"We will forever be in his DEBT." Paul Begala speaking of Bush.

[Swede]

Went right over Novak's head.

[kwolf68]

1. Did you catch this

When Paul Begala mentioned to Robert Novak how President Clinton’s tenure produced a far greater economy than Dumbya, Robert Novak said the following thing:

He said that he wanted to give Begala a tutorial on economics and that Presidents had not (or little) affect on the economy.

He then immediately followed that up by saying without the Shrub’s tax cut, we wouldn’t be having the recovery we are having.

So in Novakula’s world
-Prosperity under Clinton not caused by Clinton
-Prosperity under Bush caused by tax cut
-Economic recession under Bush caused by War on Terror.

Why didn’t Begala catch this?

[AG78]

2. Because

Jon Stewart was right.

[Snotcicles]

3. He should have said we will forever be in Debt.

[DS1]

4. Begala can't stop getting jabs in at Steward, which proves just how

right Stewart was.

What a whiney loser.

[SoCalDem]

5. Begala is a stooge..

I have not liked him for a long time now..

[TrustingDog]

6. I'm beginning not to, too. He has Not Said So Much... n/t

[Laura M Hanning]

7. James Hatfield's "Fortunate Son"

Paul Begala wrote a good book about G.W. So did James Hatfield.
Hatfield is dead.

----

In 2002 I did some digging on Sander Hicks. I became concerned about
his history with James Hatfield, author of "Fortunate Son."

(Source for Hicks' acknowledgement that Hatfield's life had been
threatened:

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2001/05/Skull_Soft_CEO_052801.html
A BuzzFlash Interview with Sander Hicks, CEO of Soft Skull, the
Publisher of "Fortunate Son"
May 28, 2001)

Excerpts below, or see

Delmart Vreeland Open Discussion (http://p066.ezboard.com/bdelmartvreelandopendiscussion)
"Dear Sander," thread
started by burningbush666 on 09/13/02

direct links:

http://p066.ezboard.com/fdelmartvreelandopendiscussionfrm1.showMessageRange?topicID=205.topic&
start=1&stop=20

and

http://p066.ezboard.com/fdelmartvreelandopendiscussionfrm1.showMessageRange?topicID=205.topic&
start=21&stop=24

and

“(OT) For Sander: questions about Hatfield” thread
started by Laura44 (me) on 09/06/02

http://p066.ezboard.com/fdelmartvreelandopendiscussionfrm1.showMessage?topicID=187.topic
----
----
----

Begin excerpts:

Laura44
Registered User
Posts: 100
(9/12/02 8:57 pm)

Fortunate Son .... .... is an important book.

In "Investigation of a Suicide: The Diaries" Hicks writes that Hatfield's mother-in-law told another journalist that the official story about Hatfield's death was false. (This is an important matter considering that Hicks himself acknowledged, two months prior to the alleged suicide, that Hatfield's life had been threatened.)

He writes,

sanderhicks.com/articles/hatfield1.html

"So if the Bentonville file exists then the mother-in-law's credibility is in serious trouble. If there's an arrest warrant for Jim, and none for George Burt, someone is wrong, and it's not the cops. I already suspect the mother-in-law is not credible."

This article ends without resolving or further addressing ANY of these points. More than that, it ends with,

"Although this investigation has to conclude that Hatfield most likely committed suicide alone... "

Why does it have to? What is that based on?

In addition, Hicks reveals an obvious distaste for Hatfield in this piece. His characterizations are extremely unflattering.

Hatfield deserved better.

Look at how Hicks ended his Vreeland promo piece. Two of his claims to fame were, "I have appeared on "60 Minutes" and "Court TV" regarding
my company's publication of controversial George W. Bush biography Fortunate Son."

I'm grateful to Hatfield for the book. Hicks got on national TV over it. I hope he's grateful to Hatfield too.

----
----
----

Laura44
Registered User
Posts: 102
(9/13/02 10:28 am)


Re: Fair enough - I haven't found any in-depth pieces on the alleged suicide.

