THE PREDATOR OF THE UNITED STATES
By Edward Zehr, Mar. 1, 1999
The question is being asked by many thoughtful people: "Is this guy sick, or what?" The secrets contained in those documents provided by the independent counsel that were so persuasive to wavering members of the House who viewed them at the Ford Building before voting to impeach President Clinton are leaking out. They paint a picture of a president with severe psychological problems. What was in those documents that left congressmen "horrified", according to Rep. Chris Shays, and "nauseated", in the words of Rep. Mike Castle? (Shays was able to keep his "horror" sufficiently under control to vote against impeachment and subsequently introduce a constitutional amendment that would allow the president a third term). NBC presstitute Tim Russert reportedly let it be known that watching the full five hours of the uncut Juanita Broaddrick interview had made him "physically ill," though obviously not so ill that he thought to mention it on his talking head "news" show the following Sunday. (It's only about sex, you know). What is it about President Clinton's "private" behavior that has such an emetic effect upon pols and press alike?
WITNESSES IDENTIFY CLINTON AS A SERIAL RAPIST
The online publication, Capitol Hill Blue, which revealed two weeks ago that Juanita Broaddrick's charge that Clinton sexually assaulted her when he was the Attorney General of Arkansas "is but one of many allegations of sexual assault by the President, "has now obtained permission from several of the victims to publish their names.
Of particular interest is the charge made by Eileen Wellstone, who was 19 at the time, that Clinton assaulted her near the campus of Oxford University while he was a student there. A retired State Department official has confirmed that he contacted the family of the girl and subsequently filed a report on the incident with his superiors. Although Clinton admitted having sexual relations with the girl, he claimed that she had consented. Despite the fact that Wellstone's family declined to press charges, there may have been repercussions. In the book he wrote on his experiences in the Clinton White House, "Unlimited Access", Gary Aldrich revealed a possible reason why Rhodes Scholar Clinton broke off his studies in the winter of 1969 to make a tour of Europe: "there are suggestions that school officials told him he was no longer welcome on campus . . . There were no grades available for review to prove or disprove claims regarding Clinton's achievement, since the university will not release such records absent the candidate's authority."
Is it possible that young Bill Clinton blew a Rhodes Scholarship by assaulting a young girl in his host country? One might wonder if he were capable of such reckless behavior were it not for the Lewinsky affair. The rumor persists to this day that Clinton did not receive a degree as the result of his studies at Oxford. When the question came up during the 1992 presidential campaign, he failed to respond to it. As Aldrich wrote: "It is noted that normally a candidate would sign a release so as to allow investigators to confirm or deny educational claims. In this case, the candidate will neither sign a release form nor will he provide documentation related to his attendance and performance at Oxford."
A woman who reported to campus police at Yale University in 1972 that Clinton had sexually assaulted her was contacted by Capitol Hill Blue, and confirmed that the incident had happened, but declined to discuss the details. Clinton was studying law there at the time the alleged rape took place. Although no charges were filed, a retired campus policeman confirmed for CHB reporters that the incident had taken place. The alleged victim did not wish to be identified.
The woman who complained that Clinton had accosted her at the University of Arkansas in 1974 has also declined to be identified. She charged that Clinton, then a law professor, had attempted to prevent her from leaving his office, adding that he had groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. Clinton responded to the charge by saying that she had "come on" to him.The outcome of the incident was that the female student left the school and Clinton stayed. Contacted at her Texas home last week,the woman confirmed the incident but was unwilling to make a public statement. Capitol Hill Blue reported that "Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students."
Those who still doubt Paula Jones' account of her encounter with then Gov. Bill Clinton in a Little Rock hotel suite should findthe allegation of Carolyn Moffet enlightening. The woman, who was at the time a legal secretary working in Little Rock, told ofmeeting Clinton at a fund-raiser in 1979. He invited her to ameeting with him in his hotel room, according to Moffet, whodescribed the encounter quite graphically: "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch,wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told meto suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."
