Posted on 04/04/2002 8:01:20 AM PST by Mia T
FREE REPUBLIC EXCLUSIVES DOCUMENT CLINTON RAPES
FINGER HILLARY CLINTON AS CO-RAPIST AIDER AND ABETTOR, VICTIMIZER
otwithstanding the best efforts of hillary clinton, the Senate of the United States, Doris Kearns Goodwin and those 400 other hog-and-bow-tied-save-clinton retrograde-obsessing historiographers, and, of course, Betty Friedan, the rape of Juanita Broaddrick by bill clinton became perhaps the defining issue of his impeachment trial. The rape was quickly if quietly reduced by the House of Representatives--the only impeachment participant that history will view kindly--to the obvious. How can a rapist be a fit president? (How, indeed.)
I revisit this issue in The Real Danger of a Presidential Fake: Post-9/11 Reconsideration of The Placebo President. Nine-eleven has clarified for thoughtful democrats what Juanita Broaddrick, Eileen Wellstone, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers and clinton's "ministering to hundreds of troubled young girls"--the wife's euphemism for the ad nauseams--apparently did not: clinton putrescence was not "just about sex."
Even as bill clinton, the person, quickly fades into irrelevancy, 9/11 puts the lasting danger of the clinton presidency into sharp focus; and because the clintons have made it clear that they are not yet through with the trashing of the White House and the deconstructing our democracy, 9/11 renders the clinton rapes more relevant than ever.
Make no mistake. hillary clinton was never, ever some betrayed little wife. Not only was this wife aware of the sexual predation from day one, she aided and abetted the rapes and exploited the victims for decades. That is to say, to gain and maintain power, hillary clinton raped, too...
The clinton rapes, real devastation taken alone, synergistically affected, and ultimately became the metaphor for, the depraved clinton presidency itself. Chalk America's first rape up to ignorance. What will America's excuse be if she allows the clintons to violate her again?
|
BRITISH JOURNALIST: Yes, Clinton Raped a Second Woman
source withheld | 4-3-02 | Doug from Upland
oday I spent about 6 hours with a British journalist, now living in the U.S. We were joined for dinner by a mutual friend. The journalist, whose name I am withholding, has impeccable credentials and is in town for about a week on business. No, it is not Ambrose Evans Pritchard.
Both of these gentlemen did extensive research into the criminality of Bill Clinton. They have reviewed many documents from various law enforcement agencies and interviewed many people with first hand knowledge. Yes, it is as bad as we always have said it was.
Over dinner, I had the opportunity to grill my source and relive many of the Clinton moments. He was amazed when I brought up things he'd forgotten.
Mr. Source was very candid, and I wanted to share with you the biggest bombshell of the evening.
On this forum and at the FReeper Victory Brunch last year, I charged that Clinton raped another woman in addition to Juanita Broaddrick (and how many others, we wonder -- can you say Eileen Wellstone?). It happened during his first term as governor and the woman was treated at the hospital after being smashed in the face. Mr. Source confirmed what I had learned from another source. He interviewed a nurse who was at the hospital at the time. The woman said that the perpetrator, who hit and raped her, was none other than the Governor of Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton. The doctor involved was scared to death and would not go on the record and be interviewed.
America, particularly you RATS, are you so afraid to face the truth? Do you feel it would make you look foolish? Would it erode the strength of the RAT party if everyone know they protected a rapist?
I guess those are silly questions. DemocRATS have no shame. It didn't matter that Clinton severely damaged our security, treated the White House like a whore house, committed perjury many times, and actually raped women. He's their guy and it is easier to blame those who brought the crimes to light than blame the criminal. Facing the truth would do too much damage. What disgusting lowlifes. All of them.
Oh, yes, I should not leave this out. Vince Foster did not kill himself in that park. Clinton personally knows the man who killed Jerry Parks. Clinton really was treated for a severe nose problem because of cocaine use. There really was a security tape showing Clinton going into Gennifer Flowers' apartment with his own key. Her audio tapes, in which he instructed her to lie, were not doctored. And my source outed David Brock on a radio show. |
I had no idea. What does Browning claim happened?
To think it was not just Broderick, but multiple others that claim rape. It makes me think HE DID RAPE all of them! 40 posted on 4/4/02 4:39 PM Pacific by rwfromkansas |
THE CLINTONS ARE SERIAL RAPISTS. THE EVIDENCE EXISTS. WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, MUST DEMAND THE RELEASE OF THE FORD BUILDING EVIDENCE. I WOULD SUGGEST ATTACKING THIS FROM BOTH THE POLITICAL AND LEGAL FRONTS. HOW ABOUT IT, FREEPERS?
|
|
|
You argue like a man with a few skeletons in his closet...
