Clinton Fabricated Conversation In Book

[j25352857]

http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article502947.html


Clinton's 'Life' Tinted Crimson
Former president’s autobiography attacks gov prof, praises Summers

By TIMOTHY J. MCGINN
Crimson Staff Writer


CRIMSON/ SARAH M.J. WELCH
Brian Ray, studying at Harvard over the summer, browses through former president Bill Clinton’s autobiography at the Harvard Coop. The book lauds University President Lawrence H. Summers and criticizes Dunster House Master Roger B. Porter.
Article Options
Email this article to a friend
Send a letter to the editor
Print this article
There are places Bill Clinton remembers in My Life—just not too well, according to Kennedy School of Government professor and Dunster House Master Roger B. Porter, who alleges that the former president fabricated a damning conversation between the two of them in his newly-published memoir.

Recalling the impetus for his 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton writes that he was initially ambivalent towards seeking the office, but says that a call from Porter “showed what was wrong with [then-President George H. W. Bush’s] administration.”

According to Clinton’s book, Porter—then Bush’s Economic and Domestic Policy Adviser—said that while other potential Democratic opponents could be undermined through weaknesses grounded in their politics, the Arkansas governor was “different.”

“Here’s how Washington works,” Clinton quotes Porter as saying. “The press has to have somebody and we’re going to give them you...We’ll spend whatever we have to spend to get whoever we have to get to say whatever they have to say to take you out. And we’ll do it early.”

But the only conversation Porter can recall the two having came during President Bush’s 1989 Education Summit with the Governors, at which he joked with Clinton about how he ought to run for president in much the same fashion as Ronald Reagan—as a Republican.

“We never had any conversation as he has described in his book,” Porter said last night. “You don’t remember every conversation in life, but I would certainly remember a conversation like that.”

Porter pointed to “tell-tale” signals within the purported dialogue as confirming his version of the account, singling out the use of the word “crap.” Clinton wrote that Porter broke off a policy conversation with “Cut the crap, Governor,” before the alleged threats.

“That’s not the way I talk,” Porter said, “and anybody who’s been around me knows that’s not the way I talk.”

Porter also dismissed claims that anyone in George H.W. Bush’s administration would make such a call, stating that discussions of smearing Clinton never took place during any of the meetings he attended or was aware of during his time at the White House.

“That was not President Bush’s style or that of those who worked for him,” Porter said.

Clinton’s allegations initially surfaced during his first term in office, when Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward learned of the account.

According to the White House Bulletin on June 23, 2004, provided by Porter to The Crimson, Woodward stated that he did not think Clinton’s assertion that it was Porter who made the threat was credible enough to be included in his 1994 book The Agenda, which he was then working on.

“[It] sounds like someone from the Sopranos,” Woodward told the Bulletin. “It’s an apocryphal story.”

And while Porter agreed that that is all Clinton’s version of the events amounts to, he was not quite so quick to dismiss its effects.

“In the prologue to his memoir [Clinton] talks about one of the desires of his youth was someday to write a great book,” Porter said. “He concludes with his evaluation: ‘As for the great book, who knows? It sure is a good story.’ Good stories, however, are better if they are grounded in facts.”

Despite what he perceives as his smearing, Porter said that the incident will not taint discussions of Clinton in his popular government course, “The American Presidency.”

“No, it won’t affect my treatment of President Clinton, but I am disappointed in him,” Porter said.

“Why he feels the need to just make stuff up escapes me,” he added.

Porter was not the only current Harvard faculty member to earn mention in Clinton’s book.

Kennedy School of Government professor David Gergen is described as urging Clinton to disclose documents about the Whitewater real estate scandal—advice which the former president, to his eventual chagrin, decided against.

“I was particularly gratified that he has recognized it could have saved him a very long and bruising confrontation and we never would have heard from Ken Starr or any of the other controversy,” Gergen told The Crimson yesterday.

Two former Secretaries of the Treasury—University President Lawrence H. Summers and his Treasury predecessor Robert E. Rubin ’60, currently a member of the Harvard Corporation—each garnered praise for their service on his Cabinet.

But while Clinton had uniformly kind words for Summers, he cited a few shortcomings in the range of his knowledge, most notably in the world of entertainment.

“Larry Summers, who knew everything about economics but little about popular culture, came into the Oval Office one day and remarked that he’d just had a meeting on debt relief with ‘some guy named Bono—just one name—dressed in jeans, a T-shirt, and big sunglasses,’” Clinton writes in the book.

