TAKI
TELLS ALL
The
cancellation of the "Night in Las Vegas" jamboree was
the occasion for a delectable bon mot by [London] Spectator
columnist and British Old Rightist Taki
Theodoracopulos:
"The
last time Marc Rich called off a party was in Spain, about
five or six years ago. His Mossad-trained bodyguards were
tipped off that his private jet would be forced down the
moment it left Swiss airspace by Yankee F-16s, so he stayed
put. No reason was offered back then. Although the US
government was out to grab him, Rich had the proverbial
ace up his sleeve. By giving lotsa moolah to Israel, he
was being fed information by Mossad that even the top
brass of the Pentagon weren't getting. Mossad knew that
the snatch was on by listening in on the Americans. They
tipped off the fugitive fraudster, a move that eventually
made Bill Clinton rich, pun intended."
THE
TRUTH WILL OUT
This
has become a story almost completely about clan Clinton,
formerly America's most powerful crime family, now scorned
and testified against by their former consigliares.
The complex conspiracy to win Rich's pardon has been narrowed
down to a simple mercenary operation: contributions to
the Clinton presidential library fund in exchange for
Rich's pardon. But even if the pardon was simply bought
and paid for, it still takes at least two parties to conduct
a transaction, and in all the focus on Clinton the question
of who negotiated the terms of Clinton's beneficence on
Rich's behalf is getting lost. But not entirely: like
a pile of corpses buried in a mass grave, occasionally
some portion of the truth will be seen sticking up through
the ground. The Burton committee – and the Bush administration
– was given a jolt when the Democrats called Lewis
"Scooter" Libby, vice president Dick Cheney's chief of
staff, to the witness stand. Libby testified that not
only did he approve of the pardon, he actually called
Rich to offer his congratulations the moment he heard
the news! It was a "Bad
Night for the GOP" – and if that is what National
Review is calling it, then it's a considerable understatement.
FREE
MUMIA ABU JAMAL – AND MARC RICH, TOO!
According
to Libby, he agreed with the infamous apologia penned
by Clinton for the New York Times: the president
had made a decision strictly on the merits of the case
brought before him. Of course, it was Libby himself who
made that case, in legal work done while in Rich's employ,
arguments that Clinton cited as particularly convincing.
The standard Republican response is to simply assert that
Libby was merely doing his job, carrying out his professional
duties to his client: but this misses the point that even
lawyers are judged by certain ethical standards. No doubt
Libby was well-paid for his efforts, but such a politically
well-connected member of a high-powered Washington law
firm does not take on a client for purely economic motives.
He must, first of all, believe in the justice of his clients'
cause, at least to the extent that he can make a credible
and convincing case. Secondly, the effort to pardon Marc
Rich – the Mumia
Abu-Jamal of the international jet set – was
a systematic and well-organized campaign, with clear ideological
overtones and a dedicated cadre of activists ceaselessly
working to achieve their goal. Libby was just a part of
it, perhaps peripheral: his testimony, however, is the
clearest evidence yet that this was not just some Democratic
party scam to rake in millions, but a truly bipartisan
conspiracy – one with important foreign policy and
domestic political implications that have been downplayed
if not entirely buried by politicians of both parties.
MECHANICS
OF A COVER-UP
As
long as the Burton committee investigation focuses on
what they believe to be a simple case of bribery, the
real authors of this conspiracy against justice are safe
from public view. But an investigation that was never
originally intended to go much of anywhere can get out
of control, and take on a momentum of its own: and that
is why there is this bipartisan rush to "move on." This
sentiment becomes all the more convincing when the issue
is framed in terms of Clinton as the chief if not the
sole culprit, who simply sold pardons for cash. Are we
going to impeach him again? Ordinary folk can hardly stifle
a yawn. By this time, nothing short of serial murder would
shock the nation if attributed to their former commander-in-chief
– and there are those who would count the bombings
that coincided with key points in l'affair Lewinsky
as arguably falling in that category. But otherwise, it's
no big deal that there is corruption in Washington –
unless it happens to involve other, more serious crimes.
INCOMMUNICADO
If
the Rich pardon was all about money, then what are we
to make of an email from Rich's legal team released by
the Burton committee that shows a respected public figure
such as Abe Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League,
intimately involved in the genesis of the Rich pardon
effort? Shortly after launching this campaign, Avner Azulay,
head of the Marc Rich Foundation and a former top-ranking
Mossad agent, emailed Robert Fink, a New York lawyer,
and informed him that "We are reverting to the idea discussed
with Abe [Anti-Defamation League head Abraham Foxman],
which is to send DR [Denise Rich] on a 'personal' mission
to NO1. with a well-prepared script." Congressional investigators
don't think they're taking a wild guess as to the identity
of "NO1." But the real question is: just what is a committed
ideologue like Abe Foxman doing trying to get Rich off?