I had no idea. What does Browning claim happened?
I believe Browning is suing Clinton for his false denials of their relationship.
Earlier today, I reviewed last year's circuit court opinion that Broaddrick is appealing. It denied her the right of discovery for her lawsuit against the Clinton White House for keeping files about her (per Lanny Davis' statement on the Hannity and Colmes show). I hope the Court of Appeals reverses that unjust decision.
I also hope the Bush Administration is not in the position of defending the atrocious conduct of the Clinton White House against Broaddrick in the lawsuit. If the Bush DOJ and EOP can change the government's official position on the Microsoft case, they should also do so in the Broaddrick case.
Two things, FWIW....
During the Broaderick story, Ken Hamblin opened his show to calls from women of all sorts who had been raped and he mostly just listened as their stories unfolded.
Do you know how you "know" something, but the knowledge is so gruesome that you kind of file it away and "forget" until something jars it? That's what happened to me, then. I had a girlfriend who was raped, and nearly murdered, many years ago. It taught me a lot of things about the subject- the guy who more or less wrecked her life was suspected of raping between 20-100 other women, and he was caught, tried, and sent away for about 7 years. And yes, he's free as a bird now.....
What I learned, and what Ken's show jarred was
1- men who do this are often men in positions of power- parole officers, judges, policemen, doctors, bosses...
2- violence & humiliation are a big part of it...
3- they always start small, and escalate the level of violence & degradation, and the numbers of women involved...
4- they never give it up- it is a pattern of behaviour...
Frankly, the only way clinton got away with all this was dumb luck, a compliant media, and being surrounded by people who had invested so much of themselves in him they could not afford to see him take a fall.
I just replied to another member who views my "Marley's Ghost Legacy" links as spam, and indeed they may be.... and indeed I get sick of seeing, and posting them.
On the other hand, I still run into people who parrot the DNC-approved talking point, "Hey, we weren't at War, the economy was good, hey, hey, clinton wasn't so bad...."
I digress- bottom line? That "biting lip" detail cinched it for me- that's a rapist control technique. clinton is a serial rapist!
FRiend, I just noticed your reply.
I'll try to answer-- the short answer is "educate the public"- like we do here.
Our "representatives" in DC failed us miserably- but "we"- not you & I, but the collective we of "the public" also failed ourselves, by electing, then re-electing, the failing to hold accountable, or even see the crimes of, clinton.
All we can do is keep pounding away, sending links and opinions to papers and opinion-makers, and try to get the information, of which there is literally tons of, out into the public realm.
And you know what? It is changing, gradually. Two years ago the tag line "clinton was responsable for 911" would have gotten zero traction- now it is grudgingly admitted by even some of the enablers like the big-city newspapers. It just takes time, and persistence.
Best Regards, and let's keep his and her crimes fresh in our minds.
By the time the Clinton sleaze machine got done with her, she couldn't even get a job in Washington.
Regards,
|
HOW TO GET THE EVIDENCE - SOME SUGGESTIONS:
2. WE MUST EXPLOIT THE FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE EVIDENCE. SOME REPRESENTATIVES ACTUALLY WENT TO THE FORD BUILDING AND READ THE EVIDENCE. WE MUST APPROACH THEM. I WOULD START WITH:
WE MUST EXPLAIN TO THESE POLITICIANS THAT IF THEY DO NOT INFORM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT CLINTON DEPRAVITY, IF THEY DO TELL US WHAT THEY KNOW ABOUT THE FORD BUILDING EVIDENCE, THE BLOOD OF (GOD FORBID) SLEAZE, THE SEQUEL WILL BE ON THEIR HANDS.
