegations in a sleazy supermarket tabloid that pays big money for its muck.” We must note that the messenger has progressed to “a sleazy supermarket tabloid that pays big money for its muck.”

Clinton’s problem is not that he is dishonest, willingly tells lies and indicates he is more than willing to tamper with witnesses both now and in the future, and among other things, it’s those: “…allegations in a sleazy supermarket tabloid that pays big money for its muck.”

The editorial apparently can not or does not want to pin down the amount of “big money” so they settle for what is an apparent rumor. It is “(reportedly anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000)” Of course “Clinton has denied the affair ever occurred.” Therefore it must not be true. However, The Telegraph has to cover their ass, (considering the subject we trust the word ass will not offend anyone) so it’s “Of course we don’t know whether it [affair] did or didn’t. The question is whether allegations – and that’s all they are – from a source paid big bucks by a scandal sheet are enough to derail a presidential  candidacy. If that’s the case it would seem the political process itself is in big trouble.”

Then it looks as if they feel they have to justify Gary Hart. They point out they have “…serious doubt that he had the necessary judgment and self-discipline to be president." Apparently they feel Clinton is overrun with “judgment and self-discipline”.

However in the case of this poor guy Clinton, it’s “With Clinton, we have a man whose survival as presidential candidacy hangs on accusations via ‘checkbook’ journalism from a questionable source.”

We can see the tears flooding down their face as the editorial continues with poor ole “Clinton’s personal-past is not irrelevant. But if his candidacy can be blown out of the water by one allegation, priorities are askew. What happened to judging a candidate on his governmental record, programs and ideas?”

This is in vivid contrast to the hatchet job and character assassination they would perform on the Republican Presidential Candidate Herman Cain years later. This sort of lays aside any accusations that they are racist. However it does indicate nothing more than a bunch of hard core bigots at The Telegraph.   

This one editorial established the way The Telegraph would handle anything the Clinton administration would peddle for the next eight years, it continues to this day. What they did is not honest and it is not pretty.

This same day The Telegraph trots out James J. Kilpatrick’s column “Clinton won more decisively Sunday than did the Redskins” Kilpatrick comes across as a chauvinistic pig, but he serves the intended purpose.

In regard to Bill and Hillary’s appearance on 60 Minutes Kilpatrick’s opinion is that “In effect, he [Bill Clinton] took the Fifth Amendment. That recourse carries an inescapable inference of guilt.”

So to this Kilpatrick’s reaction is “So be it. And so What? By every indication the Clintons’ marriage is solid now.”

Kilpatrick then goes on to inform us that “The principle allegation against Clinton, that he carried on a 12 year affair with one Gennifer Flowers, is old stuff.” 

 The Column continues “This time around, the Flowers woman sold her story to a sleazebag tabloid, The Star. She got thousands of dirty dollars for it.” Kilpatrick then finds fault with “…my brothers and sisters of the major media…” because they decided that it was “…news that must be given wide circulation.”

This “sleazebag” [Kilpatrick] who probably gets “…thousands of dirty dollars…” from what could be considered “…a sleazebag tabloid…” like The Macon Telegraph goes on to tell us about the following:

“…Rep. Wilbur Mills of Arkansas…” who everyone knew had “…a drinking problem, but we regarded it as Wilbur’s own Business…”

Then there was “…Rep. Wayne Hays of Ohio…” who “…had put a paramour on the payroll though she could scarcely type a line.”

Kilpatrick chooses to tell us here that “Misconduct on the part of a public servant has to be overt.”

He then goes on to tell us that “Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia, while governor, went to parties where coke was being used.”

There was “Sen. Bob Kerrey, while governor of Nebraska, enjoyed a close relationship with actress Debra Winger.”

Off course there was “Evangelist Pat Robertson, a candidate four years ago, [who] confessed to premarital sex.” And the incompetent Jimmy Carter who “…told Playboy that he had known lust in his heart.”

