Posted on 11/19/2007 6:07:28 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Are the Clinton secret police back on patrol?
It looks like they may be making a late campaign comeback.
In a week-end column, Robert Novak alleged that “agents” of Hillary Clinton are “spreading the word that she has scandalous information” about Barack Obama, but decided not to use it. (How considerate of her!)
Obama has come out swinging, accusing the Clinton campaign of trying to swift-boat him and demanding that Clinton either release the information or admit that there is none.
The Clinton camp is shocked that anyone would ever think that it would use such tactics!
Clinton campaign Communications Director (and KGB enforcer look-alike) Howard Wolfson claimed that the campaign had “no idea” what Novak was talking about. Absolutely!
And, as usual, Wolfson tried to turn the embarrassing issue for Hillary into a problem for Barack, claiming he was naive for believing what was in the Novak column.
“A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games,” Wolfson said.
Does anybody really believe that Hillary hasn’t been gathering dirt on her opponents? Anyone with any experience in politics knows one thing for sure: Hillary Clinton plays the game rough and dirty — and she has a sordid history of using private investigators to find scandals in the background of anyone who gets in her way.
While Hillary righteously lectures the candidates about mudslinging, her boys in the back room are readying the dirt to leak when she’s not doing too well.
Remember in the 1992 campaign when Gennifer Flowers and other women were harassed by private detectives? The Clintons used campaign money to pay over $100,000 to private investigators to scare off the women. (Now they’ve learned to bury their investigative costs in lawyers bills.)
And does anyone think it was a coincidence that Republican speaker of the House and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee were outed for extra-marital affairs just at the time that the impeachment vote was about to take place?
Or that there were off the record calls to journalists from the White House accusing Monica Lewinsky of being a stalker?
And what are the odds that the recent rumors about John Edwards came from Clinton operatives?
That’s how the Clintons try to obliterate their opponents, with Hillary at the helm. As she runs for commander-in-chief of the United States, she’s already the commander of the Clinton secret police.
The Clintons have no regard for the privacy of those who get in their way. Their clumsiness in bullying Linda Tripp cost the Department of Defense about $600,000 when she won her lawsuit for invasion of privacy after they arranged to illegally leak confidential information from her personnel file.
To paraphrase Hillary, privacy is just a word if you don’t have the experience and strength to know what to do about it.
And Hillary sure does know what to do.
As she told Sidney Blumenthal when the Lewinsky scandal broke: “We’ll just have to win.”
Winning at any cost is the Clinton mindset. So watch for more dirty tactics whenever Hillary and her team feel under attack.
Can we really afford to have a president who acts this way?
“Hillary is like LBJ or Nixon in a pantsuit, without the brains, charm or political skill.”
Nixon didn’t have people killed. (that I’m aware of)
and cats died - the clinonista's version of a dead fish
Democraps apparently like the sleazy clintons so much, they keep worshipping regardless of the sleaze targets. I hope to live long enough to witness the end of these filthy, dead-soul people.
Her Heinous’ minions must first swear an oath of personal loyalty to her. Coming soon, The Clinton Youth..
down boy down boy...relax and take a deep breath...oh i believe i smell a demorat!
No, it's not.
From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary: beck n 1 chiefly Scot: BOW, CURTSY 2 a : a beckoning gesture b : SUMMONS, BIDDING - at one's beck and call : in obedient readiness to obey any command.
The first line implies they went somewhere.
Nope. Lying for sport, and squashing people out of pure spite.
I also wonder about those who simply become no longer useful to the Clintons (and thus, a liability).
Does anyone know, have there been any thorough, and unimpeachably (word chosen carefully) balanced investigations into the ARKANCIDE claims?
Buddy the dog also comes to mind, here.
you could be that one man whose brains are as big as your balls. And brother , you got balls.
I’ve been re-reading my Clinton’s history, as we get into the 2008 campaign season. Undoubtably, Hillary will be the Democratic nominee. I’ve dusted off my copy of “Bloodsport”, by James Stewart. I bought a book by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, “Her Way”. I’m trying to figure out what we’re dealing with in Hillary.
I think it’s obvious she’s a committed leftist. I also think it’s pretty well established that she plays politics rough, hiring private detectives, who intimidate, smear, slander, and destroy basically anyone who gets in her way. The part I haven’t decided is whether it’s worse than that.
I was reading information at Patrick Knowlton’s website about the Vince Foster case. They make a compelling case that there was a cover-up, and that Foster was murdered. But why, what was the motive? If that’s the case, that the Clintons have killed and covered up Foster, and who knows who else, that’s pretty scary. Maybe they did it to protect themselves, to keep themselves in power. Well, why stop there? If they can so easily handle the FBI and the DOJ, to manipulate investigations, why not really kill some people? How about two conservative Supreme Court justices? Hillary could establish a liberal majority on the court for the next 30 years, to rule on such things as guns, abortion, voting rights, etc.
I think it’s clear the Clintons break laws with impunity, violate every campaign law there is, lie like rugs, but I can’t quite believe they have actually killed people. Maybe because it’s too disturbing.
oh it’s worse than that. Hillary was a bridge to the “just kidding” women’s defense. Women, liberal women knew she was lieing to protect Bill’s presidency and scorned the cloths line of panty tales told.
The so called libbers ran for the tall bloomers when
Bill’s crap corsened America.
So who is defending whom ? Neither side means it.
Why on earth does everyone have such a densely packed file for her to exploit. Do all politicians engage in illegal and heinous acts behind the scenes? There has to be someone immune to her that has not engaged in immoral activities, although then she could simply fabricate scenarios and plant evidence...
or kill ya
I’ve been wondering the same thing, about the ARKANCIDE claims. Everybody throws the term around, but I don’t think many people actually measure the significance if those things are true. If Vince Foster was really murdered by the Clintons.... then these are truly dangerous people. I like to think that Hillary is just another leftist, she wins, no big deal, my taxes go up, I pay it, so what. I don’t like the idea that the President is somebody who can pick up the phone and make political enemies disappear.
You mean by using illegally obtained FBI files etc? No, I don’t think they have...
That was awesome Doug! Wow, I had no idea you had that kind of stuff at youtube.
Thanks. You might enjoy this. The Muslims do - http://youtube.com/watch?v=wwoGtHAG8IQ
I hope you’ve been following this- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&pr=goog-sl
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.