I get quite a bit of e-mail that basically goes like this: “Why can’t
you say even one nice thing about Bill Clinton?”

Well, for starters, as a muckraking journalist, I don’t get paid to
say nice things about corrupt politicians. It’s my job to expose them —
not to rationalize their evil deeds, not to excuse their crimes, not to
repeat the spin of disinformation that emanates from the president’s own
propaganda machine.

But, having said that, let me give it a try. Let me try to say
something nice about Bill Clinton. Here goes nothing.

If Bill Clinton were to leave office today, and if our foreign
enemies did not take advantage of all the nuclear and other military
secrets he has showered them in to destroy us, then America might
recover from his unparalleled treachery in the next 20 to 25 years.

How’s that? That’s about as much as I can offer. It will have to do.

You know, nobody in Congress wants to mention the “I” word again for
obvious reasons. The last time the House of Representatives impeached
the president, members were humiliated by their colleagues in the

But with the release of the heavily redacted version of the Cox
Committee report, it’s certainly long past time to be bringing up the
“T” word — for treason.

There’s no question treason is an impeachable offense. It’s clearly
mentioned in the Constitution. It’s simply a matter of whether the
evidence supports the charge. You decide.

We have no problem conceding that President Clinton is deeply
indebted to Hollywood for all the campaign contributions he received
from the entertainment industry during his two campaigns. Even honest
Democrats would concede that Clinton is owned by labor interests, which
poured money into his race in 1992 and again in 1996.

Yet, there’s a great deal of reluctance to make the obvious
connections between the flood of Chinese military and intelligence money
that found its way into the coffers of the Democratic National Committee
and the Clinton-Gore campaign. Why?

In 1992, the largest single interest to contribute to the
Clinton-Gore campaign was not Hollywood. It was not even big labor.
Believe it or not, it was the Riady family of Indonesia, ethnic Chinese
billionaires who, according to U.S. law enforcement and intelligence,
are active agents of Beijing’s intelligence apparatus.

The Riadys were back again as major contributors in 1996. They were
there to provide hush money to an indicted Webster Hubbell when he was
ready to blow the whistle on his buddy, the president. And that’s just
the Riady family. That doesn’t even begin to take into consideration all
the other funny money funneled into the country through Charlie Trie and
a host of others on the take from the Chinese military.

What’s worse is the fact that the Riadys owned Clinton long before he
ever ran for president. The Chinese agents discovered young Bill Clinton
in the 1970s when he first ran for attorney general in the state of
Arkansas. There’s history here — ugly, soul-selling history.

So why are we reluctant — after all we know about how Bill Clinton
and his entire administration winked at Chinese efforts to buy, borrow
or steal our most precious defense secrets — to come right out and say
it: Bill is Beijing’s boy. He has been for a long time. He always will
be. He couldn’t have done more for the Chinese Communists if he were
under party discipline. And, who knows? Maybe he is.

I don’t how you say “quid pro quo” in Chinese, but I do have an
understanding of how politics works in Arkansas. Beijing saw an
opportunity to take advantage of a very ambitious politician operating
in a pigpen of corruption. They bought him early. They invested heavily.
And they got a good return on their money.

For two years I’ve been warning the country that a traitor resides in
the White House. The evidence has been there for a long time. Just now
the nation seems to be catching on. This story is beginning to get the
treatment and coverage it deserves. Let’s hope the tail doesn’t start
wagging the dog again allowing a fickle nation to become distracted from
the biggest scandal in American political history.

Related columns:

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.