This chauvinistic pig [Kilpatrick] posing as a journalist ends the column with the following paragraph: “In agreeing to the ’60 Minutes’ grilling, Bill Clinton took a gamble. This is no bad quality in a man who would be president. He won hands down, and good for him. I’m not ashamed of Clinton. I’m more ashamed of us.” Reasonable people will have to assume he means the press. The messenger has become a “sleazebag tabloid, The Star.” So we don’t know if this is an upgrade or not.

Jan 29^th – “Clinton apologizes for remarks on Cuomo”

The Telegraph and AP goes all out with this and in order to emphasize their effort to infer what Clinton did is O.K. On the jump page where they continue the article they run an adjoining article from AP explaining that “Europe politicians’ private lives usually are off-limits to media”. Across the top of both, the heading tells us “Clinton apologizes for his taped remarks”.

This is where “Clinton is heard saying Cuomo ‘acts like’ a Mafioso and refers to Cuomo as “a mean son of a bitch.”

“Clinton aides confirmed he made the remarks.”

After a brief mention of Flowers, after all the tapes were hers, the article turns to the purpose at hand. The purpose of the article was not to apologize to Como, it was to try and minimize any offence to Italian American voters.

After more rhetoric Cuomo was right on cue when he “…suggested Americans should be more worried about ‘the indication of snide condescension, bigotry,’ than unproven rumors of marital infidelity.”

Then to remind everyone what they were suppose to remember, it is pointed out that “Flowers, first in a paid interview in the Star Tabloid, then at a news conference, made unsubstantiated claims she and Clinton had an affair for 12 years. Clinton denies it.” We must remember things are looking up for the messenger which has been upgraded to “Star Tabloid”.

On the jump page, just to make sure everyone understood what The Telegraph is trying to tell them. They tells us in the AP article titled “Europe politicians’ private lives usually are off-limits to media”

They make it clear in the first paragraph that “…what they do in the boudoir rarely makes headlines or derails a career.”

They feel that you should know that the “respected newspaper Le Monde” assures everyone that “The media, like the people, believe that public and private lives are totally separate.”  And that “Cheating on your wife is banal.” It certainly doesn’t indicate whether the person is fit to hold public office, but breaking the law is something else.”

We are told how the French “…looks with bemusement on the furor over allegations of extramarital affairs involving Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton.”

They then go on with more rhetoric to support their views and end the piece with “In Italy, commentators have wondered why Americans appear to give so much weight to a candidate’s romantic life and view the Clinton case as another example of America’s obsession with sex.”

Also on this day The Telegraph ran an article by the Associated Press titled “Wynette angered by Clinton’s remark”.  The article was intended to make light of the comments by Hillary Clinton in The 60 minutes interview of her and Bill Clinton!

Jan. 30^th – The Telegraph ran a column by Cal Thomas with the title “Have U.S. voter lost confidence in Clinton?”

As always Thomas is sensible and lays out three issues which he elaborates on. They are:

“One is the alleged act or acts of adultery and whether Clinton is guilty as accused.” Thomas continues with “That these charges surfaced most recently in a sleazy publication that paid money for an interview with a woman who makes the allegation is no reason to dismiss them outright. Adultery, after all, is a sleazy subject.”

“The Second issue is whether, if he did commit adultery, it was in the past, not ongoing (as with Gary Hart)….”

“The third issue is whether adultery is relevant to a presidential campaign.” He then points out that “Adultery is just one of many of the character issues that Democrats have failed to successfully address in recent campaigns.”

Jan. 31^st – The Telegraph runs an article by Knight-Ridder Newspapers titled “Clinton seems to be riding the storm out”. The so-called journalist of Knight-Ridder went on to spread the same type of garbage for McClatchy newspapers after McClatchy purchased Knight Ridder in 2006.

By now everyone is feeling upbeat: The instructions from the 27^th had been get Clinton’s “…message to voters…” Looking back The Telegraph and AP can be proud of what they accomplished. We can see where they followed Clinton’s instruction to a “T” and truly earned their “keep”.