Hatfield's wife Nancy told Linda Starr of "Bush Watch" (1) that "there
is absolutely no question that Jim took his own life." But considering the kind of enemies Jim took on, and the death threats he received (plus the claims of his mother-in-law to Bev Conover, according to Hicks) one cannot be faulted for taking the official story with a grain of salt.

Maybe Hicks' story could have cleared it up once and for all, but it didn't.

This is how Hatfield was described by two people who knew him:

Linda Starr:

"Jim Hatfield was witty, funny, brilliant, articulate, a very good writer and was a great friend to me. I will miss Jim, his many talents, his humor, his passion, his work and a warm light has gone out of my life forever. The world will be a much colder, darker place without Jim in it and we have lost a great fighter in the cause to expose the truth about GWB. (2)

Bev Conover:

"I got to know Jim fairly well over the past few years. I knew him to be a gentle and sensitive man whose life, career and family were ruined because he told the truth about George W. Bush.' (3)

-----

Sander Hicks had some complimentary things to say about Jim but in my view they were STRONGLY overshadowed by statements like these (4):

" ... a grasping after the bright surface of sure success and societyâs approval, while on the inside there lives a truth no one knows until too late: doubt, debt, insecurity, alcoholism, and failure."

"But Jim was nothing but one pitiful character: $125 thousand in debt but still making payments on a BMW."

"These days, I'm between my stubborn initial defensive posture about Jim and realizing that he was a scam artist, and not a good one."

------

I was certainly left with the impression that Hicks found Hatfield distasteful, which in turn left a bitter taste in my mouth about Hicks.

Then Hicks pops up here with that Vreeland promo and with rude comments about posters here at this forum ..... and then that pitiful interview...

(Correction 9/16/02: happenstancez posted the promo piece and rude comments about posters here, leaving the impression that he/she was Sander Hicks. This does not appear to be the case. See pub95.ezboard.com/fdelmar...=182.topic for the post that led to the misunderstanding. <http://p066.ezboard.com/fdelmartvreelandopendiscussionfrm1.showMessage?topicID=182.topic>)

Is there a term for someone who throws ugly characterizations at the good guys and attempts to bolster the reputations of the questionable ones?

Hatfield's past was never the issue. The substance of his work was the issue. He'd written 8 books before writing "Fortunate Son." He made powerful enemies. As far as I'm concerned Sander Hicks didn't do him any favors.

1) www.bushnews.com/hdeath.htm
2) ibid.
3) www.ajax.org/articles/hatfield.html
4) sanderhicks.com/articles/hatfield1.html and
sanderhicks.com/articles/hatfield2.html

Laura

Edited by: Laura44 at: 9/16/02 8:54:30 am

----
----
----

Laura44
Registered User
Posts: 104
(9/13/02 2:15 pm)


Hatfield had three sources on that Hi-

I reread Hatfield's Forward and Afterword in Soft Skull's 1st edition of "Fortunate Son." He had three sources for the GW cocaine/community service story. According to Hatfield, he repeatedly and adamantly refused to name his sources even though his silence cost him plenty.

In the Afterword, he identified the first source only as a GW former Yale classmate and family friend. The second source was described as a "longtime Bush friend and unofficial political adviser." The third, he said, was a "high-ranking adviser to Bush who had known the presidential candidate for several years."

At least two of the three sources have now been revealed, but how that came to pass is a bit controversial.

According to Anthony York of Salon, Soft Skull revealed Rove as a source against Hatfield's wishes. (1)

In an interview with Buzzflash Hatfield acknowledged that Sander Hicks revealed Rove as a source in the updated second edition of the book, but that he himself could not personally confirm or deny that. He added, "A man's word is his bond and that's about all I have left these days." (2)

Gavin MacDonald, in his May 2002 article at BarbelithWebzine, stated, "They produced a run of 45,000 copies, and this time, with Hicks as a mouthpiece, Hatfield did not spare the anonymity of his sources." (3)

Sander himself said, in May 2001, "We've revealed these sources now, and one of them is Rove." In the same piece, he named another one as Clay Johnson. (4)

Whether or not this was done with Hatfield's consent is the question.

Deep Throat appears to have been Rove.

