Waxing Indignant over Vince Foster Death Critics

The expression of outrage by Vince Foster’s sister over Donald Trump’s quite reasonable statement that there was something fishy about her brother’s death, and her suggestion that it was “cruel” of Trump to raise such questions, has given me a very strong feeling of déjà vu. Just such a ploy by others in the case prompted me to write one of my longer poems about it in late August of 1994, some 13 months after Foster’s death. It was entitled “How Dare You?” and, until now, I had not posted it on my web site.

Looking back on it now, I think that it has held up pretty well through the years. I had been reluctant to put the poem up because of what I say in verse 16, “The body’s discovery scene was misplaced.” At that point, I’m sorry to say, I was still following one of fake critic Christopher Ruddy’s disinformational rabbit trails. Ruddy was putting out the story that a regular denizen of Fort Marcy Park, where the body was found, had seen police investigators roping off a site considerably nearer the park’s entrance than what is now generally conceded to be the body site.

I began to grow suspicious of Ruddy shortly after this time when a co-worker of mine told me that he had worked for the CIA-connected Mitre Corporation and that Mitre had installed the state-of-the-art White House surveillance cameras. He said the surveillance cameras would have provided the key information in the case that everyone, including Ruddy, was overlooking. The fact that Foster left the White House proper around 1:00 pm on July 20 and that he was alone was on record. What no one seemed to be interested in, including Ruddy, was when Foster left the White House compound, by what means he left, and who might have been with him.

I relayed this information to Ruddy and he had no immediate response, saying only that he would look into it. A few days later he told me that his “White House contact” had told him that President Bill Clinton had had all the surveillance equipment removed because it cramped his nocturnal carousing style. Now I suppose that if you would believe all of Hillary Clinton’s private email stories you would believe that one, too, but that was Ruddy’s story—a newsworthy story in itself, even if true—and he proceeded to ignore this crucial question in all of his subsequent writings about the Foster case.

But, as I say, when I wrote “How Dare You” I still had confidence in Ruddy as the one journalist who seemed interested in looking seriously into the many Foster case anomalies. He had a megaphone and an audience, and I didn’t. The best I could do was write letters to the editor that they would not print and “write for the drawer” as the dissidents used to do in the old Soviet Union. The Internet was still in its infancy and I was not yet online. So here is one of the things I wrote for the drawer and for a few close friends, with new links now added:

How Dare You?

“How dare you?” they said,

What else could they say?

The facts of the case

Would not go away.

If Vince Foster’s death

Was a suicide,

How come they’re acting

Like there’s so much to hide?

The hints of foul play

Are far more than ample;

Of the things that smell wrong

I’ll give just a sample.

They said that the family

Wasn’t talked to that day,

But the cops at his house

Were not turned away.

They questioned both sisters

And also the wife.

No one had a clue

Why he’d take his own life.

All spoke from the heart,

With nothing rehearsed.

With no answers planted

And no one coerced.

But that was before

In a climate of fear,

Peculiar writings

Began to appear.

There was a torn note

That they won’t let us see,

And a list of psychiatrists,

First two, then they said three.

That Vince was the writer

Was loudly affirmed,

But until it’s all public

Not a thing is confirmed.

Likewise for secret

Unsworn testimony,

For all that we know,

The bulk of it’s phony.

They think they can closet

This case on a shelf,

The press doesn’t think

You can think for yourself.

They would let a physician,

With conscience unsmitten,

Deny what he’d said,

And deny what he’d written.

They’d have us believe,

Like a hapless detective,

That cameras and X-ray

Machines were defective.

They’d let them rifle his desk,

And say, “Nothing to it,”

But what would they say

If you were to do it?

The site where they found him

Lacked the usual mess,

But that was just fine

With our blindfolded press.

The gun was a relic

That couldn’t be traced,

And the body’s discovery

Scene was misplaced.

The head had been moved

Well after the death,

That should make them suspicious,

But don’t hold your breath.

They’d gladly permit

This big mystery

To become just a part

Of our great history.

