"You are either living a very sheltered life or you are actually a DemocRAT spinmeister."
Neither. I have been involved with both Bush/Cheney campaigns in my area. I've also been involved with some Republican groups. At no time in my memory have they ever brought up this charge. I've also heard Rush call Clinton a "sociopath", and I agree with him 100% on that - in the sexual realm. I don't presume to know what Rush thinks about these murder allegations, but I doubt he would accuse the Clintons of committing and/or being accomplices to murder. I believe Clinton is a sociopath, but it's a long step from sexual deviancy/harassment and coverup to murder. However, that said, there are many things about many people we don't know.... anything is possible regarding Clinton and Co. Simply put, I would be surprised if these charges were true, because we live in the U.S. We have freedom of the press. No matter how far left the mainstream press leans, I can't bring myself to believe that they would cover up a charge of this magnitude. Not 100% of them.
The MSM didn't actively cover up Clinton's violent criminal activity, they just ignored it completely. They ignored it for three reasons: 85% of them are Democrats. It was better for their careers and social lives to ignore these crimes. They're terribly afraid of retaliation by the Clintons (and I can't blame them for that.)
Many mainstream journalists tried to expose the truth.
New York Post reporter Christopher Ruddy broke the story of the Vincent Foster coverup. The Clinton White House pressured Rupert Murdoch into firing Ruddy (that's in tomorrow's installment).
As noted in the excerpt of my book posted above, Sunday Telegraph Washington Bureau Chief Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote extensively about the Clinton body count. Washington Post columnist Bob Novak praised Evans-Pritchard for this work.
The list goes on: Former Wall Street Journal columnist Micah Morrison; former editor-in-chief of the Sacramento Union Joseph Farah; Philip Weiss of The New York Observer...
Many mainstream journalists spoke out. But they were shouted down by the crowd.
For a long time I shared the same thoughts, about the Clintons, as you. I found it very hard to believe that such a thing could happen. Not in America.
I am not the keenest tool in the shed but I can think and I can educate myself. Which is what I did. After some time and work you do see a pattern big enough to make you say, hmmm. Interestingly enough the facts are not crack-pot, tin foil hat writers. They each have credibility.
After the Rush comment, I went here to find out the definition of a sociopath. (gotta start somewhere)
http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/socio.htm
One question I would ask you is this "why could a person be a "sociopath" in one area and not another?
You don't crunch evidence to fit a theory- Grissom
Rush started to discuss these things but realized early on that nothing was going to be done and that he would lose effectiveness if he continued with it because there would never be and satisfaction. By continuing to discuss something that could never have a resolution he would have become only a right wing conspiracy theorist. I cursed him at the time for “ignoring” these things but came to understand that his voice was needed for a long time and it should not be sacrificed for righteousness that could never be finally shown.
Reference your post # 57.
After reading your response to carl in alsask, I agree with Carl’s assessment. Only I would lean toward you being a Democrat plant.