[lysie]

Missed the interview, but don't doubt it at all.

Thanks for all you do.

[Taxman]

Mia, thank you for all that you do for our FRee Republic!

[isthisnickcool]

I've always wondered if Susan Estrich was really ever raped. I wonder if she faked the event just to bring attention to herself. I wonder about this because if she was raped how could she stand with the Clintons?

[wagglebee]

BTTT!

[ladyinred]

Sean does get too nice at times that is for sure. I was listening but turned it off before Susan came on. Sorry I did. How a rapist made it into the White House is a result of the silence of the media in the first place. How he kept from being ousted from office is the shame of the Senators who took an oath to fairly judge the case sent them. They did not. None of them even looked at the evidence. The artfully crafted media campaign making it all about Monica is one of the most shameful chapters in our history. We cannot let them back into power.

[llevrok]

wow. Great summary. I doubt Hils will have a chance because of baggage like you exposed. The trick will be getting it out, passed the MSM's tight liberal lips.

Just saw Susan OSterich on H&C. Did she have a lot of cosmetic work done or what? New teeth, heavy eye make up and hair. She still has a face that launched a 1000 ships!

[Mia T]

ping

[Rummyfan]

Thanks Mia! When I heard the unmistakable fingernails-on-blackboard voice of Estrich this afternoon, I immediately switched to sports talk. I guess she has finally sobered up from last November.......

[Incorrigible]

Go Mia!!!!

[Mia T]

ping

[Deetes]

BTTT !!!!

[Boazo]

I heard Susan Estrich's liver ran away from her yelling
she's trying to kill me!

[hattend]

BTTT

[doug from upland]

Great work, Mia. If only Juanita would have a conversation with Estrich. Juanita will be at the Clinton Lie-brary with Candice Jackson on Oct. 26. Don' miss my show on Rightalk Radio on Wednesday with Candice.

[PGalt]

OUTSTANDING! Thanks soooo much Mia T.

[HarleyLady27]

I to was stunned listening to the interview....thought I was listening to someone else other than Hannity...

A total disgrace of an interview....anyone who would put another clinton back in the White House deserves everything they get...

NO CLINTON SHALL EVER RULE THE WHITE HOUSE AGAIN!!! (2008 motto)

[The Raven]

Good letter!!

A minor point of disagreement.

"...And so we had two more years of the clinton Nano-Presidency. And with it, inexorably, 9/11."

We would not have gotten GW Bush with a Clinton exit but rather GW (Global Warmed) Al Gore and things may have gotten worse.

[johnny7]

I sincerely doubt that Estrich had the nerve to ask Rapist42 if Broaddrick's accusations were true. If she did... she would have lost his 'friendship'... and most likely, Hillary's.

She would've been persona non grata around the demented two... and to a Dem, journalist/campaign-advisor... that's a death sentence. You can bet his 'friendship' meant more than whatever happened to her personally in the past.

It is more likely that Estrich is just as good a liar as Clinton... and that Hannity LET her get away with it.

[Mia T]

CORRECTIONS, ADDITIONS, ADDENDUM


OPEN LETTER TO SEAN HANNITY ON ESTRICH INTERVIEW, THE CLINTONS' RAPE OF BROADDRICK

by Mia T, 10.11.05

Dear Mr. Hannity-

It appears that you allowed your "friendship" with Susan Estrich affect your interview this afternoon. (Or was it the favorable mention in Estrich's shameless new polemic, The Case For Hillary Clinton?)

While you correctly went directly to one of the issues that should automatically disqualify clinton for any position of power, the clinton rape of Juanita Broaddrick, you sabotaged your own line of attack.

Your setup question, whether hillary 'believed' bill, was a dodge. And a not very artful one, at that. As you well know, 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.

You of all people should know this. You interviewed Broaddrick on precisely that point. (A video and analysis of that interview to follow.) Broaddrick described to you in 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 your original Estrich-Broaddrick interview, you were honest about the real issue. But even then you ultimately failed because you neglected to expose the following clinton casuistry being spun by Estrich:

1. the 'statute of limitation' on rape should apply to the clintons in 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. And with it, inexorably, 9/11.

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.

I hope you do better tonight. Instead of hawking Susan's book, try, for a change, to REALLY nail the clintons. If women truly understood the clintons' 30-year history of abuse of women, there would be no way these two profoundly dysfunctional scourges would be elected dogcatcher.

Sincerely,
Mia T
October 11, 2005

P.S. How you can respect a rape victim (Estrich), whose view of these two rapists bends with the political wind, is beyond me.

Addendum: (10.11.05, 10 PM)
The Hannity-and-Colmes Interview

P.P.S. As for the clinton "blueprint" being laid out by Estrich in this... eh... book, an intellectually honest interview would have done a helluva lot more than all that excessive handwringing you exposed us to tonight.

"America's once-in-a-lifetime chance to break the world's most prominent glass ceiling and elect a female president of the United States." -- Estrich, The Case For Hillary Clinton

The Estrich eyewash exposes the clintons' main strategem: tie the fate of the clinton candidacy to the fate of all women in a cynical attempt to get the women's vote, (recognizing that the women's vote is hardly a lock for hillary--there is a not insignificant number of leftist women who can't stomach missus clinton... and are actively working to short-circuit her candidacy).

 

Estrich argues that missus clinton is qualified, that indeed she is the only woman who is qualified. If either claim were true, the clinton agitprop would have modeled "Commander-in-Chief" after missus clinton.

But they didn't. They modeled the "Commander-in-Chief" after missus clinton's infinitely more qualified potential opponent, Condi Rice.

For discussion, see HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM

This clinton-Estrich ploy to get the women's vote, and perhaps even more so, the ploy's utter transparency, are an insult to all women.

The clintons' fundamental error is always the same: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.