[MitchellC]

You know the first website you linked to has Bush-as-Hitler graphics on it, seems to accuse Clinton of causing 9/11, and is run by a transsexual (or is it transvestite) ?

[carl in alaska]

There is some "unsubstantiated junk" in those Clinton body count lists that float around on the internet. Many of the deaths on those lists are just coincidental. A POTUS meets and shakes hands with thousands of people during his term in the White House and just through random chance some of those people will unfortunately die in actual accidents. For example, I saw one of the Navy chopper pilots who flew Clinton out to an aircraft carrier listed on a "body count." Clinton would have no reason to murder a chopper pilot, and that poor guy just happened to get killed in a car accident. So what's happened here is people have gone to extremes and taken this stuff too far by adding a bunch of random accidental deaths into these body count lists.

That said, however, there are a number of specific cases that are extremely suspicious and where there is strong circumstantial evidence pointing to probable homicide by the Clintons. Among these are the suspicious deaths of Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Jerry Parks, and a few of Clinton's former bimbos in Arkansas. If you take a good long look at the cases with strong circumstantial evidence, I think you'll find that there's so much of this evidence against the Clintons that it's highly unlikely that they were not invovled in some of these suspicious deaths. It's a question of probabilities. When you look at all the facts and evidence, the probability that they're not involved becomes very remote. Besides the fear of retaliation by the Clintons, there is of course another reason why journalists haven't written many investigative stories about probably homicides involving the Clintons (which you have already mentioned): when you're writing about murder, you need to have very strong evidence before you accuse the POTUS of this crime. The evidence in these cases is voluminous but circumstantial in nature, which causes most journalists to back off from these cases. But I do believe that if serious journalists talked to more people back in Arkansas, they would find a lot more hard evidence.

I often wonder why the FBI wasn't sent in to investigate all the probable criminal activity in Arkansas during Clinton's time as governor. That's still a good question--Why didn't Reagan or Bush 41 start an investigation into the shenanigans going on in Arkansas while Clinton was governor?