Surely he had limited interest in acting as a bagman for
the Clinton presidential library. These days, Foxman –
usually a voluble sort – is uncharacteristically
incommunicado. The mystery deepens.
A
LAST RESORT
Similarly,
what about the long
list of Israeli dignitaries and American supporters
of Israel who lent their names to the effort to pardon
Rich by writing letters? Why haven't we heard from them?
The head of the taxpayer-funded Holocaust Museum in Washington
sent a letter to the President on
official stationary asking for clemency in Rich's
case, a revelation that many in the Jewish community find
deeply disturbing. But the Burton committee is unlikely
to subpoena Foxman, or any of the others who went to bat
for Rich, because such a hearing would soon be denounced
and discredited as an anti-Semitic witch-hunt. However,
under the relentless gaze of congressional investigators,
as the details of this unusual pardon come into public
view, this reaction is bound to become less effective
– yet that won't stop anyone from resorting to smears.
NOT
THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT
Indeed,
one of the few columnists to bring up the Mossad-Rich
connection, Taki, has now become the subject of a
vicious attack by none other than his own publisher,
Conrad Black, who owns the Spectator, whom he absurdly
compares to Goebbels. Taki's crime? Simply relaying information
that ought to be not at all surprising, given Rich's longstanding
and well-known
relationship with the Israeli intelligence agency. Black
is shocked – shocked! – that anyone would
suggest the US would invade another country's airspace,
even in going after an international fugitive. And as
for pointing to the direct intervention of the Israeli
government on Rich's behalf as evidence that Washington
is "Israeli-occupied territory" – that is characterized
by Black as depicting the "universal Jewish ethos as brutish,
vulgar, grasping and cunningly wicked." Well, uh, not
exactly – but it is evidence that the Mossad
looks after its own assets, and Israel looks after its
perceived national interest. Not that there's anything
wrong with that – if it didn't involve perverting
the American political process, subverting the Constitution,
and making a mockery of America around the world.
"BLOOD
LIBEL" – OR BITTER TRUTH?
But
Black would have none of this: Taki, he screeched, has
uttered a "blood libel" against the Jews – for any
criticism of Israel, as he makes clear in his long, rambling
screed, is "stoking the fires of anti-Semitism": it seems
the British media is particularly guilty of this when
they portray Israel in an unfavorable light, he avers,
"either consciously or unconsciously." Black seems particularly
upset that Taki mentioned the frequent killing of Palestinian
children barely into their teens by Israeli troops –
although how this is a "blood libel" against all Jews
everywhere (as opposed to those in command of the Israeli
military effort) is not at all clear. Nor is it meant
to be clear: the effectiveness of this type of smear is
precisely in its lack of specificity. To call Taki's piece
a "blood libel" – a term with a very specific, and
quite horrific historical meaning – is surely a case
of literary abuse virtually unparalleled in the history
of author-publisher relations.
A
GANGSTER'S SOIREE
Like
all smears of this type, Black's attack refers to the
text of Taki's piece only minimally: in it, aside
from the all-too-believable story cited above, Taki points
out that a piece by him in the New York Press was
censored by the editors when he said that Rich's contributions
to Israel should not count as philanthropy insofar as
they pay for armor-piercing bullets shot at teenagers.
He also points out the main lessons of this tawdry affair,
which are two-fold. First, that the little guys go to
jail while the big crooks thrive – a bit of popular
wisdom that seems pretty much incontestable. He relates
the story of some jet-setter who was eager to attend one
of Marc Rich's soirees:
"When
I asked her whether she would go to a party given, say,
by John Gotti, the dapper Don, as the Big Bagel tabloids
refer to him, she told me it was not the same thing. 'Yes,'
I said. 'Gotti is dumb and in jail; Rich, the far bigger
criminal and traitor, is in St. Moritz.' That's the way
it goes, sports fans. The truly big crooks get away with
it and go to St. Moritz and Gstaad, the little guys go
to the big house up the river."
ITALIAN
POWER!
The
absurdity of the charge of anti-Semitism leveled against
Taki – and, presumably, against anyone who asks questions
about the pivotal role played by Israel and its supporters
in this affair – is underscored by the above. For
if we look at Rich as just another gangster, a more "legitimate"
and slick version of some Mafia chieftain, then the charge
of religious or ethnic bigotry is put in its proper context.