Former Miss Arkansas, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, told friends in 1982, that Clinton had forced her to have sex with him. Paula Jones' lawyers attempted to subpoena Gracen, hoping that she would confirm the accounts that she had been sexually assaulted by Clinton. Gracen, however, at first denied having relations with Clinton - and then the following item appeared in the New York Daily News:
Elizabeth Ward Gracen -- who previously denied any liaison with the President -- said she came forward to rebut allegations that Clinton forced himself on her.
"I had sex with Bill Clinton, but the important part to me is that I was never pressured," she said. "We had an intimate evening. Nothing was ever forced. It was completely consensual."
What had prompted Gracen to issue this statement? She told USAToday that Clinton was running for the Democratic presidential nomination in the New York primary and that she had been asked by his campaign to issue a statement denying that they had had sex."His campaign contacted my manager and asked, 'Would she issue a formal denial?' I saw it as a situation where that made good sense. I wanted it (the publicity) to go away," Gracen said.
But that isn't what her former friend Judy Stokes, told USAToday. According to the newspaper, Stokes swore in the deposition she gave in the Jones case that Gracen had "tearfully told her in the mid-1980s that Clinton forced her into sex in the back of a limousine in 1982."
Rick Lambert, an investigator for the Paula Jones legal team,told the online publication NewsMax that, "I talked to Judy Stokes for an hour and a half. At first, she was reluctant to burn her bridges with Liz. But I finally asked, 'Do you believe Clinton raped her?' She said, 'Absolutely. He forced her to have sex. What do you call that?' Stokes was totally convinced it was rape."
Why did Gracen change her story? As I reported last year, the lady is an actress and, according to The New York Post, the 1992 denial was elicited from Gracen after she and her manager Miles Levy, met with Clinton's TV producer friend Harry Thomasson and his campaign manager Mickey Kantor. At a Little Rock press conference held a week later Gracen denied that she and Clinton were lovers. She was thereupon given a role by producer Michael Viner in Sidney Sheldon's miniseries "Sands of Time." After that Gracen was given another part in a TV movie called "Discretion Assured." When he asked her agent, Levy, why Gracen refused to talk to him, investigator Lambert was told, "Look, that would be career suicide for Liz and you know it."
Of course, Gracen denies that the denial she made on Clinton's behalf had anything to do with her being given a role by producer Michael Viner. Of course. Michael Viner just happens to be the former publisher of Dove Books who felt inspired by civic virtueto hold a press conference in which he badmouthed Kathleen Willey, implying that the only reason she had made those allegations against Clinton was to promote a book she wanted to sell him. (In fact, it was Viner who had approached Willey about the book, but the smear seemed to work at the time). Small world,isn't it? According to Capitol Hill Blue, Gracen's latest version of the story is that what she had said in the Daily News interview is false. She now says that she was pressured by threats from the president's supporters to say that her sexual encounter with Clinton was consensual.
A onetime Washington fundraiser, Sandra Allen James, has said that she was invited to Clinton's Washington, DC hotel room in 1991. She alleges that an incident whose pattern should befamiliar by now, transpired -- she found herself pinned her against the wall as Clinton put his hand up her dress. Her screams attracted the attention of a state trooper assigned to guard Clinton. When the trooper pounded on the door and inquired what was going on, Clinton fled. Ms. James reported the incident to her supervisor, only to be told to keep quiet if she wanted to stay employed. When contacted a week ago by CHB, Ms. James, who has since married, said that she subsequently learned of other women who had been accosted by Clinton when he traveled to Washington during his presidential campaign.
A flight attendant on an aircraft used by the 1992 Clinton campaign, Christy Zercher, told CHB that candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, groped her and made remarks to her about oral sex. A video tape shot by ABC News showed Clinton, three sheets to the wind, with his hand between the legs of another female flight attendant. Zercher said that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey later attempted to pressure her into remaining silent about the incident.
Investigators Rick and Beverly Lambert worked with Paula Jones lawyers from September 1997 to discover "Jane Doe" victims of Bill Clinton. Their findings were turned over to the House Judiciary Committee after they had been subpoenaed by the Office of Independent Counsel. Some believe that their evidence convinced wavering congressmen to change their votes, providingthe margin needed for impeachment.