|
|
Had George Will written Sleaze, the sequel (the "sequel" is, of course, hillary) after 9-11-01, I suspect that he would have had to forgo the above conceit, as the doubt expressed in the setup phrase was, from that day forward, no longer operational. REALITY-CHECK bump! |
Had George Will written Sleaze, the sequel (the "sequel" is, of course, hillary) after 9-11-01, I suspect that he would have had to forgo the above conceit, as the doubt expressed in the setup phrase was, from that day forward, no longer operational. Indeed, assessing the clinton presidency an abject failure is not inconsistent with commentary coming from the left, most recently the LA Times: "Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize." When the clintons left office, I predicted that the country would eventually learn--sadly, the hard way--that this depraved, self-absorbed and inept pair had placed America (and the world) in mortal danger. But I was thinking years, not months. It is very significant that hillary clinton didn't deny clinton culpability for the terrorism. (Meet the Press, 12-09-01), notwithstanding tired tactics (if you can't pass the buck, spread the blame) and chronic "KnowNothing Victim Clinton" self-exclusion. If leftist pandering keeps the disenfranchized down in perpetuity, clinton pandering,("it's the economy, stupid"), kept the middle and upper classes wilfully ignorant for eight years. And ironically, both results (leftist social policy and the clinton economy) are equally illusory, fraudulent. It is becoming increasingly clear that clinton assiduously avoided essential actions that would have negatively impacted the economy--the ultimate source of his continued power--actions like, say, going after the terrorists. It is critically important that hillary clinton fail in her grasp for power; read Peggy Noonan's little book, 'The Case Against Hillary Clinton' and Barbara Olson's two books; it is critical that the West de-clintonize, but that will be automatic once it is understood that the clintons risked civilization itself in order to gain and retain power. It shouldn't take books, however, to see that a leader is a dangerous, self-absorbed sicko. People should be able to figure that out for themselves. The electorate must be taught to think, to reason. It must be able to spot spin, especially in this age of the electronic demagogue. I am not hopeful. As Bertrand Russell noted, "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. " *George Will continues: There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that. ... Furthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism
|
If the players weren't so disgusting, the double entendre of the title would be delicious, reminiscent of my favorite newspaper headline, from the Tulsa World, which proclaimed "Porn Trial Ends in Hung Jury."
As it is, given that the two major players are Bended Dick Arnold and Hillary, the visual is just too horrific.
None had the 'time' or the inclination to dump the Clintons maybe because Washington, DC is truly the cesspool of the world. They have seen like crimes for years? They've become so hardened to the fact that many of their colleagues like Ted Kennedy have behaved in the Clinton manner for years and they of course knew Clinton's history before he ever came to Washington. The Clinton persona is pervasive in political circles around the world.
There are a few good men and women in politics but for the most part statesmen as America once knew them, are not on the scene today. The filth of the Clinton years has finally disclosed how far the politicians have fallen from an already precarious perch.
Are We The People any better for letting such un-principled servants run the country? I think we had better start bailing before the ship really sinks and we can start with the petty political hacks like Jessie Jackson not paying his fare share in taxes and PETA retaining a tax exempt status and all those like them; we had better stand shoulder to shoulder and loudly declare through the voice of the land, i.e. news papers and media and tons of mail to our elected that We've Had It with Washington and Politics as usual, Political Correctness and all the blooming rhetoric you get during an election year. You have to ask...who is the fool here? Well, I am not and I am going to try to do something about it!
|
Metaphor-induced nausea notwithstanding, I suppose I should have remembered that when writing about the clintons, a farce of a greater farce just doesn't parse. |
Speaking of the doghouse, last fall the president's lawyer Bob Bennett gave a speech to the National Press Club in Washington. On a single day- so he informed an openmouthed audience- he had had four substantial conversations with Clinton about the Paula Jones case, and feeling this excessive, "I had to cut it short and the president said, 'Yeah, I've got to get back to Saddam Hussein,' and I said, 'My God, this is lunacy that I'm taking his time on this stuff.'" Well, I hope Mr. Bennett didn't charge for that day, or for the other time-wasting day when he naively introduced Lewinsky's false affidavit on Clinton's behalf. But, if he hoped to persuade his audience that Clinton should be left alone to conduct a well-mediated Iraq policy, his words achieved the opposite effect. Policy toward Baghdad has been without pulse or direction or principle ever since Mr. Clinton took office. As one who spent some horrible days in Halabja, the Kurdish city that was ethnically cleansed by Saddam's chemical bombs, I have followed Washington's recent maneuvers with great attention. The only moment when this president showed a glimmer of interest in the matter was when his own interests were involved as well. And thus we come to the embarrassing moment last December when Clinton played field marshal for four days, and destroyed the UN inspection program in order to save it. By November 14, 1998, Saddam Hussein had exhausted everybody's patience by his limitless arrogance over inspections of weapon sites, and by his capricious treatment of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectorate. In a rare show of Security Council