AR-Online logo 



Posted Sunday, September 13, 1998


WE REPRODUCE the following editorial comment by David Irving on the latest events in Washington, DC.


Adolf Hitler would have Ordered Things Differently


Jurisprudence? No, Legal Prurience

More Kinsey than Kenneth


ClintonNOW THAT I am temporarily not a guest of the people of the United States, and back in my home city, London, I can say without fear of discourtesy that a lot of us have never liked Bill Clinton.

Never mind the impenetrable tangle of financial and real-estate dealings in which he evidently engaged as governor of Arkansas, or the tawdry sale of favours to raise funds for his party. Never mind the granting of a plot in Arlington National Cemetery, resting place of heroes, to a dying friend, Ambassador Lawrence, on that man's perjured assurance that he had fought in the Arctic Convoy battles (Lawrence escaped the WW.II draft as a student in California. Perhaps Lawrence was suffered from recovered-memory syndrome; about which volumes can be written -- but that is another story).

Bill Clinton is many things

  • a man so concerned with his looks that he ordered Air Force One held athwart the main runway at Los Angeles International airport for an hour while his personal hairdresser fixed the bouffant hair:
  • a commander in chief who dodged the draft, but was not squeamish about ordering other men into battle:
  • a president who cited the name of Our Lord and quoted from a Yom Kippur prayer to curry favour from those he asked for forgiveness.


 ALL OF these things seem offensive to the common man.

And yet, deep down, all ordinary men must be affronted by what the lawyers have now done for a second time to a U.S. president, indeed to the institution of the presidency. The English have never really understood Watergate, except that it spun off the hair-thin tripwires that provided sufficient purchase to pull down President Nixon.

LewinskyThinking, decent people understand the latest manufactured scandals, about the White House, the Oval Office, and Miss Monica Lewinsky, even less.

It is true, they reveal the president as surrounded by the most appallingly incompetent advisers.

If he had stepped forth earlier this year, when the scandal first broke, and admitted that there was substance to the allegations but that, since a young lady's reputation was at stake, he proposed to remain silent; or if he had, later on, admitted telling lies, but advanced in self-justification the same reason, namely he had wanted to protect her reputation (rather than his) -- in effect whitening the lies -- he would have proven unimpeachable. As said, he is poorly advised, and if he survives this crisis, heads should surely roll.


Starr  WHAT REMAINS after the millions have pawed over the report by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is a very nasty aftertaste indeed -- the dim perception that all of this has been done less for the purification of the presidency, than for the entertainment of the masses; less to advance the cause of democracy, than to satisfy the sophomoric lingerie-level interest of Starr and his fellow inquisitors.

The famous Starr Report has more Kinsey about it than Kenneth. He could have saved the American taxpayer the $40m allegedly spent so far: he could have slotted a handful of his own quarters into a machine at an adult-video arcade and given himself the same thrills in private.

Instead, armed with all the powers of the Grand Jury, the threat of jail for contempt, and the suited muscle of powerful teams of lawyers, the insufferably smug Independent Counsel and his gang, who would never dream of taking up with a young and comely office flirt themselves -- yeah, right--, have put their collective lawyers' eye to the keyhole, to take a long, lingering, four-hundred-page peep at what one consenting heterosexual man and a young woman get up to when they, foolishly, imagine themselves beyond the prying eyes of outsiders.


  There remains a historic lesson, which the President of the United States (and his advisers, who are now jumping the Clinton ship in rat-like droves) will not like to hear:-

If this had been the Third Reich, Starr, and not Clinton, would have found himself in hot water. Adolf Hitler would have seen to that. In a Nazi regulation* that is rarely quoted (it is in my Hitler's War), one which Heinrich Himmler and the Reich Ministry of Justice issued on Hitler's orders on August 11, 1942, it was forbidden to interrogate women under any circumstances about their sexual relations with men. The lawyer-hating Führer had gained the impression, the new regulation said, that prosecutors conducted such interrogations purely for one purpose: their own sexual gratification. This is an impression, sad to say, which lingers around the whole Starr Report.


* German Federal Archives, Reichsjustiz-Ministerium files, R22, file 1085 vol. ii.

 Register your name and address to go on the Mailing List to receive

[ Go back to AR Online Index | Index to AR.#14 | Go to Main Action Report Index ]

Order books | Auschwitz Index | Irving Index | Irving Page | Irving Book-List | Other FP Authors
Buchladen | Auschwitz | Irving-Verzeichnis | -Hauptseite | -Bücher | Weitere FP-Autoren
© Focal Point 1998 write to David Irving