The investigators told NewsMax that they had interviewed 209 witnesses, uncovering leads on previously unknown incidents involving Clinton and providing additional details about events already known to the public. According to the online publication,a number of "promising leads" were abandoned when the Jones case was dismissed last spring. Among the leads not followed up was one that involved the rape of a 14-year-old girl at a Little Rock cocaine party.
Beverly Lambert provided details of Clinton's assault on a "young woman lawyer" he met at a Democratic fundraiser in Little Rock in the late '70s. The incident had been mentioned in a book by Roger Morris, "Partners in Power." The victim had talked to Morris on condition of confidentiality. After the fundraiser at a popular waterfront restaurant, known then as Fisherman's Wharf, "She offered Clinton a ride home. And once he got her alone in her car, he grabbed this woman and assaulted her. He did his trademark thing; exposed himself, asked her to 'kiss it,' and pushed her head down into his lap," according to Lambert.
The woman went home and told her husband, who subsequently confronted Clinton, obtaining a "sheepish" apology from him. But the couple were unwilling to talk to Jones' investigators. Do you wonder why? Lambert explains:
"Right after they talked to Roger Morris, her husband was suddenly appointed to head up the Arkansas Real EstateCommission," says Beverly. "I'm sure that job pays pretty well. She works for the state, too. So at this point they're afraid for their jobs."
Does that sound excessively cynical? Shouldn't we give then thebenefit of a doubt? Beverly Lambert explains further:
"The husband was cooperative when Rick first called, but said he wanted to check with someone before he talked further.When he called back he was totally hostile and started calling Rick every name in the book."
The facts about Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Dolly Kyle Browning, Gennifer Flowers, Sally Perdue and many others have been discussed at some length in previous columns. The heavy-handed tactics of intimidation used by the Clinton administration to silence these women have been largely ignored by the mainstream press who continued to sing the Predator's praises when they must have known what he had been up to all along. Am I being unfair? They knew about all this even before we did. Their silence tells us everything we need to know about them.
The conclusions to be drawn from these accounts are straightforward enough. More than a dozen women have accused Clinton of committing sexual assault upon them. (The state troopers assigned to guard Clinton while he was governor of Arkansas have told of seven additional incidents, similar to those recounted above). The complaints have extended over a period of years, beginning in Clinton's student days.
(1). Let us consider the possibility that the reports are false.Why would so many women lie to implicate Clinton in a major crime?
a. Were the women all part of a vast conspiracy against Clinton? This hardly seems possible. Why would anyone conspire against a young student at Oxford, for example? Why has he withheld details of his academic history there and his reason for leaving? And how does one account for the corroborating witnesses in the case of Juanita Broaddrick (and others)?
b. Did somebody make up the story of the reports? If accounts of these complaints are false, why haven't the press or theWhite House denied them? Since the names of the alleged victims are known in about half of the cases, it should be possible for the press to determine whether such complaints were made -- the incident at the University of Arkansas, for example. We await their objective conclusions with bated breath (any year now).
c. The only other explanation for so many false reports would be a series of random, uncoordinated lies by the alleged victims. This strains credulity far beyond the breaking point. Is there a single case on record of any innocent person ever being accused by false witnesses in more than a dozen unrelated incidents?
(2). The only other possibility is that the reports are true, in which case the president is a serial rapist.
And what inferences are we forced to draw from all this? It would seem that we have a government that is either too cowardly or too corrupt to uphold the law. Remember all that supermoralist rhetoric they were feeding us a few years back about women's rights? The NewsMax article makes the point that many of the women Clinton victimized were "upwardly mobile professionals, not the stereotypical bimbos depicted by the Clinton camp," and that their careers would have been jeopardized had they gone public with allegations of rape against this popular and powerful white male southern politician. Which makes the conspicuous silence of so-called women's organizations such as NOW all the more disgusting. They were quite prepared to destroy the career of Clarence Thomas on the basis of unsupported allegations he had "talked dirty" to St. Anita Hill, but seem determined to give a pass to their psycho president for his long career as a serial rapist.