The first paragraph tells us that; “Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton seems to be weathering the storm stirred by unsubstantiated allegations of extramarital affairs.” The article continued with the information we have reduced to the following bullets:

·        “Polls that once showed him slipping now show him bouncing back to the head of the field.”

·        “Well-timed endorsements from party officials from Texas to New Hampshire have bolstered campaign morale when they were needed most.”

·        “Clinton himself has appeared unflappable, even relaxed, as he chats with voters, signs autographs and sticks to his grinding campaign schedule.”

·        “Even the media ‘feeding frenzy’ has subsided. When Clinton was interviewed Wednesday night by the influential Manchester TV station, WMUR, there was no mention Gennifer Flowers, no questions about

alleged infidelity.”

The article went onto declare that it was over with, telling us that: “Since Flowers asserted a week ago in a supermarket tabloid (for a fee reportedly topping $130,000) that she had a 12-year affair with the Democratic presidential hopeful, it seemed the questions would never cease.”

The article then declares “Now they have.” The rest of the article was dedicated to making light of the subject.

Feb. 1st – The Telegraphs run a piece by Cox Newspapers with the heading “Clinton’s Wife jokes about ‘affair’ at roast” The tapes had been aired. But it was still according to the media “Tabloid allegations of a romance between Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and a cabaret singer…”

When asked “It’s 10 o’clock, Hillary, where is Bill Clinton?” asked talk show host Larry King, the roast emcee.”

Hillary’s punch line was “Bill Clinton is with the other woman in his life … his daughter, Chelsea,”

Its simply amazing what the power of the pen can do when the individuals wielding that power cast aside any and all presence of ethics, morals and honesty to take up the work of the devil. But the work has to be reinforced. It is way too early to let the guard down. It is time to bring in the heavy guns.

Feb. 3^rd – The Telegraph ran a column by former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Jean Kirkpatrick. The title was “Candidates’ private lives shouldn’t overshadow the more vital issues” She makes some interesting observations and ends the column with the statement “That the personal life of a candidate is only one factor in choosing leaders – and not necessarily the most important one.”

Kirkpatrick has served her purpose and The Telegraph used it to help excuse Clinton’s degeneracy.

Feb. 7^th The Telegraph and AP are handed another problem in an article titled “Clinton defends his record on Vietnam draft”, but they had to be full of confidence, just look what they had just accomplished.

In the first paragraph we are told “Democratic presidential contender Bill Clinton on Thursday denied he tried to avoid the Vietnam draft, while his Democratic rivals said the issue raises questions about his character.”

For The Telegraph and AP their mission was clear. “Democratic presidential contender Bill Clinton on Thursday denied he tried to avoid the Vietnam draft….” Things could not be clearer, Clinton had denied it, it must be true, so again, the task was to get Clinton’s “message to voters”. That would be a simple task for the power of the pen and people who were more than willing to disregard any morals, ethics and turn up their nose at honest journalism.

Feb. 8^th – This time The Telegraph and AP would start with the big gun. They had to be full of confidence and cocksure of themselves. They now knew everyone was willing to cooperate. The call had come and they would answer with an article titled “Nunn: Too early to tell how voters will react to Clinton”. This was a cinch, in the first, second and third paragraphs we are reassured and we are told “Sen. Nunn said Friday he still supports Bill Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination….”

Everyone is reminded that “The Georgia Democrat, who endorsed Clinton in December…” wasn’t concerned about “…reports this week that Clinton tried to avoid the draft during the Vietnam War.” Nunn being realistic opinions “It will be a factor…” Then the great Sam Nunn assured everyone that “…if Bill Clinton’s story is accurate and holds up …it seems to me it would not be a huge issue.” The mighty Nunn had calmed the raging seas in Georgia!

The Telegraph now returns to the tried and true method they used with the first problem.