What if the Italian government had mobilized all its resources
to get John Gotti a presidential pardon? What if the head
of the Italian Anti-Defamation League – if there
is such a group – had played an instrumental role
in all this, along with the mayor of Rome and the Italian
Prime Minister – not to mention Luciano Pavarotti
and Sophia Loren? A presidential pardon in this case would
have unleashed an equivalent storm of protest – at
the very least! – and the intervention of the Italian
government would have been denounced far and wide. These
unusual circumstances would definitely become the subject
of at least one congressional investigation, if not a
criminal probe – and, in this case, the cry of "discrimination"
or "bigotry" against Italians just wouldn't wash,
now would it?
A
LONG TIME COMING
The
exposure of this curious double-standard has been a long
time coming. Behavior that would not be tolerated in any
other country, never mind a close ally – and recipient
of billions in foreign aid – has long been actively
encouraged by the US government, and that is what this
sorry episode has proved beyond a doubt. As Taki put it,
elucidating the second lesson of the Marc Rich affair:.
"[Rich]
also proved what we, soi-disant anti-Semites for
daring to protest about soldiers shooting at kids, always
knew. The way to Uncle Sam's heart runs through Tel Aviv
and Israeli-occupied territory. Rich and Clinton deserve
each other. Both make everyone around them seem bigger."
NOBODY
EDITS THE PUBLISHER
In
his diatribe against his own columnist, Black absurdly
claims that by describing himself as a "soi-disant
anti-Semite" Taki had "admitted his anti-Semitism." Will
somebody please tell this rube what soi-disant
means? This is what happens when a publisher
takes to writing for his own publications – nobody
dares to edit him, and the result is often an embarrassment.
Taki
takes Black to task in his rebuttal, and makes mincemeat
of the grotesquely overstated attempt to destroy his reputation
– although Black still gets in the last word in a
dishonest addendum – but the point is how many of
his fellow conservatives will speak up on his behalf?
INQUIRING
MINDS WANT TO KNOW
Rich's
role as a money-launderer for ex-Soviet apparatchiks
who spirited billions out of Russia – most of that
coming out of US taxpayers' wallets – and his value
to the former
East Germany, which once offered $250
million in cash if the US would drop the charges against
him, makes it obvious that the pardoning process in this
case was not a negotiation between a government and a
private individual. Rich is no ordinary private individual,
and not only on account of his great wealth: for chief
among his assets are his political connections with foreign
governments, including not only Israel but in Russia where
he wields enormous influence. The merger
of his commodities business with the Russian Alfa group,
run by billionaire oligarch Mikhael Fridman, was recently
announced: Rich and Fridman, along with a passel of ex-Commies,
succeeded in stripping the assets of the old USSR and
spiriting them out of the country. Through a series of
maneuvers, both legal and perhaps otherwise, they established
a virtual monopoly over Russia's rich aluminum industry,
and soon began to move into other areas. The point is
that Rich has access to more resources than many foreign
governments, and, in any case, the extended negotiations
that began as early as last year were conducted, on Rich's
behalf, by at least one foreign government, Israel. Now,
Ehud Barak is telling us that, contrary to the testimony
of three Clinton aides, he didn't phone Clinton three
times to plead Rich's case – it was only once,
and then only at the end of a long conversation as a kind
of afterthought. But there can be little doubt that Israel,
acting in concert with a variety of private interests,
both here and abroad, launched a major campaign to free
a man who had flouted US law enforcement for 17 years,
thumbing his nose at America from the alpine safety of
his Swiss hideaway. Why?
MILDLY
INSULTING?
If
it is now considered "anti-Semitic" to express the least
bit of curiosity about the answer to this question, then
an
awful lot of American Jews are going to be put in that
category. "Israeli officials have absolutely no business
in this kind of enterprise," averred Martin Begun, formerly
head of the New York Jewish Community Relations Council.
"It wasn't in Israeli interests, and it certainly wasn't
in American Jewish interests. By any definition, it was
harmful meddling." But not according to the Weekly
Standard: an
article in that neoconservative flagship by Christopher
Caldwell compares the degree of influence wielded by Israel
in this case to the lobbying efforts of Mexico on behalf
of Mexican immigrants: "So Israel's intervention constitutes
a mildly insulting interference with American government,
similar to, though of a lesser degree than, Mexican president
Ernesto
Zedillo's strident public opposition to California's
anti-immigrant Proposition
187 in 1994. Clinton responded to Zedillo's provocation
by ignoring it, not by citing it as an excuse for his
own opposition to Proposition 187."
AN
ANALOGY GONE AWRY
Say
what? How is billionaire Marc Rich in any way equivalent
to some illegal immigrant who owns only the clothes on
his back? This sorely lacks the balance of a good analogy.
Is it only a "mild" insult to the American system of justice
to reward an international fugitive who has spit in the
face of his own country by renouncing his citizenship?
We have come to a sorry pass indeed if the absurdity of
this needs to be explained to a writer for an ostensibly
conservative periodical.
