Posted on 11/01/2005 8:26:59 PM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance
I think we may know the author of this review. :)
Customer Reviews
Average Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
13 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
the clinton-clinton-Broaddrick kind of rape, according to Susan Estrich, October 25, 2005
Reviewer: concerned woman - See all my reviews
Susan Estrich is the Democrat political operative who put Dukakis in a tank and would put hillary in the White House. Amazon.com sales rank suggests another tank for Susan: Following her sales pitch on Hannity and Colmes tonight, her book, 'The Case for Hillary Clinton,' went from bad to worse, (It instantly sustained a 10% decline to #8517. As I type this, it is #12,244.)
Ms. Estrich also wrote 'Real Rape,' a book about the clinton-clinton-Broaddrick kind of rape. But that was before she was tapped by the clinton machine to cover for... and revise the predatory history of... a couple of real rapists.
'Simple rape' is what the system calls this clinton kind of rape... Simple as opposed to aggravated. 'Simple rape,' a horrendous misnomer that only perpetuates the injustice. 'Real Rape' is what Ms. Estrich called it. But, as I said, that was before she was tapped by the clintons.
"In the cases on which this book focuses, the man is not the armed stranger jumping from the bushes--nor yet the black man jumping the white woman, the case that was most likely to result in the death penalty prior to 1977, and the stereotype that may explain in part the seriousness with which a white male criminal justice system has addressed 'stranger' rape. Instead the man is a neighbor, an acquaintance, or a date. The man and the woman are both white, or both black, or both Hispanic. He is a respected bachelor, a student, a businessman, or a professional. He may have been offered a ride home or invited in. He does not have a weapon. He acted alone. It is, in short, a simple rape."
--Susan Estrich, 'Real Rape'
In 'simple rape,' the system invariably revictimizes the victim and protects the rapist.
This horrible perversion of justice was the impetus for her book, so, of course, Ms Estrich knows exactly what is going on here between the clintons and Broaddrick.
Worse still, Ms. Estrich uses the horror of her own purported rape to obfuscate the casuistry and rapelies required to spin yet another rapist presidency. Estrich is contemptible.
This is the usual clinton rube arrogance rooted in stupidity.
The clintons figured that Estrich in their corner would make clinton serial rape and predation just disappear, not understanding that her presence would only intensify the scrutiny and that her 'expertise' and prior utterances would be used against them... and her.
Indeed, by twisting her own scholarship, Estrich indicts the clintons just as surely as the twisting double helix on that blue Gap dress.
Estrich's reaction to Juanita Broaddrick is the typical opportunistic, dishonest feminist reaction.
(See Salon.com article, 'Salon Mothers Who Think: We believe you, Juanita (we think).' Also: Google 'Did he rape that woman, Juanita Broaddrick?')
While most, if not all of the women who contributed to the salon.com piece believed Juanita, (liberals as well as conservatives), some feminists were in denial; they conveniently relied on false premises to assuage the cognitive dissonance.
One recurring false premise: although Juanita was credible, clinton couldn't be a rapist because he never raped before (or since).
Notwithstanding the fact that not all rapists are serial rapists, did they never hear of Eileen Wellstone et al?
(Google: 'Juanita isn't the only one: Bill Clinton's long history of sexual violence against women dates back some 30 years')
Shame on them.
"Who is Juanita Broaddrick? I've never heard of her!" cried Betty Friedan, the founder of modern feminism. Friedan's outburst came at last Friday's conference, entitled "The Legacy and Future of Hillary Rodham Clinton." Held at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. D.C., the event offered a chilling microcosm of an angry, divided America.
"For nearly an hour, a five-woman panel had been debating whether Hillary qualified as a "feminist heroine." I thought Broaddrick's claim of having been raped by Hillary's husband had some bearing on this point, so I broached the subject during the question-and-answer period. Friedan's dyspeptic denial followed.
"Was Friedan telling the truth? Maybe. And maybe all those millions of Germans who professed ignorance of the death camps were telling the truth too. The problem is, having admitted her ignorance, Friedan showed no interest in exploring the matter further. And that was the problem with the Germans too.
"Totalitarian impulses flourished at the conference. Taking a page from Soviet psychiatry, some Clintonites suggested that Hillary hating might be a mental illness.
--Richard Poe, "The Hillary Conspiracy"
HANNITY'S ESTRICH INTERVIEW: THE CLINTONS' RAPE OF BROADDRICK
While Sean Hannity correctly went directly to one of the issues that should automatically disqualify missus clinton for any position of power, the clinton rape of Juanita Broaddrick, he sabotaged his own line of attack.
