The title of James B. Stewart's much bally-hooed book, *Blood
Sport* is said to be derived from Vincent Foster's supposed
"suicide note": Foster supposedly complained that in Washington
D.C. "ruining people is considered sport." So because Foster
died a bloody death, we have a bloody sport -- get it? "Blood
So notes Foster death expert Hugh Sprunt in a solid critique of
Stewart's book to be found in the May 1996 issue of Media Bypass
magazine (1-800-4-BYPASS). Thanks to Kenn Thomas, I also am
aware that Conspiracy Nation and Sherman Skolnick both receive
one paragraph of attention from Mr. Stewart in his "limited
hangout" examination of Bill Clinton & Co. (Alas, Mr. Stewart got
it wrong in his coverage of Conspiracy Nation: Sherman Skolnick
is a contributor, not the publisher.)
According to Sprunt, there is a GLARING discrepancy between what
Clinton "team player" Susan Thomases had first told the FBI
regarding her last meeting with Foster and what she told author
Stewart. She had told Stewart that Foster seemed to be under a
strain and that he had arranged to meet with Thomases "off
campus", at which point he had unburdened himself to her. This
is in contrast to Thomases' statement to the FBI wherein she
declares that "She noted no change in [Foster's] demeanor or
physical appearance... His death came as a complete shock to her
and she can offer no reason or speculation as to why he may have
taken his life."
Sprunt also examines discrepancies between what Stewart
apparently sees as the death weapon and what various witnesses
reported: was the Foster "suicide" gun silver or black? Stewart
seems to have made a substantial error.
A big question I have is, Why do we find James B. Stewart coming
forward at *this* time? Is it time to get the American public's
toes wet, prior to throwing them into the cold (White)water?
Stewart *is* letting loose with some risque stuff -- startling at
least to the average brain-dead American television aficionado.
See, for example, an interview with him in the April 28, 1996
Chicago Tribune newspaper. Says Stewart:
** Regarding what President Bill Clinton will say at his
April 28 deposition: "I would be astounded if he didn't say
what he has already said." Put another way, Stewart would be
"astounded" if Clinton were to tell the truth!
** "[David] Hale has a lot of credibility problems." And
Bill Clinton doesn't!?
** "[Hillary's] need for money overwhelmed her otherwise...
good judgement." Is it "toes in the (White)water" time? Is
the American public being gradually prepared for something?
Something like an indictment?
** Says Hillary (according to Stewart) -- "WE are the
Why does author Stewart devote just one sentence to the highly
credible charges that the Foster "suicide note" was forged? How
can media darling Stewart fairly compact the highly sophisticated
reportage of Sherman Skolnick into just one paragraph? Why
aren't the paid scribblers of the elitist press crying "foul" as
to Thomases' "insensitivity" vis a vis her "revelations" about
Vince and Lisa Foster's marriage?
The current issue of Media Bypass is a classic. Why can't I find
it at my bookstore or library?