Posted on 06/22/2005 6:20:45 PM PDT by CHARLITE
While the accusations may be unfavorable to Mrs. Clinton, they have the potential to do her more good than harm.
Mr. Klein's true intentions are unclear and I am not alleging that his true colors are showing through albeit in a circuitous manner. Still, one must proceed cautiously when a professional journalist reports, using one unnamed source, that Bill Clinton said he was going to rape Hillary, and that that evening resulted in Chelsea being conceived.
A plethora of reasons already exist that should forever prohibit Mrs. Clinton from public office, let alone the presidency. The skeletons in the closet from Arkansas to the White House are too numerous to cover in this article. Some include Craig Livingstone and the hundreds of top Republican FBI files in his possession. There was the Castle Grande project, a real estate scam that Mrs. Clinton testified under oath she played no role in, even though her disappearing subpoenaed billing records told a different story. And where were these records found? Where do you think? They emerged two years later in her White House library.
Travel Office personnel were fired and the boss persecuted. Even though many with no ax to grind implicated Mrs. Clinton, she swore under oath that she had no involvement. The scandals pretty much covered the gamut. There were pardons, illegal fundraisers, and commodity bounties. Each time the answers were few, accountability was fewer, and one common name kept popping up amongst all the haze and confusion…Hillary.
Mrs. Clinton and her advisers have been trying to sweep these scandals under the rug for years. But even they must realize that if she reemerges to the national spotlight with a presidential run, the scandals will reemerge with her. No doubt they will pose the greatest obstacle to such a bid.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
Char
The quality of a Democracy has a difficult time exceeding the quality of the press.
he's right unfortunately
IfClinton raped Hillary why does Chelsea look,like Hubbell.
Very well, we have an excellent press.Just if we can get a clear majority of the people to understand that that excellent press is named FreeRepublic.com.
my impression is that we're in the same place when we entered this sicko movie.
we entered in february 1992. 60 lies put bill 'n hill on at the moment there was no leader in the democrat primary. bill admitted his dalliances, and hillary looked like the victim. women felt for hillary.
from then on the clintons led the democrat primaries.
Maybe Webster got "seconds".
This allegation against the author simply isn't true. Nowhere in the book does he say that Bill Clinton raped Hillary Clinton. He also does not say that Chelsea was conceived as a result of the alleged rape.
AIM is lying.
This is absolutely correct. But even in that list, some of the charges cannot be absolutely pinned on Hillary. If the billing records impeach her testimony under oath, why then she should be prosecuted for the perjury in a good, conservative venue before she gets the Democratic nomination for POTUS. But we know better than to expect any such a thing out the Bush Administration.The Craig Livingstone afair is unique in that the Clinton Administration did not blame anyone for hiring Livingstone and did not credit anyone for firing him - he just "was fired." That leaves a pall of suspicion over everyone in the Clinton WH; it happened on Clinton's watch in a far more direct way than Abu Ghraib happened on Rumsfeld's - Rumsfeld wasn't in Iraq but Craig Livingstone commited hundreds of felonies in the WH basement. The confidentiality of those records was compromised, and there is no way to prove that their secrets were not misused. Which is why it was a felony to look at one without a need to know. And why the fact that the felonies were not prosecuted constitutes proof on its face that Clinton himself was logically responsible. Nobody else was . . .
If the book doesn't actually claim that Bill said he was going to rape Hillary, nor actually claims that this act conceived Chelsea, then all the more reason to suspect that the book is being used to throw up such a smoke screen for Hillary. Her minions could have leaked that the book claimed such, pre-publication, and used the willingness of much of the main stream media to go along with such lies, without fact checking (does the book actually say that?), to fabricate the smoke screen, even if the books author had no such intention.
Start enough of a food fight, and the majority of voters will just turn away in disgust, choosing not to decide who is right and who is wrong.
The Left is a master at this tactic, and Hillary has learned well.
Good.Bad
Help. Hurt
I don't care. I wish I never had to see or hear the name
Clinton in my life EVER again.
ping
I can accept the thesis of this article: Hillary does better as a victim. It's a trap for conservatives. Ed Klein is no conservative. He worked at both the Newsweek and the New York Times, which hire only "friendlies." Though he was loathed at both liberal outlets, it because of his personality and management style, not his politics.
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.