How can we trust a mainstream press that goes along with such ablatant coverup? If they are willing to provide cover for a serial rapist, how can we assume that they wouldn't cover up other crimes -- the murder of a high-ranking White House aide,for example? The mainstream press had attempted to spike both the Paula Jones story and the Monica Lewinsky affair until the Internet made these stories common knowledge, rendering their silence "inoperative." Now we are seeing the whole dismal process repeated with the Broaddrick interview.
The silence of the mainstream media with regard to the horrors of the Ford Building grows more damning with each passing day. Their credibility shrinks under the withering light of disclosures they are too cowardly to acknowledge. When those talking heads lined up last Sunday to ballyhoo the make-believe candidacy of Hillary Clinton in the New York Senate race, without even so much as mentioning Juanita Broaddrick, they revealed to us their true nature. They are the manipulated puppets of the power-elite,including most of those who play "conservatives" on TV. Their field of endeavor is not journalism, but propaganda. They are treacherous, deceitful people. Most mainstream pundits nowadays use their tongues primarily to spit-shine Clinton's jackboots.
There are still many Americans who prefer to shrink back from the truth in denial of the obvious, looking desperately for some reason not to believe any of this. "Why didn't these women come forward with their stories much earlier?" they ask, pretending to have forgotten the official line on this issue, bruited about so freely by the propaganda media when the targets were Bob Packwood, or Clarence Thomas. The reasons for silence given to Capitol Hill Blue and the Paula Jones investigators by some of Clinton's undoubted victims should serve as a quick review.
The retired State Department official who reported Miss Wellstone's allegation that she had been raped by Clinton in 1969 said that he believed her story. "There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma," he said. "But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I heard of it."
For those who still don't get the picture, Miss Wellstone was contacted by CHB last week and confirmed that the incident had happened, although she was unwilling to discuss it. Regarding Clinton, the State Department official who investigated the incident had this to say: "I came away from incident with the clear impression that this was a young man who was there to party, not study."
Miss James told CHB that the incident at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington had indeed taken place but she was unwilling to discuss it publicly because "anyone who does so is destroyed by the Clinton White House," in the words of the CHB report.
"My husband and children deserve better than that," she told reporters for the online publication when they first contacted her two weeks ago. She had a change of heart after reading about the Broaddrick story and called back to give them permission to use her maiden name -- but that is as far as she is willing to go with the matter.
Miss Moffet, to use her maiden name, said that she was told by her superior "that people who crossed the governor usually regretted it and that if I knew what was good for me I'd forget that it ever happened," she told CHB. "I haven't forgotten it.You don't forget crude men like that."
Clear? Need I mention the threat to break Sally Perdue's legs if she didn't keep quiet? Or the crude threats made against Kathleen Willey, emphasized by the slashing of her tires? As a gratuitous sadistic flourish, Willey's cat disappeared and the skull of a small animal was found on her front porch several weeks later.
Almost as a footnote, NBC finally aired the Lisa Myers interview with Juanita Broaddrick last Wednesday, now that it has lost most of its news value. (That is called Real Heads-up Reporting by theThree Blind Mice). The chopped-down, 23-minute version of the dialogue contained no surprises. The wretched excuses given by NBC for suppressing the interview until after the Senate vote on removing the Predator from office are too silly to bother you with.
One point of possible interest is Broaddrick's allegation that Clinton bit her upper lip in order to overcome her resistance. A police officer and expert on sex-crimes who was interviewed on radio by former FBI agent, prosecutor, and convict G. GordonLiddy (who knows the legal system inside and out), said that lipbiting is a "suppression technique" commonly used by serial rapists. It allows the assailant to subdue the victim while leaving his arms and legs free. The officer said that on the basis of Broaddrick's description of the crime, he would go straight to his "serial rapist file" to compile a list of likely suspects. Just a thought -- is this the sort of detail a woman would be likely to make up if she were fabricating a false report of a rape?
A public opinion survey conducted by Rasmussen Research found that only 20 percent of the public had seen the Broaddrick interview aired by NBC last Wednesday. Of those who did see it, however, 57 percent believed Mrs. Broaddrick, while only 25 percent did not. This would appear to support the general impression that Mrs. Broaddrick's story was perceived as credible.
