Posted on 06/13/2003 12:08:10 PM PDT by F_Cohen
Rape Does Not Matter
By Lowell Phillips
Weekender June 15, 2003
Toogood Reports
We hear it all the time, "The Clintons are gone", but right-wingers can't get over them. It's acrimoniously suggested that we "move on". Even some alleged conservatives agree, like syndicated talk-radio host Glen Beck who again admonished those who "just can't let the Clintons go."
Interesting.
A decade and a half after Ronald Reagan gracefully faded from the national stage his name remains synonymous with jingoist foreign policy and malevolence toward the downtrodden, according to the left. Scarcely a political exchange on the economy ends without a reference to those appalling "Reagan Era deficits", of course omitting the reality that Reagan policies nearly doubled the revenues going into federal coffers, revenues promptly spent, and then some, by a Democrat controlled Congress. But properly interpreted or not, it's certainly appropriate that an influential, for good or ill, two-term president should remain political fodder so long as the consequences of his policies continue to be felt.
Well, Bill Clinton was an influential two-term president, primarily for ill in my opinion. And just over two years after his tenure ended, it is fair to say that we are inundated with the consequences of his policies. The results of his failed attempt at appeasement with North Korea, the empowering of Yasser Arafat, the lackadaisical handling of a growing terrorist threat, the dismantling of our military, radical environmental policies (causing a dire natural gas shortage), just to name a few, are all little things with which we are currently forced to contend.
I can't recall a single time when president Bush or a member of his administration blamed their predecessors for any ongoing difficulties. This is in stark contrast to the Clinton administration, and Bill specifically, who despite inheriting a recovering economy, the end of the Cold War and a finely tuned military, habitually made reference to problems left by "the previous administration".
Democrats, led by a crowded field of presidential candidates, base their attacks on the "Bush economy" entirely on a nostalgic view of the Clinton presidency. Needless to say, this makes discussion of Clintonomics mandatory.
As for demands that we rabid conservatives "get over it" and accept that the Clintons are gone, one wonders; "Gone where?" Hardly a day goes by when our esteemed ex-president or his enchanting Senator wife is not front-page news. It is not arguable that they remain firmly in control of the Democratic Party. Moreover, the reality that the effort to put Hillary in the Oval Office began before Bill was out is accepted by admirers and opponents alike. The painful truth is that, no matter how much we "Clinton Bashers" long for a time when they appear only in grim flashbacks, they aren't going anywhere, anytime soon.
The release of Hillary's new biography, Living History, and the accompanying media blitz are integral parts of the buildup to her run at the White House, which is just as likely in 2004, as it is in 2008. It should come as news to no one that the portions of the book dealing with Bill's sexual exploits and her knowledge of and reaction to them are receiving the most attention.
No matter what Hillary or her husband might say, or not say, about Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Whitewater, Cattle futures, "Filegate", "Travelgate", presidential pardons, the Lincoln Bedroom or anything else from the laundry list of unseemly events and activities, the line with the American people is firmly established. After 12 years of Republicans in the White House, the Democrat Party was willing to accept anything to win, and did. And with the help of a highly sympathetic media, voters showed they could be convinced of anything.
It is possible that the poor embattled Clintons were set upon to an unprecedented degree, due to the fanaticism of their enemies. But any president that can be named, from Lincoln to FDR, from Jefferson to Reagan had enemies every bit as determined, yet few have been so generous in providing reasons for suspicion. It is possible that even though the list of their accusers and their associates that have died mysteriously, been convicted, fled the country or taken the 5th is staggering, Bill and Hillary may be clean as a whistle, with the exception of that little perjury thing. It is also possible that Al Capone was guilty of nothing more than a failure to pay income tax. It isn't likely, however. But through it all, the most maddening phenomenon is the utter irrelevance of the word "rape" when associated with the name "Clinton".
If we close our eyes and take a deep breath, it is easy to imagine the reaction if a woman were to come forward and claim that some 20 years ago George W. Bush forcefully kissed her, then sank his teeth into her lip as a method of control to facilitate a rape, with several of her acquaintances corroborating the story. Would there be any other story? Would anything else matter until it was fully investigated, with all questions answered?
Taking into account Clarence Thomas' ordeal after being charged with inappropriate jokes and pubic hairs on Coke cans, should there be any doubt? Yet that identical story of rape levied by Juanita Broaddrick against Bill Clinton is not an issue or a story, and never has been. The single question on the matter directed at the Clinton White House was deferred to an attorney. And there it ended. It's easy to conceive of Richard Nixon serving out his second term if the first question regarding Watergate was dismissed with the press allowing it to end there.
Like all others who accuse the Clintons, Broaddrick is shrugged off as a pawn of the "vast right-wing conspiracy". And like Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and others who charge that Bill is a sexual predator, she is portrayed as a money-grubbing tramp, or a bold-faced liar, to the extent that she is acknowledged at all.
Attacks on those who point a finger at the Clintons are expected. Disregarding them, irrespective of the charges and evidence, is typical. But complicity in this by purported defenders of "women's rights" is ceaselessly revolting.
