Conspiracy theories are born out of fear. I am not afraid. And I think most sane people would not be. Can you imagine an editor of a major newspaper -no matter what his/her political persuasion- sitting in his/her office trembling in fear from the possibility of retaliation if he were to print a story he just came across about the Clintons? In other countries - definitely. Not here though. Half the country was opposed to the Clintons. I don't know about anybody else, but I was almost ready to believe any scandal that came along i.e. Whitewater, Paula Jones, Willey, Lewinsky, Filegate etc. Most Republicans - high profile or not- were. Any high profile editor would have had the political cover from half the politicians in Washington (Republicans) to print the story and they did. Many scandalous stories were printed - especially Lewinsky. It didn't seem like anyone was afraid to print that story.
That's why I'm reserving my judgement on whether this story is true or false. I should clarify about my saying I had not ever heard of murder allegations against the Clintons before. When I first met my wife's family, my soon-to-be father-in-law(Democrat), when he found out I was an active Republican asked, "Are you one of those wackos who believe the Clintons murdered people?"
I responded truthfully that I had never heard of such people. He thought all Republicans believed that. I chalked it up to Chicago media giving the impression that Republicans are all paranoid.
"Conspiracy theories are born out of fear. I am not afraid. And I think most sane people would not be. Can you imagine an editor of a major newspaper -no matter what his/her political persuasion- sitting in his/her office trembling in fear from the possibility of retaliation..."
From my perspective, fear has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am talking about power...and access to that power. Unlike the liberal media that sends reporters to scour Texas for years based on the simplest of accusations, they did not do the same for Clinton with much more serious claims being made.
And your perspective on the media being even-handed because they did cover some scandals is also skewed. First off, they were forced to cover many of these issues since they just
grew to big. Yet, even here, the same attention was never paid, as these stories were few and far between.
Even the Lewsinsky case that you cite only became an issue after Drudge went to print with it. Before that, Newsweek was content to sit on that story...just as NBC was content to sit on the Juanita Broaderick story, even though they interviewed her. In fact, one of their excuses for not printing the story was because they didn't want to influence the Impeachment vote. Yet, these same people don't have that problem when it's a Republican, as they intentionally tried to influence an election.
I'm not even speaking so much about the Clinton Body Count, rather the fact, that you hadn't heard anything about it...just as many people didn't hear a lot of the other more outrageous accusations which were far more damaging, and at least deserved some investigation. Whether it was the untimely deaths of close Clinton associates like Ron Brown or Vince Foster, or the accusations of sexual assault and rape...the media never took the "personal" interest in these stories as they do a Republican accused of the same.
Hell, this is the same media that spent years investigating W's TANG service from 30 years ago, but never went into that same depth (and anger) WRT Clinton and his draft status, which we had proof of in the form of an affadavit from a Colonel and Clinton's own letter. They brought the Bush story up four times this year, but not once did these people go in to detail about Clinton's activities overseas during Vietnam. This has nothing to do with fear; it has to do with ideology and power...and those willing to look the other way because the ends justify the means.