According to Clinton, Summers nevertheless had nothing but praise for the man he didn’t know was the lead singer of U2.

“‘He came to see me about debt relief, and he knows what he’s talking about,’” Clinton quotes Summers as saying about Bono.

“I didn’t know Bono,” Summers admitted yesterday through a spokesperson. “I do now and my kids really love going backstage.”
_____________________________________________________________


The lies didn't stop when he left office, I guess.

[rkmsuf]

yes but did Porter take steriods?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

yes but did Porter take steriods?

I'm sorry, this is all circumstantial evidence. Just because he said that he said this happened does not make it so.

[Erik133]

Looks like Clinton is trying to become a writer for the NY Times..

[rkmsuf]

It could very well be true. Who knows. Old Port doesn't want to look bad. He's probably 2 sandwiches short of a picnic.

[Bee]

It's the liberal media again

edit: Or the vast right wing conspiracy.

take your pick

[Franklinnoble]

Bah. Clinton has made his living lying his ass off. This comes as no surprise.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by Bee

It's the liberal media again

edit: Or the vast right wing conspiracy.

take your pick

I thought it was the media's east coast bias.

[Ksyrup]

Everyone's coming out of the woodworks to jump on this train...



LONDON (AP) -- Monica Lewinsky said Bill Clinton is a "revisionist of history" who lied about their relationship in his new memoir, according to a British newspaper.

In an interview with The Daily Mail, Lewinsky called the former president's account of their relationship dishonest and said he has missed an opportunity to undo some of the damage their entanglement caused her.

"He could have made it right with the book," the newspaper quoted her as saying. "But he hasn't. He is a revisionist of history. He has lied."

Lewinsky, now 30, the former White House intern whose affair with Clinton led to his impeachment, said his description of their relationship in his just-published "My Life" made it sound like the dalliance came only at her initiative and was purely physical.

"I really didn't expect him to go into detail about our relationship" in the memoir, she said.

"But if he had and he'd done it honestly, I wouldn't have minded. ... I did though at least expect him to correct the false statements he made when he was trying to protect the presidency.

"Instead, he talked about it as though I had laid it all out there for the taking. I was the buffet and he just couldn't resist the dessert," she was quoted as saying.

"That's not how it was. This was a mutual relationship, mutual on all levels, right from the way it started and all the way through. ... I don't accept that he had to completely desecrate my character."

Clinton wrote that his affair with Lewinsky revealed "the darkest part of my inner life" and led to his temporary banishment from the White House bedroom.

He said on CBS' "60 Minutes" that he became involved with Lewinsky "for the worst possible reason. Just because I could."

The Daily Mail said it interviewed Lewinsky, who lives in New York, at an undisclosed U.S. location.

The newspaper did not immediately respond to a question about whether it paid Lewinsky for the interview, a common practice in the British press.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Everyone's coming out of the woodworks to jump on this train...



LONDON (AP) -- Monica Lewinsky said Bill Clinton is a "revisionist of history" who lied about their relationship in his new memoir, according to a British newspaper.

In an interview with The Daily Mail, Lewinsky called the former president's account of their relationship dishonest and said he has missed an opportunity to undo some of the damage their entanglement caused her.

"He could have made it right with the book," the newspaper quoted her as saying. "But he hasn't. He is a revisionist of history. He has lied."

Lewinsky, now 30, the former White House intern whose affair with Clinton led to his impeachment, said his description of their relationship in his just-published "My Life" made it sound like the dalliance came only at her initiative and was purely physical.

"I really didn't expect him to go into detail about our relationship" in the memoir, she said.

"But if he had and he'd done it honestly, I wouldn't have minded. ... I did though at least expect him to correct the false statements he made when he was trying to protect the presidency.

"Instead, he talked about it as though I had laid it all out there for the taking. I was the buffet and he just couldn't resist the dessert," she was quoted as saying.

"That's not how it was. This was a mutual relationship, mutual on all levels, right from the way it started and all the way through. ... I don't accept that he had to completely desecrate my character."

Clinton wrote that his affair with Lewinsky revealed "the darkest part of my inner life" and led to his temporary banishment from the White House bedroom.

He said on CBS' "60 Minutes" that he became involved with Lewinsky "for the worst possible reason. Just because I could."

The Daily Mail said it interviewed Lewinsky, who lives in New York, at an undisclosed U.S. location.