Everyone is assured that “Clinton denied reports Thursday that he tried to get out of the draft by agreeing to sign up for a reserve officers training program that he never joined.” And to show everyone how big Clinton’s heart was, “He said he gave up his draft deferment in 1969 after two months because ‘I didn’t think it was right.’” Clinton with a sense of right or wrong, what a joke!

No honest moral and ethical reporter would ever question such a big heart, no never.

But just to stay on top of things they would reinforce previous actions. The Telegraph and AP would simply restate what had been the problem and offer up another denial. This was a cinch it had worked before.

We are reminded that: “The draft controversy arose just as the Clinton campaign was recovering from unsubstantiated accusations by an Arkansas woman that she had a 12 year affair with the governor. Clinton denied the charges.”

There that was taken care of. But the great Sam Nunn had to cover his ass. So it is pointed out that “…he believes some issues…are legitimate. There was “…an ‘acute need for high moral leadership and example.’” With this the great Sam Nunn would turn his back on the people of Georgia.

There was more rhetoric for effect and then it was time to close things out.

By simply reinforcing what had been done took care of this. So the reader is told “Nunn, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he personally has no problem with Clinton’s explanation of his draft status during the Vietnam War.”

Then we are assured “Nunn said he doesn’t think it’s ‘on the front burner in the minds of very many people.’”

That’s slick, as slick as boiled okra. No one and we mean no one would ever question the Great Sam Nunn much less state the fact that he had just with his own free will turned his back on the people of the great State of Georgia.

The Telegraph and AP were truly sailing in calm seas.

It is worth noting that in future years during the days of the “blue dress” era

the mighty Sam Nunn wrote a piece for the Washington Post. On Sunday August 23, 1998 in the piece titled “‘This … May Even Require His Resignation’” he tells us that: “It is now clear that President Clinton is primarily responsible for dragging this nation through seven months of preoccupation with the Monica Lewinsky story. The national interest required that he correct any false statements and apologize to the nation months ago.”

Of course when we had read the first paragraph we knew why The Telegraph had ignored him.

Just to be sure we called the late Ron Woodgeard. He told us it was because “The Telegraph did not have an agreement with the Washington Post.” We laughed and he knew he had been caught in a misrepresentation or as the Telegraph would put it caught in a lie. One thing about Ron when he was caught he would come clean. That is more than we can say for some of the others at The Telegraph.

Also of interest after the Clinton impeachment the editorial page editor Charles E. Richardson told us in a phone call he had written a column calling for Clinton’s resignation. But we have not been able to locate it. We know the library does not have a copy. We do not dispute that he wrote the column and one day maybe he will take it from between the mattresses or where ever he put it and we can see a copy.

Feb 13^th – The Telegraph and AP has to come to the rescue again. So in an article Titled “Clinton letter from ’69 denounces Vietnam draft” It had been six days and it was time for The Telegraph and AP to reinforce things, after all they had to earn their money. Beside ABC news had a copy of the letter.

We are talking about the letter Clinton wrote in December of 1969 “…to Col. Eugene Holmes to explain his [Clinton’s] decision to back out of an agreement to join the University of Arkansas reserve officers’ training program, which Holmes directed. Clinton had been granted a deferment when he agreed to join ROTC.”

This was another cinch, after all the mighty Sam Nunn had already spoken. The Telegraph and AP knew what was required; after all they had developed a proven pattern. All they had to do was “…get Clinton’s ‘…message to voters…’ and The Telegraph and AP certainly knew how to do that!

They knew they must, simply state the problem, then give Clinton the floor and get out of the way. And folks that is exactly what they did. The rest of the article was devoted to Clinton’s plans, the article reads like a press release. Judging from the rest of the article, again The Telegraph and the AP carried out Clinton’s instructions to a “T”.

Their only deviation was when closing the article. We would think just maybe it was to salve their consciences, but then we doubt they have one.

For what its worth they assured us that “…neither the White House nor the Bush campaign was involved in the release of the letter.”

With the exception of an AP article that The Telegraph ran back in August 2000, I have never seen a slimier article. The August 2000 article was titled “Book says Nixon beat wife, took drugs”.

