by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 15, 1998
All Rights Reserved.

roving that paranoia is truly contagious, all the hubbub about Kenneth Starr’s office compromising first amendment guarantees sadly misses the mark. By dragging ex-journalist and now White House spin doctor Sidney Blumenthal into the grand jury, independent counsel Kenneth Starr is flailing in the dark, hoping to find the insidious source of propaganda and disinformation discrediting him and his office. Like other stealth operations, the names, faces, motives and tactics of its players remain anonymous. When political operative James Carville announced "It’s going to be an all out war," was anyone listening? Surprising to some, subversion is a well known and widely practiced tactic in the publicity trade. Turning things inside-out and putting the prosecution on the defensive is a clever tactic. Believe it. Unlike the U.S. mission in Iraq, propaganda specialists know their mission with great precision. In this case, impeach and discredit the office of the independent counsel. Above all, take no prisoners.

       Taking their eye off the ball, Starr’s office might be guilty of not knowing the game. Certainly not — as some analysts suggest — intimidating or punishing innocent members of the press. When you’re under this type of assault, lashing-out and creating more bad publicity only furthers the ambition of the opposition. Although it’s frustrating to look under every rock, the independent counsel’s office should remain focused on the material facts of the investigation. Attempting a Kafkaesque-type inquiry in which you’re endlessly peeling off the ethereal layers of a hypothetical onion is clearly a dead end. Prosecutors don’t have the same luxury as the defense of slugging it out in the war of words. Recall the O.J. criminal trial in which prosecutors were sandbagged by the hail of damaging allegations raised by the defense. Back on their heels, prosecutors wasted too much time defending witnesses and responding to phony news leaks, rather than advancing their case. Is Mr. Starr now falling into the same trap?

       It’s time to recognize — taking off the blinders — that all’s fair in love and war. Anything goes. With the office of the independent counsel focusing more on the Lewinsky sex scandal than the stale Whitewater investigation and with the Clinton presidency fighting for its survival, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the White House spin department would pull out all the stops. Let’s face it, subversion, disinformation, propaganda, publicity stunts, phony news leaks, misleading press conferences, distracting photo-opportunities, and other diversionary tactics — including "urgent" foreign policy matters — are all acceptable games. If we’ve learned anything, well orchestrated defenses or counteroffensives aren’t limited to conventional tactics. When traditional approaches fail, it’s time to use specialized tactics — or so say strategists commissioned with the formidable task of damage control. In President Clinton’s case, his categorical denials of his "sexual" relationship with Monica Lewinsky leave his team no other option but to work hard on discrediting the messenger: Kenneth Starr and the office of the independent counsel.

       Hiding behind passionate constitutional rhetoric can’t ignore the fact that someone must be commissioned with the unhappy task of investigating wrongdoing when it occurs. Since President Clinton’s own attorney general and a three judge panel believed that Mr. Starr had enough probable cause to extend his writ in the Lewinsky affair, all the chatter about repealing the independent counsel law seems transparently partisan. Dredging up misguided analogies to the "Alien and Sedition" acts and comparing Kenneth Starr’s work to modern-day McCarthyism is yet another conspicuous smoke screen. Why is it OK to invoke the independent counsel law for fraud but it’s not OK to investigate a compelling sex scandal involving perjury and obstruction of justice? Yes, many believe that the President’s personal affairs should be his own, but when compelling evidence eclipses categorical denials, the public and the press have a right to seek the truth.

       What’s now inside-out is the fact that Kenneth Starr’s office is defending itself against specious allegations that it’s violating basic civil liberties, eroding attorney-client privilege and trampling on the first amendment. Whatever happened to his responsibility under the independent counsel law of investigating criminal wrongdoing? Expecting the public — as Mr. Bennett and Mrs. Clinton apparently do — to believe that President Clinton was framed by a vast right wing political conspiracy flies in the face of logic and common sense. Selling these way-out notions underscores the desperate need of the White House to come up with some credible alternative explanation. Like certain types of fast-food, it’s difficult to swallow. As for Mr. Vernon Jordan’s sworn testimony that he was merely helping this lowly intern find an attorney and new job out of pure altruism, his account also seems implausible. To the many people scratching their heads, these incredulous explanations just don’t seem to add up.

       When all of the attacks on the office of the independent counsel no longer score points and begin to fade, the next phase of White House strategy will no doubt involve complex legal issues surrounding attorney-client and executive privilege. Like most pinball games, it’s difficult to predict in which direction the ball will ricochet. But watching key players, it’s a safe bet that memory lapses or claims of executive privilege are next on the horizon. With all the fancy footwork, many are wondering why a simple, straightforward explanation wasn’t forthcoming in the Lewinsky affair? Most people already know the answer. What’s still so unfathomable is his need to deny the truth over a somewhat inconsequential act. After all, extramarital affairs aren’t a crime. Like Mark Furhman denying his use of the "N"-word, many are wondering why president Clinton insisted that nothing "sexual" took place? What did his advisors imagine would have happened had he demurred or just admitted the truth? A simple apology? Now it’s too late — the public and press won’t let go until the truth is finally known.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.