The newspaper did not immediately respond to a question about whether it paid Lewinsky for the interview, a common practice in the British press.

Heh, someone wants their 15 mins of fame extended to 17...

[JPhillips]

Well let's impeach him again! He has to be the first person to make himself look good in his autobiography. It's a good thing noone else has ever done this. What would the children think?

[Ksyrup]

Nah...he's old news. More amusing than anything. Monica sounds like any woman who has been in a relationship where the man won't say he had the same level of feelings that she did. Nothing new there.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Heh, someone wants their 15 mins of fame extended to 17...

Two Chubby posts and nothing from cthomer? Has that died already?

Oh, and you're right: I wish Clinton would just go away

[sabotai]

"That's not how it was. This was a mutual relationship, mutual on all levels, right from the way it started and all the way through. ... I don't accept that he had to completely desecrate my character."


Isn't this what the chick ALWAYS says when the guy just uses them? It's like she's reading from a script that everyone has heard a million times. Girl wants guy, guy takes it because he can and wants to play a bit, girl thinks it's a mutual, caring relationship. The guy used you honey, get over it.

[NoMyths]

I guess we'll just have to wait for Clinton to die to remember the good things that happened in America while he was in office.

This isn't to say there weren't bad things--I'll take the wheat with the chaff, thank you very much--but watching America disintegrate over the last four years has me thinking nostalgically about the 90s.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Two Chubby posts and nothing from cthomer? Has that died already?

Oh, and you're right: I wish Clinton would just go away

Well as a dem I don't think it's helping matters that he's in the spotlight for Kerry even tho I know that's not what you meant

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I guess we'll just have to wait for Clinton to die to remember the good things that happened in America while he was in office.

He's the one who decided to write a book and rewrite history while doing it.

Originally Posted by NoMyths

This isn't to say there weren't bad things--I'll take the wheat with the chaff, thank you very much--but watching America disintegrate over the last four years has me thinking nostalgically about the 90s.

Disintegrate? Really? I just don't see stuff as any worse than it has been for the last two decades or so. Some things better, some things worse. Other countries were laughing at us with Clinton in office, now they're annoyed with Bush in office. I'm making more money than I was, the economy is rebounding from the dip it took after everyone figured out all those big corporate profits from the 90s Clinton years were a big sham, we're finally going after the people that want all Americans dead instead of letting them just snipe at us whenever they feel like it, I'm watching High Definition television, the Patriots have won two Super Bowls, Tampa Bay won the one in between, the Lightning won the Stanley Cup...

Yeah, the country is just going to hell in a handbasket right before our eyes.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

He's the one who decided to write a book and rewrite history while doing it.

I think things get misremembered when it comes to this stuff. I have no insight onto whether or not the story mentioned above is fabricated or not, but I'm generally inclined to believe Clinton over a guy who wouldn't want to look as bad as that conversation makes him look. Shurg.

Disintegrate? Really? I just don't see stuff as any worse than it has been for the last two decades or so. Some things better, some things worse. Other countries were laughing at us with Clinton in office, now they're annoyed with Bush in office. I'm making more money than I was, the economy is rebounding from the dip it took after everyone figured out all those big corporate profits from the 90s Clinton years were a big sham, we're finally going after the people that want all Americans dead instead of letting them just snipe at us whenever they feel like it, I'm watching High Definition television, the Patriots have won two Super Bowls, Tampa Bay won the one in between, the Lightning won the Stanley Cup...

Yeah, the country is just going to hell in a handbasket right before our eyes.

Since you're able to tune out with your HDTV (a luxery most of the world's inhabitants could work their entire lives not to afford) I'll grant you that your position of comfort allows for a bit less panic. That being as it is, I can't recall when a time when the public was as deeply divided as it is now. Nor can I recall a time when the world was as mistrustful of and furious at our country for its foreign policy. On September 12, 2001, we had more global goodwill than at arguably any point in our history. Today we have arguably the least amount. How did we get there?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Since you're able to tune out with your HDTV (a luxery most of the world's inhabitants could work their entire lives not to afford) I'll grant you that your position of comfort allows for a bit less panic. That being as it is, I can't recall when a time when the public was as deeply divided as it is now.

Well, reason #1 is your first statement. I've worked my tail off to get where I am, and people like you aren't happy that I've managed to get there. I blame much of this attitude on Clinton and the Democrats: open class warfare was the main political strategy he used to catapult himself into office. Twisting anything the Republicans tried to do as "benefits for the wealthy", while twisting anything they did as "benefits for the common man." How exactly can you give an income tax break to people who pay no income tax again?