These people had the gall a few short days ago to label the Star and Gennifer Flowers slimy. Gennifer Flowers did it for money. These slimy bastards in the so-called media turned their back on the First Ammendment of the Constitution of United States. They did it deliberately too deceive the people of this Great Nation. We are talking about the so-called “free press.”

Oh well, as The Telegraph told the people on Friday May, 2009, “The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that ‘Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ The constitution does not address, directly or by implication, how to ‘report the news,” with or without bias. – Editors”

We might note it does not say anything about the slime balls that publish the so-called news either.

On this day in middle Georgia The Telegraph seem to think they have things under control, however a little reinforcement can never hurt. Therefore The Telegraph runs the AP article titled “Pressure on Clinton to win big in Georgia”. They tell the reader in the first paragraph what they are doing. They tell us that “A top Georgia official said backers of Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton need to shore up support in the state for his presidential campaign as he falls behind in the polls in New Hampshire.”

They invoke Lt. Gov. Pierre Howard’s name, “Howard is a host…” and is sponsoring a “Clinton luncheon and is listed as a supporter by the campaign, but he said he isn’t backing anyone in the primary.” Of course Zell Miller’s name is invoked along with Bernard Craighead, Clinton’s state campaign director.

“ Sen. Eugene walker, D-DeKalb County who is black…” is used to assure everyone that “…allegations that Clinton manipulated a draft deferment during the Vietnam War, which Clinton has denied, don’t matter to him.”

A few thoughts from “…Ron Miller, executive director of the Georgia Veterans Leadership Program,” nothing too strong, the purpose was to smooth over the draft dodging facts not draw attention to them. And that takes care of the veterans.

But taking no chances we are assured by “…Clinton state campaign workers said they have already heard from Vietnam Veterans who are ready to speak up for the Arkansas Governor.”

Then there is a “…James L. Wiggins, district attorney of the Oconee Judicial Circuit, who won a Silver Star in Vietnam.” He wants every one to know “I find no fault in (Clinton’s) conduct.”

This makes us wonder if he got his Silver Star like John Kerry, the known traitor. After Kerry’s treason with then President Jimmy Carter’s help he went on to the U.S. Senate.

Jimmy Carter was Commander in Chief January 20, 1977 – January 20, 1981. In documents released by the traitor John Kerry when he was running for president we are told he was not discharged from the United States Navy until 16 Feb. 1978. This stems from a six-year obligation that became effective on 16 Feb. 1966 and was extended until 16 Feb. 1978 when he was discharge.  This overlapped Carter’s time in office for a period of a little over a year. Something happened! The records Kerry released during his presidential bid did not show an extension of service or reenlistment. Therefore this and a lot of other things point to a legal hold.

A personal word on this, we do not accuse people of this crime lightly. But this is clear-cut. After returning to the states in 1969 and watching the evening news with tears running down my cheeks when the casualty numbers were reported and then later watching people in the streets giving aid and comfort to the enemy I will admit I am not exactly unbiased.

Treason is a crime cited in Article III, Section 3 the United States Constitution. It plainly says “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in Open Court.”

 John Kerry committed Treason on the floor of the U.S. Senate on April 22, 1971 when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is interesting that Kerry was not under oath when he gave his so-called testimony. Millions of people witnessed the testimony along with millions more when he ran for president.

Furthermore if we can believe the so-called historian Douglas Brinkley Kerry began committing these acts of treason while he was still wearing the uniform of an officer of the United States Navy. Therefore he would have come under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ for an offence which carried the death penalty. The offence would have been beyond the reach of the pantywaist at the U.S. Justice Department. The only being on this earth, which had the power to intervene, would have been the Commander in Chief and the President of the United States.

On page 337 in Brinkley’s book Tour of Duty he tells us that:

“An important turning point in Kerry’s life occurred in October 1969, when his sister Peggy – then actively protesting the Vietnam War – volunteered her brother to fly former Robert F. Kennedy speechwriter Adam Walinsky around the state to deliver antiwar addresses.”