CLINTON AS PSYCHOPATH
Clinton's pattern of serial sexual crimes is characteristic of a psychopathic personality. But how, you may ask, could a psychopath possibly function in the office of the presidency? You would be surprised. The definition by Webster gives us a clue:
psychopathic personality: 1. a type of personality characterized by amoral and anti-social behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc. 2. a person who has such a personality.
Already, the emerging picture looks familiar. And notice that definition says nothing about the person's ability to function in a demanding occupation. The Bantam Medical dictionary defines a psychopath simply as "a person who behaves in an antisocial way and shows little or no guilt for antisocial acts and little capacity for forming emotional relationships with others."
I would say, on the face of the evidence, that these definitions fit Clinton like a glove. His narcissism has been noted by a number of qualified observers, including Paul Lowinger, a psychiatrist of the Freudian persuasion, who has written a psychological study of the president. "In the clinical world,"says Lowinger, "addiction, lack of a central identity, excessive narcissism, and distortion of superego or conscience, it is called a borderline or a narcissistic personality. The term borderline means on the border between a usual personality with problems and a grossly disordered one while narcissistic speaks for itself. These diagnoses point to genetic or biochemical factors in addition to the psychodynamic, family and family issues."
A second opinion is provided by Robert L. Kocher, an engineer who has done graduate study in clinical psychology. In a paper titled "Bill and Hillary Clinton as Borderline Psychotics," Kocher sees the problems of the president and his wife as deriving from improper upbringing rather than genetic or biochemical factors.He concludes:
"The problem with the both Clintons is that they were long ago licensed to think and act at primitive, immature, and irrational levels of functioning. Much of this was a self-conferred licensing by a generation which has continued, and which has been the root of most of the political, economic,and social problems in this country."
It sounds as though what Kocher is getting at is that the first couple's problems are a consequence of their being boomer brats.In fact, his paper puts the entire culture on the couch and finds it fraught with dysfunction. His opinion of Clinton fairly drips disdain: "By his freshman year in high school Bill found he could manipulate people with showy glibness and deception, and nobody would call him on it."
Hocher sees the president as little more than a hollow shell of a man, lacking real experience:
"A good memory for acting lines would carry him through easy courses in the most prestigious schools in the country without effort or necessity to learn seriously. From there,he went almost immediately to being the boy governor of a state, and on to the presidency. It was all one with a little empty talk on a level that could be found on any high school debate team."
Kocher's paper is well worth reading. In fact, if it were much better I don't think I could stand it. The reason so many of our opinion leaders see Clinton as "brilliant" is that they themselves are pompous, superficial mediocrities who are accustomed to skate over the surface of issues in perfect ignorance of what lies beneath. But Kocher sheds much more light upon what is wrong with the culture than what's wrong with Clinton.
The most outspoken observer of the Clinton psyche was originally thought to be the clinical psychologist Dr. Paul Fick, who has written a book titled "The Dysfunctional President" in which he says bluntly that the president is mentally ill. He describes Clinton's behavior as "compulsive-obsessive" and attributes much of his problem to the fact that he was raised in a dysfunctional family with an alcoholic father. But instead of developing an addiction to alcohol like his stepfather, according to Fick,Clinton became a sex addict.
"Whether it's drugs, alcohol, eating disorders, or sex," says Fick, people with this disorder use obsessive behavior to distract them from their emotional problems. Perhaps, but Clinton is beginning to sound less like a candidate for a 12-step program than somebody who needs to be locked up in the interest of public safety. For Dr. Fick concludes ominously:
"If he doesn't get intervention at this point in time, and say he's reinforced by the public to stay in office, I firmly believe he'll act out again before the end of his term."
Jack Wheeler, writing in this month's "Strategic Intelligence" newsletter, quotes British Columbia University Professor of Psychology Robert Hare's description of a "closet psychopath":
"Their most pervasive trait is a stunning lack of conscience.They are glib, lack remorse, guilt, or empathy, are emotionally shallow and lie easily and convincingly.Underneath a charming, sometimes irresistibly likeable facade, the closet psychopath is ruthless, ambitious,selfish, and dishonest. They are social predators who charm and manipulate their way through life, leaving a trail of broken hearts and empty wallets. Power and control are all-important to them, and they will use threats, intimidation,litigation, and violence to get what they want."