solidarity, Russia, China, and France withdrew criticism of a punitive strike. The Republican leadership in both houses of Congress, which had criticized the Clinton administration for inaction, was ready to rock 'n' roll with Iraq. The case had been made, and the airplanes were already in the air when the president called them back. No commander in chief has ever done this before. Various explanations were offered as to why Clinton, and his close political crony Sandy Berger, had make such a wan decision. It was clearly understood that the swing vote had been the president's, and that Madeline Albright and William Cohen had argued the other way. But in mid-November the president was still flushed with the slight gain made by his party in the midterm elections. Impeachment seemed a world away, with Republican "moderates" becoming the favorite of headline writers and op-ed performers alike. This theme persisted in the news and in the polls until after the pre-Hanukkah weekend of December 12-13, when, having been rebuffed by Benjamin Netanyahu at a post-Wye visit in Israel, Clinton had to fly home empty-handed. This must have been galling for him, since he had only imposed himself on the original Wye agreement, just before the November elections, as a high-profile/high-risk electoral ploy. (He had carried with him to Tel Aviv, on Air Force One, Rick Lazio and Jon Fox, two Republican congressmen widely hailed as fence-sitters regarding impeachment. So it can't easily be said that he wasn't thinking about the domestic implications of foreign policy.) But by Tuesday, December 15, after Clinton's last-ditch nonapology had "bombed" like all its predecessors, every headline had every waverer deciding for impeachment after all. On Wednesday afternoon, the president announced that Saddam Hussein was, shockingly enough, not complying with the UN inspectorate. And the cruise missiles took wing again. Within hours the House Republicans had met and, "furious and fractured," according to the New York Times, had announced the postponement of the impeachment debate, due to begin Thursday morning. This was not quite like the preceding dramas. For one thing, it could and probably would have happened- unlike Sudan and Afghanistan- at any time. For another thing, the president was careful to say that he had the support of his whole "national security team," which he wouldn't have been able to say of his cop-out decision in November. Presidents don't normally list the number of their own employees and appointees who agree with them about national-security questions, but then, most presidents don't feel they have to. (Though most presidents have avoided making their Cabinet members back them in public on falsehoods about "private" and "inappropriate" conduct.) Having gone on slightly too long about the endorsements he'd won from his own much - bamboozled team, Clinton was faced with only a few remaining questions. These included:
The last question, apparently a simple one, was the most difficult to answer. It emerged that Clinton had known the contents of the Butler report at least two days before it was supposed to be handed to the UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. It was Kofi Annan's job, furthermore, to present it to the world body for action. Members of the National Security Council in Washington, however, were leading the report (which "discovered" Saddam Hussein's violations) to friends of mine in Washington by Tuesday, December 15. This timeline simply means that Clinton knew well in advance that he was going to be handed a free pretext in case of need. Mr. Butler might care to explain why he hurriedly withdrew his inspectors without Security Council permission- leaving some 400 United Nations humanitarian aid workers to face the music- at least a day before the bombs began to drop. Once again the question: What was the rush? It must have meant a lot to Clinton to begin the strikes when he did, because he forfeited the support of the UN, of Russia, of China, of France, and of much of the congressional leadership- all of which he had enjoyed in varying degrees in November. (The Russians, whose volatile stock of "weapons of mass destruction" is far more of a menace than Iraq's, actually withdrew their ambassador from Washington for the first time in history, and threatened again to freeze talks on strategic-arms limitation.) To the "rush" question, Clinton at first answered that the weekend of December 19-20 marked the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, and one would not want to be bombing an Islamic people while they were beginning their devotions. However, the postponed impeachment debate continued well into Saturday, December 19, and so did the bombardment, which concluded a few hours after the impeachment vote itself. Muslim susceptibilities were therefore even more outraged, even in morally friendly countries such as Kuwait, by the suspicious coincidence of timing. During the debate, the House Democratic leadership took the position, openly encouraged by the White House, that a president should not be embarrassed at home while American troops were "in harm's way" abroad. Again, it is made clear by Clinton's own conduct and arguments that, for him, foreign policy and domestic policy do not exist in parallel universes, but are one and the same. And, again, I found myself talking to someone who is normally more hawkish than I am. Scott Ritter, who served with UNSCOM from 1991 until August 1998 and who was the chief of its Concealment Investigations Unit, had been warning for months that Saddam Hussein was evading compliance inspections. This warning entainled a further accusation, which was that UNSCOM in general, and Richard Butler in particular, were too much under the day-to-day control of the Clinton administration. (An Australian career diplomat who, according to some of his colleagues, was relinquished with relief by his masters Down Under, Butler owes his job to Madeline Albright in the first place.) Thus, when the United States, did not want a confrontation with Iraq, over the summer and into the fall, Butler and the leadership acted like pussycats and caused