Hannity's setup question, whether hillary 'believed' bill, was a dodge. And a not very artful one, at that. As Sean Hannity well knew, the issue isn't whether hillary 'believed' bill; the issue is whether hillary participated. In that rape as well as in all the other rapes and predations.
Hannity of all people should know this. He interviewed Broaddrick on precisely that point. Broaddrick described to him in shocking detail the meeting with hillary that occurred two weeks after the rape. hillary clinton went to that meeting for the express purpose of warning Broaddrick to keep her mouth shut. (She and the rapist entered the room, she approached Broaddrick (whom she had never met before) while a slinking rapist stayed behind, she proceeded to warn Broaddrick, she and the rapist immediately left.)
In Hannity's original Estrich-Broaddrick interview, he was honest about the real issue. But even then he ultimately failed because he neglected to expose the following clinton casuistry being spun by Estrich:
1. the 'statute of limitation' on rape should apply to the clintons in the Broaddrick rape,
2. the postmodern construction of 'rape,' i.e., the definition of rape is subjective, i.e., what is considered rape by the victim isn't necessarily considered rape by the rapist,
3. the definition of rape has morphed over time, i.e., what is rape today wasn't necessarily rape in the '70s.
On point 1, the statute of limitation on rape applies in a court of law, not in the voting booth. The question we are deciding isn't whether the clintons should be thrown in the slammer (another matter for another day); the question is less onerous, (from the clintons' perspective, anyway): Do the clintons have the character to be president?
The reductio ad absurdum is Christopher Shays' comment, made after he viewed the Ford building evidence on the rape of Broaddrick: "I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say it that way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."
And yet Shays voted not to impeach. Purportedly because he asked the wrong question. ("Where was the obstruction of justice?") (Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton gave to Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...)
And so we had two more years of the clinton Nano-Presidency. (Google: NANO-PRESIDENT: the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton) And with it, inexorably, 9/11. (Google: WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM? Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?)
Regarding points two and three: Juanita's bitten lip, swollen to twice its normal size, the hallmark of a serial rapist, is the obvious counterexample.
This book should be required reading for Susan Estrich.
ADDENDUM:
Ignoring the facts of the case, ignoring the 'real rape' paradigm, indeed, ignoring her own writings on 'real rape,' Susan Estrich, on Hannity and Colmes, pimping for yet another rapist presidency, openly disputed that Juanita Broaddrick was raped by the clintons.
In response, Juanita Broaddrick has offered to meet with Susan Estrich to discuss the matter. Estrich turned her down, cold. (Google: SUSAN ESTRICH RESPONDS TO JUANITA BROADDRICK'S OFFER TO SPEAK ABOUT HER RAPE -- "not interested")
I certainly believe she was raped. She says she waited a long time to talk about it. Gee, just like Juanita Broaddrick. It is a shame that she will publicly proclaim that Juanita is not telling the truth while not having the decency to at least speak with her and hear it from her own mouth.
Nam Vet
She did. But she didn't publicly talk about it until much later. She understands why women don't talk about for years. Unfortunately, she doesn's seem to want to understand that about Juanita.
Surely you jest!
A Leftist Clintonoid lawyer with a CONSCIENCE!
Hell, not so long as she has all that DNC/DNA splattered on her bib..
Semper Fi
she must think that getting bonged by a president is an intrinsic honor
In all fairness to Broaddrick, it's much easier to file a complaint when the rapist is a carjacking black stranger wielding an ice pick on a Harvard-connected victim than when the rapist is the white, 'acquaintance' Dixie Mafia DA 'twofer' (with a reputation for inflicting bodily harm on enemies), running for Governor of the state in which the rape occurred and on which the victim depends for the survival of her fledgling nursing-home business.
For those who sit at the keyboard, get out and help!
Excellent job, Doug!!!! Like most Liberals, Estrich is a flaming hypocrite.
Doug, post her e-mail again.
google Susan Estrich Faculty of Law Biography
I am not advocating spamming her.
"like the professor who trashed her own car in Irvine"
HMMMmmmmm. I believe that was in Claremont also! (unless there was a second incident in Irvine)
Doug,
What's up with her support of Hillary! now? In the last election cycle she stuck to the idea that Hillary! is the worst person for the Democrats to nominate.
T.W.
Understood.
I've not accused her own anguish being needed for her victimhood. I don't think that is the case. What has been done here, however, is very clever. Estrich is a rape victim. Well gee, if Bill Clinton were really a rapist, she would never defend him. He is using her and hiding behind her. She is very willing. If she really is compassionate, why would she not speak with a fellow rape survivor? It is quite a brilliant strategy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.