Does that ring a vague bell? I have already discussed in previous columns the striking similarity between Clinton's personality disorder and the traits attributed to the Trickster archetype in the Analytical Psychology of C.G. Jung. For example:
"The Trickster cycle corresponds to the earliest and least developed period of life. Trickster is a figure whose physical appetites dominate his behavior . . . Lacking any purpose beyond the gratification of his primary needs, he is cruel, cynical, and unfeeling."
Recall Clinton's parting words to Broaddrick, referring to herbadly bitten lip: "Better put some ice on that."
In other words, what these shrinks seem to be telling us is that if a person does not get a proper upbringing, he is liable to turn out something like this, i.e. no damn good at all. This isn't exactly late breaking news, but a lot of people seem to have forgotten it. How about the genetic determinants, you may ask? Jungian archetypes are genetically determined, although everybody is thought to have much the same archetypes bumping around in the lower depths. (They are kind of primitive and haven't evolved much lately). Clinton's problem, from a Jungian perspective, would be that he has been hanging out with the most brutish and primitive of the lot.
CLINTON'S HIDDEN VICTIM
One of the more significant points made by Prof. Hare is that people can actually become addicted to victimization by a closet psychopath (remember Jonestown?) because he fulfills their emotional need for attention. The more the psycho butters them up, the more dependent they become.
Furthermore, in a paper titled "'Camouflage Society' from Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder: A Case of Diagnostic Confusion," Hare wrote:
"Yet psychopaths have little difficulty infiltrating the domains of business, politics, law enforcement, government,academia and other social structures (Babiak). It is the egocentric, cold-blooded and remorseless psychopaths who blend into all aspects of society and have such devastating impacts on people around them who send chills down the spines of law enforcement officers."
In other words, by dropping its guard and allowing its moral standards to deteriorate, society has made itself vulnerable to psychopaths with virulent anti-social tendencies. Can anyone doubt it after watching the nauseating display of moral cowardice and hypocrisy staged recently by the U.S. Senate?
Clinton is not merely a bad person, he has what shrinks refer to as a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It is his insatiable quest for self esteem that has driven him to seek the high office that he presently holds. His reaction to losing his first bid for reelection as Governor of Arkansas was a dead giveaway: his loss of self esteem was such that he got down on the floor of his official limo and would not show his face. That is why he would rather die than resign the presidency, no matter what crimes he is found to have committed. The end of his presidential term, however it occurs, is bound to be traumatic for him. He seems to entertain a fantasy of serving a third term. A de facto White House committee is rumored to be working on it and pseudo-Republican Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut, a shameless Clinton lapdog, was recently persuaded to introduce a constitutional amendment that would invalidate the 22nd Amendment, thereby allowing Clinton to run for the presidency yet again. The fact that the president would pursue such a quixotic measure when he must realize that it has no chance of passage is an indication of his mental state.
According to the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM), a basic reference used by psychiatrists, self esteem is exceedingly fragile in people with such a disorder.They require constant applause and admiration from those around them. Their response to criticism may take the form of rage, or even shame, which they may dissemble with a public show of indifference. Such persons are likely to have an exaggerated sense of entitlement, which leads them to exploit others in order to achieve their aims. Partners in interpersonal relationships are likely to be treated as objects for the gratification of the psychopath's self esteem. Such inflexible patterns of behavior are described as "enduring." Clinton's behavior is not likely to change any time soon. As one medical reference notes laconically,the worth of any treatment for such a disorder remains debatable.
And what is one to make of the observation by the former head of NOW for California, Tammy Bruce? She has assembled a large collection of photographs of many of Clinton's alleged victims and notes that most of them resemble, in some fairly obvious way, his mother. One is reminded of serial killer Ted Bundy, whose victims resembled a girl who had once rejected him. Or the Boston Strangler, a psychotic serial killer with a split personality whose choice of victims had distinct Oedipal characteristics.Thus, it is possible to run the gamut from Jungian psychology to Freudian, making stops in between, without exhausting the possibilities for explaining the president's aberrant behavior. Whatever Clinton's problems may be, they do not appear to be trivial.