THE
AMEN CORNER
Caldwell
dismisses the reasons stated by Israeli and Jewish-American
leaders – mostly Rich's philanthropic activities
in Israel, and his generosity to Jewish organizations
– as being ample and sufficient reason for their
support to the fugitive's cause. It wasn't out of a sense
that Rich had been unjustly accused (none disputed the
facts of the case, or claimed religious or ethnic persecution);
it wasn't for money – Caldwell rightly points out
that "Israel is not alone in its use of Rich's philanthropic
largesse"; and it wasn't on account of the Israeli-Palestinian
peace process, either (Barak was demanding freedom for
Jonathan Pollard, it seems, not Rich). But, strangely,
Caldwell gives no alternative reasons for this fulsome
and very well-organized support. These pardons "were about
Clinton and only about Clinton," he insists, but this
is obviously not the case: they were also, indubitably,
about Marc Rich. What is it about this man
that inspired such loyalty, not only from his paid retainers
but also from a large unpaid contingent of apologists,
what you might call his American amen corner?
CAUGHT
IN A WEB
Clinton
claimed on the Gerald Rivera show the other day that the
lobbying by Israeli officials and dignitaries had a "profound"
effect on his decision to grant the pardon. Here is the
perfect camouflage, the best way to cover up this whole
affair: for who would ever believe that, for once in his
life, our ex-President is telling the truth? Yet the different
strands of the Marc Rich story – stretching from
New York to Switzerland, from the former Soviet Union
to Tel Aviv, from the Oval Office to the steppes of Central
Asia – form a web that seems to have caught at least
one American President in its silken threads. This could
not be a better position for the Republicans, who can
sit back and watch the ritual humiliation of their old
enemy – whilst piously calling for the media (and
the Burton committee) to "move on." But the GOP, no less
than the Democrats, is less than eager to open this can
of worms: for any inquiry into the influence of foreign
lobbyists on the US government is bound to have unpleasant
consequences on both sides of the aisle. The uncomfortable
look on Dick Cheney's face this [Sunday] morning, as he
was being asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer about "Scooter"
Libby's testimony should put us all on notice: this is
one "investigation" that seems fated to go nowhere.
ISRAEL
VERSUS THE JEWS
Bill
Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and professional
talking head, is going around saying that Clinton is trying
to "blame it on the Jews." "This," snorts Kristol, "is
a new low, even for him." But this will not do. Clinton,
who parses his words with lawyerly precision, did not
say "the Jews" had a "profound" effect on his decision,
but that "Israel" did – and the two are far from
identical. Those who put the interests of a foreign government
above their own are not going to get off as easily as
that – no matter what their ethnicity or religion.
Unless, of course, the investigation into the Rich pardon
is nipped in the bud, or diverted into a dead end.
IS
BILL CLINTON AN ANTI-SEMITE?
Far
be it from me to defend Clinton, but I truly doubt whether,
among his other foibles, he harbors a secret fondness
for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Nobody
is blaming "the Jews" for anything: but the government
of Israel, and its American amen corner – not an
exclusively Jewish preserve, by any means – must
be held accountable for their reckless intervention in
this outrageous case. Someone, somehow, must finally hold
this lobby, and its foreign sponsor, to account: this
incident shows that Washington truly is, as both Taki
and Pat Buchanan put it, "Israeli-occupied territory"
– and it is high time something was done about it.
That is why we need a real investigation. We don't
need to "move on," we need to find out how and
why an American president made a mockery out of the
rule of law and the Constitution. As more facts come to
light, and the furor mounts, it is becoming clear that
– no matter how much money Rich might have funneled
into the Clintonian presidential library – the damage
to Clinton's reputation (let alone the Democratic party)
would hardly be worth any amount of money.
HAVING
IT BOTH WAYS
Yesterday,
the anti-Clinton conservatives were saying that he would
do anything for a "legacy" – today, they're telling
us that he would eagerly trade that legacy for less than
half a million in cash, the amount Denise Rich is said
to have given (not counting a cool million over the years).
But you can't have it both ways. Having accepted a bribe,
especially one so easily traceable, his library would
then be the repository of his final defeat. Surely the
irony of this could not have escaped someone as clever
as Clinton, who could easily have foreseen and avoided
such a fate.
MAKING
DEMANDS
There
are many questions raised by the ongoing investigations
that many in Washington and elsewhere would just as soon
not have answered. Before this is over, phony charges
of "anti-Semitism" will be made against anyone who dares
to question the role of Israel and its supporters in America
in this horrific miscarriage of justice – but that
tactic didn't work with Pat Buchanan, it won't work with
Taki, and it won't work with ordinary Americans of any
ethnicity, including many prominent Jews, who want to
know why an American president obeyed the demands of a
foreign government over the demands of justice.