You might raise a ruckus,

But would you be heard,

When they’d rather rely

On the President’s word?

You know he’s so truthful,

And so is his wife.

Wouldn’t you trust them

Both with your life?

Or wouldn’t the culprit

Have never been found

If Willie had chopped

That cherry tree down?

“But what would they say if you were to do it?” is the line that continues to resonate most strongly today. Just think of all the things that the press has given the Clintons a pass for that would not just have cost you or me our jobs but would have landed us in jail. In their book, The Clintons War on Women, authors Roger Stone and Robert Morrow place the Clintons’ sociopathic behavior under the general rubric of “elite deviance,” as a sort of explanation of how they continue to get by with it, the most recent example being Hillary’s passing around the deepest national secrets using an insecure private email server, in clear violation of regulations and law. I believe that I demonstrate in my review of that book and of R. Emmett Tyrrell’s, Boy Clinton, that the Clinton’s CIA and criminal Deep State connections better explain their carte blanche with the press than does the “elite deviance” concept.

Most recently our propaganda press has been loudly blathering that it is a political loser for Donald Trump to talk about Bill and Hillary’s shockingly sordid side. They hearken to the experience of the period of Clinton’s administration in the 1990s when such efforts had little or no effect and seemed almost to backfire, creating sympathy for the First Couple and causing their popularity to rise rather than fall. What they reckon without is the new information age. The “keepers of the knowledge gate” have lost their near monopoly on information and their opinion molding power is only a shadow of what it was then. The best evidence of that is Donald Trump’s political success up to this point.

The best evidence that we are in a new information age is that people like me no longer have to write for the drawer. And, oh yes, regular visitors to my dcdave.com web site will recognize that my experience with the press was an inspiration for #2 for my now widely popular “Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression.”

David Martin

May 30, 2016

Addendum 1

Recently, obviously in response to the renewed suspicions of foul play in the Foster death caused by Trump’s remarks, the FBI put out through its mouthpiece, Ronald Kessler, the story that Hillary Clinton caused Foster to kill himself by being mean to him in front of a number of other people in the White House. Demonstrating the reach of the propaganda in the case, the story ran first in the London tabloid, Daily Mail. This nonsense was then quickly picked up and treated seriously by right wing news, that is to say propaganda, organs like The Washington Times and fake right pundits like Cal Thomas and Rush Limbaugh, as well as a host of people on Twitter.

Here you see the strategy to mollify the legions of people who despise Hillary Clinton while keeping the phony suicide story intact. Witness Patrick Knowlton’s web site, which blows the suicide thesis out of the water, is not called fbicover-up.com for nothing. Watch the video on his home page, “The Vince Foster Cover-up: The FBI and the Press,” to see how deeply involved the FBI has been in covering up this murder from the beginning. Come to think of it, that video title would apply quite well to this latest Ronald Kessler episode.

Anyone still believing that Kessler has an ounce of credibility in this matter should also read my article “Kessler, Ruddy, and the Parade of Lies.”

David Martin

June 4, 2016

Addendum 2

While I was vacationing, Hugh Turley wrote the definitive debunking article about this supposed dressing down that Hillary gave Foster in the White House, “triggering” his suicide. In it, Turley demonstrates that it could not have occurred because Hillary hadn’t even been in Washington, DC, for a full two weeks before the date of Foster’s death on July 20, 1993. By some miracle, he was able to get World Net Daily to publish it, though it’s not as great a miracle as one might think. They made it impossible to find on their site, and if you Google key words like “Vince Foster Ronald Kessler” it doesn’t come up. What you get, instead, is their own earlier article parroting the Kessler lie. Such are the games that our opinion molders play.

I have summed up Turley’s revelations with this poem:

Vince Foster’s Fatal Pout?

Now he shot himself, they say,

Because Hillary Clinton dissed him,

But she was actually far away,

And the harpy's rant would have missed him.

David Martin

June 18, 2016

Home Page    Columns Column 5 Archive  Contact