But why, ask Clinton's defenders in one last desperate attempt to hold back the flood of revelations with a feeble pretense of logic, why would a person who was making a career in public life commit a series of criminal acts that could lead to his exposure and ruin?
Brent E. Turvey of Knowledge Solutions, in a paper he wrote on unsolved serial rapes, suggested a reason:
"This rapist may grow more confident over time, as his egocentricity is very high. He may begin to do things which might lead to his identification if fully investigated.Police may interpret this as a sign that the rapist desires to be caught. What is actually true is that the rapist has no respect for the police, has learned that he can rape without fear of identification or capture, and subsequently does not take precautions that he has learned are unnecessary."
Was there not a hint of this in Clinton's "victory" celebration held on the very day of his impeachment by the house? Do Clinton's defenders really believe that he has any respect for them? When he spins his grotesque arguments based on what the interpretation of "is" is, is he not, in actuality, holding them up to ridicule? And still they come back for more. As Prof. Harestated, people can actually become addicted to victimization by a closet psychopath because he fills their need for attention. Does this describe Clinton's supporters, or what? Consider the pathetic, puppy-dog professions of loyalty by some of the president's admirers: "He's just like us." Or even more pitiable, the notion that this ingratiating psychopath really cares about their personal problems. He cares so little about his own family that he does not think twice about exposing them to a degrading and humiliating public scandal, and yet his attention-starved supporters remain convinced that this glib demagogue really does care about them.
Turvey quotes a "Power Assertive" rapist (his terminology):
"Well, I decided I'm going to put them in a position where they can't do anything about what I want to do. The can't refuse me. They can't reject me. They're going to have no say in the matter. I'm in charge now."
Seen in this light, Clinton has been given an opportunity that few psychopaths have been able to enjoy -- he has been able to rape an entire society. Thus, his grotesque rationalizations which invariably get snapped up and bandied about by "the best and the brightest," can be seen as his way of showing his contempt for all of us, but especially for those who believe him. What greater revenge could any psychopath hope to inflict upon society for his own lack of self-esteem? On the one hand he may well want to be caught -- his self-loathing is real enough -- but at the same time, he is well aware that the odds are against it.Our society is run by a pack of sniveling cowards and hypocrites who seem prepared to cover up even the darkest crimes in order to protect their own positions of privilege, and he knows it. For a complete exposure of the crimes of Clinton would be profoundly damaging to our parasitic ruling clique. One can but watch inhorrified fascination as the psychopath and his accomplice/victims continue on their descending spiral of self-degradation.
Is this really the kind of person we want to have in charge of a nuclear weapons arsenal adequate to incinerate most everything on the globe worth mentioning? Although the mainstream "news" media played the story sotto voce this time, Clinton once again unloaded a barrage of high explosives on Iraq just hours before the Broaddrick interview aired. Try as he may, the president just can't seem to stop waggin' that old dog. Talk about compulsive --Clinton has ordered the aerial bombardment of some luckless target country every single time a damaging piece of major newsabout him has appeared on the nation's TV screens. It's the kind of habit that can just sort of grow on a president who is out of control and a little bit bonkers.
Remember all those shrieking, hysterical diatribes we used to get from kneejerk-liberal college perfessers and such about having the "wrong" thumb on the nuclear button -- Barry Goldwater's, for example? Guess what? They didn't mean a word of it, any more than the kneejerk-feminazis meant all that stuff they fed the public about how women NEVER lie about rape and are ever so reluctant tocome forward and report it.
Well, now it seems that any woman who does come forward with allegations about THIS president is automatically labeled a slutby the very same harridans who attempted to hound Clarence Thomasout of public life on the theory that St. Anita must be right if only because of her gender. And our ever so frightfully SANE perfessers can't think of anyone they would rather see in charge of all those big bad nukes than a psycho.
As Nietzsche put it, "It is all untrue! Anything goes!"
Edward Zehr can be reached at ezehr@capaccess.org
Published in the Mar. 1, 1999 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1999 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact
|
|