(As an aside, the Forward in my book was really messed up. Sentences at the end of one page were not continued on the next in a few places. I may have missed some juicy stuff.)

1) www.ajax.org/articles/hatfield.html
2) www.buzzflash.com/intervi...53101.html
3) www.barbelith.com/cgi-bin...0058.shtml
4) sanderhicks.com/articles/horowitz3.html
5) ibid.

Laura

----
----
----

Laura44
Registered User
Posts: 106
(9/13/02 5:26 pm)

full Hatfield quote

You know what? I should have given the full quote from Hatfield in that May 2001 Buzzflash interview because I've just reread it and it sheds more light on the matter than the brief quote I gave earlier.

www.buzzflashcom.bigstep....tml?pid=28

Quote: As to the second part of your question of whether I was "a victim of his hatchet jobs," well, quite frankly, I'm between a rock and a hard place. I have always believed that an author or journalist should keep his word if he told his confidential sources that they would always remain anonymous in exchange for the information they provided. Everybody and their mamma has tried to get me to name the three confidential sources who alleged in the afterword to "Fortunate
Son" that Bush was arrested for cocaine possession in 1972. However, through some tough financial and emotional times for my family and me during the past year and a half, I've never reneged on my promise to those three persons. Television newsmagazines, tabloids, Larry Flynt, and a host of others have offered to pay me, but the answer has always been the same: "Thanks, but no thanks." I know that Sander Hicks, my publisher, has stated in interviews and in the introduction to the new, updated second edition of "Fortunate Son" that Rove was one of my sources, but I cannot personally deny or confirm. A man's word is his bond and that's about all I have left these days.

----

It occurs to me that Hatfield would have (or should have) known that revealing the identities of his sources, or giving his consent to having them revealed, would have increased the likelihood of retaliation against him.

By the way, Hicks is in the process of writing a book on Rove, titled Kingmaker.

Laura

----
----
----

Laura44
Registered User
Posts: 120
(9/15/02 11:40 pm)


Sander Hicks at the Toronto Film Festival (interview) Information about the trials and tribulations of getting "Fortunate Son" published are revealed in this Sept. 10, 2002 video interview.

According to Hicks, Hatfield wanted to avoid talking about his criminal background. But on the noble premise that "the truth will set you free," Sander encouraged him "to come clean about his past" in the Forward to the Jan. 2000 first edition.

According to Sander, Hatfield "fully confessed his story" and in doing
so "implicated other people in a pretty insane blackmail scheme..."

As a result, they were sued for defamation. Sander pleaded with the book distributor not to have distribution stopped, but was told, "Sorry. You're an independent publisher, you don't have liable (sic) insurance, and we don't want to get named in this lawsuit."

Once Bush was in the White House the lawsuit was dropped. Soft Skull didn't have to pay a dime.

Sander said he'd hoped they could have kept Bush out of the White House, and that in a close election this book could have tipped the scales.

Laura

(interview: www.theglobeandmail.com/s...orns.html)

Edited by: Laura44 at: 9/16/02 10:04:56 am

----
----
----

Laura44
Registered User
Posts: 83
(9/6/02 1:16 pm)
Reply (OT) For Sander: questions about Hatfield

In your piece about Hatfield: "Investigation of a Suicide: The Diaries" you made some important points that were not resolved by the end of the article.

Did you ever acquire the Bentonville files that Jim's mother-in-law said had been seized by US Marshalls? Her credibility was at stake over that, you said, yet you never mentioned what you found out about it.

I remain skeptical about events surrounding his death even though I understand his wife Nancy has stated there is no question that Jim took his own life. Is there any explanation for why her mother would disagree?

If St. Martin's had not pulled the book it might have changed the outcome of the election. Toby Rogers of "High Times" wrote that Hatfield said -- one month prior to his death -- "They're gonna discredit me ... or silence me the best way they can... I'm in a very vulnerable position ... "

You said, in a May 2001 interview with Buzzflash, that Jim's life had been threatened. I understand he was facing arrest when he allegedly killed himself. I'm just curious about what you found out about those Bentonville files.
Edited by: Laura44 at: 9/6/02 1:20:04 pm