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Nor can I recall a time when the world was as mistrustful of and furious at our country for its foreign policy. On September 12, 2001, we had more global goodwill than at arguably any point in our history. Today we have arguably the least amount. How did we get there?

Because countries like Russia and France preferred to play political games for their own benefit rather than help us go after the people that attacked us. We decided to go after these people no matter what others thought. We were the ones attacked, and we have every right to defend ourselves. If the United Nations had done its job, maybe we wouldn't have this problem, but they didn't, and 9/11 showed us that we needed to take care of things ourselves since no one else was going to take care of it for us.

[Ksyrup]

Ask me if I care about the opinions of countries who had financial reasons to oppose the Iraq war, or of countries whose citizens cheer acts of terrorism. I don't. More importantly, neither should our country.

[j25352857]

its good to see someone picking up the liberal slack while flasch is gone

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I guess we'll just have to wait for Clinton to die to remember the good things that happened in America while he was in office.

This isn't to say there weren't bad things--I'll take the wheat with the chaff, thank you very much--but watching America disintegrate over the last four years has me thinking nostalgically about the 90s.

For the record, I'd just like to point out that there was no political commentary in this thread from conservatives, yet this was the third pre-emptive "defense" of Clinton and/or attack of Bush. I posted the Monica story because I thought the female perspective thing was pretty funny. As for Clinton lying...there's no need to argue the point, he admitted it to all of us.

Can't we all unite behind a common cause - to laugh at Monica?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

For the record, I'd just like to point out that there was no political commentary in this thread from conservatives, yet this was the third pre-emptive "defense" of Clinton and/or attack of Bush.

No, I think I'll get dinged for starting it with my attempt to turn Chubby's "someone trying to turn 15 minutes of fame into 17" as a crack about Clinton instead of Monica, so technically I as a conservative may be guilty of introducing political commentary. I really was just trying to be funny. But I have no idea if NoMyths "wait for Clinton to die" bit was targeted at my crack or the thread as a whole.

[Ksyrup]

But you don't need to be a conservative to take a shot at Clinton, the person. I guess maybe NoMyths' post is the instigator, since he took the personal jokes about Clinton and turned them into a defense of his presidency and swipe at Bush, who was nowhere to be found in this thread until then.

NoMyths, that was uncalled for! We're only looking for personal potshots here.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

No, I think I'll get dinged for starting it with my attempt to turn Chubby's "someone trying to turn 15 minutes of fame into 17" as a crack about Clinton instead of Monica, so technically I as a conservative may be guilty of introducing political commentary. I really was just trying to be funny. But I have no idea if NoMyths "wait for Clinton to die" bit was targeted at my crack or the thread as a whole.

I knew what ya meant, you gotta remember everyone is testy when it comes to politics around here

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Well, reason #1 is your first statement. I've worked my tail off to get where I am, and people like you aren't happy that I've managed to get there. I blame much of this attitude on Clinton and the Democrats: open class warfare was the main political strategy he used to catapult himself into office. Twisting anything the Republicans tried to do as "benefits for the wealthy", while twisting anything they did as "benefits for the common man." How exactly can you give an income tax break to people who pay no income tax again?

I'm perfectly happy that you managed to get where you are...I was only pointing out that much of the world doesn't live in similar circumstances, despite their amount of effort. I'm less interested in the "people like you" argument.

Because countries like Russia and France preferred to play political games for their own benefit rather than help us go after the people that attacked us. We decided to go after these people no matter what others thought. We were the ones attacked, and we have every right to defend ourselves. If the United Nations had done its job, maybe we wouldn't have this problem, but they didn't, and 9/11 showed us that we needed to take care of things ourselves since no one else was going to take care of it for us.

The U.N. is a world peacekeeping organization, and tried to do its job. The Bush Administration thwarted it.

KSyrup: I just thought it was important to point out that "Clinton fabricated this story" isn't a fact, it's an allegation. It is of course interesting that my pointing out matters of political disagreement once again led to folks taking shots at me, but I suppose I'll just let that slide again. I don't have a good enough memory to keep tracks of the folks around here who disagree with me in order to complain about them personally every time they post an article with which I take issue.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

KSyrup: I just thought it was important to point out that "Clinton fabricated this story" isn't a fact, it's an allegation. It is of course interesting that my pointing out matters of political disagreement once again led to folks taking shots at me, but I suppose I'll just let that slide again. I don't have a good enough memory to keep tracks of the folks around here who disagree with me in order to complain about them personally every time they post an article with which I take issue.