Ritter to resign over their lack of seriousness. But then, when a confrontation was urgently desired in December, the slightest pretext would suffice. And that, Ritter says, is the bitterest irony of all. The December strikes had no real military value, because the provocation was too obviously staged. "They sent inspectors to the Baath Party HQ in Baghdad in the week before the raids," Ritter told me. "UNSCOM then leaves in a huff, claiming to have been denied access. There was nothing inside that facility anway. The stuff was moved before they got there. The United States knew there was nothing in that site. And then a few days later, there are reports that cruise missiles hit the Baath Party HQ! It's completely useless. Butler knew that I'd resign if the U.S. continued to jerk UNSCOM around, and he even came to my leaving party and bought me a drink. But now he's utterly lost his objectivity and impartiality, and UNSCOM inspections have been destroyed in the process, and one day he'll be hung out to dry. Ask your colleagues in Washington when they got his report." From the Washington Post account by Barton Gellmen, on Wednesday, December 16, written the day before the bombing began and on the day that Kofi Annan saw the Butler report for the first time: Butler's conclusions were welcome in Washington, which helped orchestrate the terms of the Australian diplomat's report. Sources in New York and Washington said Clinton-administration officials played a direct role in shaping Butler's text during multiple conversations with him Monday at secure facilities in the U.S. mission to the United Nations. "Of course," Ritter told me almost conversationally, "though this is Wag the Dog, it isn't quite like Sudan and Afghanistan in August, which were Wag the Dog pure and simple." Well, indeed, nothing is exactly like Wag the Dog. In the movie, the whole war is invented and run out of a studio, and nobody actually dies, whereas in Sudan and Afghanistan and Iraq, real corpses were lying about and blood spilled. You might argue, as Clinton's defenders have argued in my hearing, that if there was such a "conspiracy" it didn't work. To this there are three replies. First, no Clinton apologist can dare, after the victim cult sponsored by both the president and the First Lady, to ridicule the idea of "conspiracy," vast or otherwise. Second, the bombings helped to raise Clinton's poll numbers and to keep them high, and who will say that this in not a permanent White House concern? Third, the subject was temporarily changed from Clinton's thing to Clinton's face, and doubtless that came as some species of relief. But now we understand what in November was a mystery. A much less questionable air strike was canceled because, at that time, Clinton needed to keep an "option" in his breast pocket. On January 6, two weeks after I spoke to Scott Ritter, UN secretary-general Kofi Annan's office angrily announced that, under Richard Butler's leadership, UNSCOM had in effect become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton administration. The specific disclosure concerned the organization's spying activities, which had not been revealed to the UN. But Ritter's essential point about UNSCOM's and Butler's subservient client role was also underscored. This introduces two more canines- the UN inspectors being metamorphosed from watchdogs into lapdogs. The staged bombing of Iraq in December was in reality the mother of all pinpricks. It was even explained that nerve-gas sites had not been hit, lest the gas be released. (Odd that this didn't apply in the case of the El Shifa plant, which is located in a suburb of Khartoum.) The Saddam Hussein regime survived with contemptuous ease, while its civilian hostages suffered yet again. During the prematurely triumphant official briefings from Washington, a new bureaucratic euphemism made its appearance. We were incessantly told that Iraq's capacities were being "degraded." This is not much of a target to set oneself, and it also leads to facile claims of success, since every bomb that falls has by definition a "degrading" effect on the system or the society. By acting and speaking as he did, not just in August but also in December, Clinton opened himself, and the United States, to a charge of which a serious country cannot afford even to be suspected. The tin pots and yahoos of Khartoum and Kabul and Baghdad are micro-megalomaniacs who think of their banana republics as potential superpowers. It took this president to "degrade" a superpower into a potential banana republic.
So overwhelming was the evidence in the case of the Sudanese atrocity that by January 1999 it had become a serious embarrassment to the Clinton administration. The true owner of the El Shifa plant, a well-known Sudanese entrepreneur named Saleh Idris, approached Dr. Thomas Tullius, head of the chemistry department at Boston University, and asked him to conduct a forensic examination of the site. Samples taken from all levels, and submitted to three different laboratories in different world capitals, yielded the same resut. There were no traces of any kind of toxicity, or indeed of anything but standard pharmaceutical material. Armed with this and other evidence, Mr. Idris demanded compensation for his destroyed property and initiated proceedings for a lawsuit. His case in Washington was taken up by the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld- perhaps best known for the prominence with which Vernon Jordan adorns its board of partners. As a capitalist and holder of private property, Mr. Idris was always likely to receive due consideration if he was prepared to hire the sorts of help that are understood in the Clintonoid world of soft money and discreet law firms. The worker killed at the plant, the workers whose livelihood depended upon it, and those further down the stream whose analgesics and antibiotics never arrived, and whose names are not recorded, will not be present when the recompenses are agreed. They were expendable objects of Clinton's ruthless vanity. Christopher Hitchens, NO ONE LEFT TO LIE TO |
by Mia T
|
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.