In the midst of this week's Hillary love-fest, Juanita Broaddrick appeared in an exclusive interview on Fox News' Hannity And Colmes. She retold her story in vivid detail, but once it was over, substitute co-host Pat Halpin, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift, and syndicated columnist and "rape victim" Susan Estrich appeared unmoved and uninterested in a story they saw as old and not particularly important. They succinctly reflected the attitude of all Clinton loyalists.
And at that moment I wondered about those infomercials in heavy rotation on radio, instructing fathers to teach their son's never to victimize women. I thought about the slogan "no means no", about the campaign to educate men that "just don't get it" regarding sexual harassment, and about the widely held belief that "women don't lie about things like that."
It is certainly possible that Broaddrick's story is false and that Bill is, for some inexplicable reason, the victim of erroneous accusations on an unheard of scale. But the half million dollars paid out in a settlement to Paula Jones, the false testimony given under oath to cover his tracks, the incessant womanizing throughout his life, imperiling his presidency and throwing the country into turmoil all suggest that Bill Clinton is a man with scant control of his sexual urges. The public reticule of women, including Monica up to the moment the DNA stained dress was unearthed, by his political machine show cold-heartedness, to put it mildly. As such, the rape charge is entirely believable.
For whatever reasons, the Clinton faithful have sworn allegiance to the exclusion of all else. How they reconcile their lofty rhetoric with such dubious character is their burden. But so long as Bill and his co-conspirator Hillary remain at the forefront of political power and plot a return to the White House, we right-wingers are under no obligation to "get over it" or pretend they have "gone" somewhere, when it is obvious that they haven't.
Trial balloon being raised about running for Mayor of New York City. I do not take that lightly. If he gets a positive poll or three he'll do it.
When John Gibson asked Hannity about it today, Sean's response was "it couldn't be worse than we have now". I think he was joking, but I did not think it was funny, as I think giving this thing any morsel of power or prestige is disgusting.
You asked the above about Elizabeth Ward Gracen.
The story is that there may have been force involved. At least some of her friends say that's what she orginally told them.
Elizabeth Ward Gracen, a former Miss America and Miss Arkansas, says in an interview with the New York Daily News that she had consensual sex with Bill Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas. Gracen, 37, who had previously denied any liaison with Clinton, says his campaign officials had asked her in May 1992 to issue a statement denying she had had sex with Clinton. But she insists she was not pressured or cajoled into making the statement. Gracen told the newspaper she came forward to rebut allegations that he forced himself on her. A former friend of Gracen's, Judy Stokes, has given a sworn deposition in the Jones case saying Gracen tearfully told her in the mid-1980s that Clinton forced her into sex in the back of a limousine in 1982, the Daily News said.
Infighting on Jones legal team Lawyers from the conservative Rutherford Institute, which is underwriting Paula Jones' legal bills, distance themselves from their co-counsels, saying that Jones lawyers did not apprise them of plans to reveal the identify Jane Doe No. 5 in a court filing. The woman was the subject of an uncorroborated rape allegation against Clinton, an attack she testified never occurred. In a statement, Rutherford Institute lawyers say if they had been told, they would have advised against identifying "an alleged victim."
Note: "Jane Doe No. 5",referred to above, is Juanita Broaddrick.
My favorite response, if you can have a "favorite response" to such things, is to ask a liberal who says "it's time to move on"... When is it OK to move on after rape? Is it a month, a year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, or 50 years? Just tell me when it's OK to "move on" after rape? Most shut up after that.
I then ask them if they've even heard Juanita Broadderick talk of the rape and most say "No." I offer to let them see my copy of the NBC interview; I even offer to make them their own personal copy. All have declined.
Then I ask them if serious allegations of rape are important to them? They usually say "Yes." I then ask, "Why isn't Clinton's rape important?"
I almost always get silence.
Pat Ireland wrote: "Ms. Broaddrick's account, however, is particularly compelling because... she has been a reluctant witness with no apparent political or financial motivation."
...
"I understand why a woman wouldn't file charges of rape 21 years ago--especially against the attorney general of Arkansas -- especially if she's a married woman who's having an affair. And I understand why she has been reluctant to come forward now."
...
"... the National Organization for Women urges everyone to treat Juanita Broaddrick fairly and respectfully and to take her charges seriously."
Note to NOW: Ask Clinton to publically acknowledge or publically deny the allegation. Treat Bill Clinton the SAME way you treated Clarence Thomas.
I think rape charges are the tip of the Clinton iceberg. His true legacy will include murder and treason.
Hillary's book tour is limited to "highly sympathetic media" willing to broadcast (or publish) an interview with Hillary which Hillary is assured a priori will include no aggressive questioning on any of the legions of malfeasances of which the x42 administration was patently guilty. In fact I propose thatThe defining marker of a "highly sympathetic media" outlet is the willingness of Hillary Clinton to submit to an interview for that outlet.
Why cant you get any closer. Do you fall sleep?
He makes twenty million a year giving speeches. You think he really wants to give that up to become mayor so he can cut city services to keep the city alive and then have all the libs hating him for cutting their services or raising their taxes/fees.
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.