I'm sorry, you'll have to show me where in this post you pointed out that the story wasn't a fact, but an allegation:

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I guess we'll just have to wait for Clinton to die to remember the good things that happened in America while he was in office.

This isn't to say there weren't bad things--I'll take the wheat with the chaff, thank you very much--but watching America disintegrate over the last four years has me thinking nostalgically about the 90s.

There is no "political disagreement" over what the articles say. They are self-explanatory. You can point out the biases/history of the writers or subjects of the articles without going into a full-scale defense of Clinton's administration and a shot at the current administration in doing so, though. That's what I was reacting to. None of the posts before yours went where yours did, and it just struck me as unnecessary. Even though Clinton is undeniably a political figure, the thread didn't need to disinegrate into an argument over administration policies.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

The U.N. is a world peacekeeping organization, and tried to do its job. The Bush Administration thwarted it.

The UN spent TWELVE YEARS trying to investigate Saddam. After 9/11, we just couldn't wait any longer.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The UN spent TWELVE YEARS trying to investigate Saddam. After 9/11, we just couldn't wait any longer.

You're right. We don't need hard facts to invade countries, it's not we're saying they take steroids or anything

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Chubby

You're right. We don't need hard facts to invade countries, it's not we're saying they take steroids or anything

The hard fact was that Hussein did NOT comply with any UN resolutions, and those were in place to secure the safety of the region.

His non-compliance was a hostile act, and the UN was too chicken-shit to do anything about it. We took the bull by the horns, and in doing so, we sent the right message.

Don't fuck with the USA.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

The hard fact was that Hussein did NOT comply with any UN resolutions, and those were in place to secure the safety of the region.

His non-compliance was a hostile act, and the UN was too chicken-shit to do anything about it. We took the bull by the horns, and in doing so, we sent the right message.

Don't fuck with the USA.

So when are we going to invade ourselves for not complying with UN resolutions our paying out fees?

I don't think that's the message that got sent. I think it was more of the reinforcing of "We will do whatever the fuck we want". not exactly the message we want to be sending around now is is?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

The U.N. is a world peacekeeping organization, and tried to do its job. The Bush Administration thwarted it.

So it's the UN's job to run cover for every two-bit dictator who kills hundreds of thousands of his own people (especially when it can profit at the expense of said people)?

[Leonidas]

The guy lied under oath (leading to his impeachment, not a blow job), so why is anyone the least bit surprised he'd lie in his book?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

So it's the UN's job to run cover for every two-bit dictator who kills hundreds of thousands of his own people (especially when it can profit at the expense of said people)?

That's our job.

[TroyF]

What I find interesting is just how quickly history is being revised right before our eyes.

Take the "country divided" line by NoMyths.

That being as it is, I can't recall when a time when the public was as deeply divided as it is now.

In 2000, this country went through one of the closest elections in our history. We were almost evenly split in our voting of the two candidates, as well as the fall out after The Supreme Court ended the process with one of its most controversial votes in history.

How much more divided can we get?

What you guys who are against the war seem to be forgetting is that those of us for the war would have been just as pissed as you guys are now had we not went in. After 9/11, we felt that it was time for the US to become more proactive. That meant going after people who were openly defying the UN and openly supporting terrorists. (while no Al-Queda/Iraqi link has been made, Saddam was giving money to the suicide bombers families. He WAS openly supporting terrorism)

You act as though we'd be just peachy if Bush had decided to sit the war out. Wrong. In fact, we'd probably be seeing even more venom from the people who supported the war. Remember, before we went into Iraq, there wasn't a question of WMD's. It was a worldwide assumption they were there or that Saddam was actively working on them. (I direct you to the '98 letter written by Kerry or the comments Clinton made just a week ago)

This is an ISSUE that has divided this country. I firmly believe had Clinton been the one to attack, Americans would be largely for the war. (even if it didn't go as planned) He'd have had the charisma and the personality to have convinced the majority. Bush wasn't blessed with a booming voice, a quick wit, or a face made for TV. He would have had an incredibly tough time convincing me that Iraq wasn't the place to fight had he attempted to run away from the issue. Those same flaws would have hit him the same had his directed to go another way.