Brinkley goes on to tell us that: “Although Kerry flew all over New York with Walinsky, he refused to take part in the so-called Moratorium Day Demonstrations on October 15, declining to show up at massive antiwar protests in either Central Park or Boston Commons.”

Common sense tells reasonable people that Kerry would not participate in these events because he may be recognized.

I do not care what anyone says John Kerry has the blood of United States military personnel on his hands!

There is no statue of limitations on Treason. Unless Carter pardon Kerry all we need is someone to prefer charges and find one more witnesses out of all the millions which watched him commit his acts of treason on April 22, 1971. Because the other witness is setting right here. We will then have everything required by the constitution to straighten things out.

Back to Kerry’s Silver Star.

On page 293 in Brinkley’s book Tour of Duty he tells us that:

“The decision for awarding the Silver Star was made by Zumwalt. He had dozens of Swift boats getting shot at and he wanted to make sure his junior officers were given proper honor.  Zumwalt had at first put Kerry in for the Navy Cross, but that award would take time to clear with the Navy bureaucracy back home. The Silver Star, by contrast, could be given quickly. It was an ‘impact’ award, given shortly after an action to lift morale.”

Anyone who has been there knows what a so-called “‘impact’ award” is. Then there is the controversy between the “Silver Star” and “Navy Cross”. Yes indeed anyone who has been there knows what was going on.

Lets us be clear all medals awarded in such fashion were not ‘impact’ awards, some were richly deserved.

That is enough about this degenerate. Back to the other degenerates, one of which is named Clinton.

It seems like things are well under control so none other than the late Ed Corson decides to stick a toe in the water. It must be safe now.

Feb. 13^th – There can be no doubt what Corson was up to. When we look at the title of his column: “Clinton’s draft dodging hurts more than alleged infidelities” the purpose of the column is then made clear.

In the very first paragraph we are told that “Willis Lee said that ‘what is going to beat Clinton (out of the presidency) is not cheating on his wife but avoiding the draft’. He explained that ‘Only women over 50 are concerned with his infidelity, and most of them are yellow dog Democrats who will vote for him regardless.’” The rest of the column omitted any additional reference to Clinton.

Feb. 14^th  – The Telegraph’s Washington wordsmith Nolan Walters seems to feel that things were safe enough to stick his toe in the water. He recounts and rehashes the same old rhetoric the media has espoused since the beginning of the Clinton saga.

Walters in response to “…accusations he [Clinton] dodged the draft during the Vietnam War.” managed to lend some semblance of discredit to the draft dodging with his “This accusations, in tandem with unproven tabloid charges that Clinton had a long term affair…” seem to provide the discredit.

Of course everything is safe. All the big guns have spoken and as instructed The Telegraph and AP have gotten “Clinton’s ‘…message to voters…’”

That is the beginning saga of The Telegraph, the AP, and the Clinton’s and it has lasted till this day.

The question must be asked, what did the material offered by The Telegraph, the AP and the other sources they used offer that would help the citizens of middle Georgia make an informed decision? For the most part the information offered could have been taken from press releases provided by the Clinton presidential campaign.

Is there any one out there willing to stand before the people, look them in the eye and assert that this honest journalism. Journalism based on honor, the truth, reinforced with ethics and integrity.

If this is not sleazy, deceitful and dishonest, perhaps someone can explain to us why. We promise we will listen with an open mind!

We think when we lay this along side the coverage provide by The Telegraph, AP and any other material used from other sources during the last ten to twelve days to cover the Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain we will have a revealing picture of The Telegraph and the AP!

We think The Telegraph with this and other items, which would be of interest to the voters of central Georgia, have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people cannot trust them.

It must also be pointed out that the willful omission of events which a newspaper has a history of covering and now omits with out an explanation as to why is tantamount to dishonesty.

Reasonable people will have to ask every time they purchase The Telegraph, am I wasting my money?

Have a nice day.