CLinton, A Hero?

How many rapist do you love?

Published on January 27, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

So many young people and other liberals look at Clinton as the Icon, the Big daddy. Mr, can do no wrong (forgetting he is the only elected president to ever get impeached for lying under oath). But lest we forget, his finer moments on the stage of criminal or at least predatory behaviour:

Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned

Ah, but everyone makes mistakes, right? But 20 of them and counting? Now some may discount this list, for it is only their word against his, a convicted liar. But one against 20? HOw about just rumors?

Marilyn Jo Jenkins - rumored
Susan Coleman - rumored (suicide 7.5 months pregnant)
Robyn Dickey -rumored, staffer
Lenora Steinkamp - rumored - mystery jogger on video tape entering the "infamous hallway" with Clinton
Kimba Wood - rumored, judge
Kelley Craighead - rumored, staffer to Bill and Hillary
Sharline Wilson - rumored, claimed drug association
Dee Dee Myers - rumored, staffer
Suzie Whitacre - rumored
Catherine Cornelius - rumored, "distant cousin".
Cheryl Mills - rumored, WH attorney
Current Secret Paramour (per Tripp/King interview) - rumored

Where there is smoke there is fire. After all, if you had a convicted serial rapist living in your neighborhood, would he not be the first to suspect when another rape occurred? (Put your hand down Hillary).

Hero? Hero? if the man was not such a slick talker, he would be serving a life sentence as all rapist do.

And you call him a hero? You poor misguided pathetic fool.

Comments (Page 5)

Moderateman

on Jan 31, 2005

How come the democrats want "the veracity" of newspaper reporters checked out to the ninth degree ONLY when is something thats casts aspersions on the dems? when its about Bush or a republican.. the dems say" how dare you question this man/woman/?

Dr Guy

on Feb 01, 2005

However, I'm becoming more and more in agreement this statement minus the mirror part (hell, include it, I can be one):
If you allege I am an ass, then it is true!

Aha! So you are the one Gideon said taking out of context. Nice try. Wrong!

You do go on to bash the user and say he didn't know what he was talking about, or had a Clinton shrine in his back yard. (I'm paraphrasing with hyperbole here, so don't get the way you get when I 'misquote' you.) However, if a allegation is documented to be correct, it is assumed it is proven true.

No, the allegations are valid in that they are not made up by me. I already splained this to you lucy. English is not your first language is it?

Most of which are Republican. Not all. My bad...you only dheerlead for a certain majority of Republicans. Is that a more correct allegation?

No. I cheerlead for Conservatives. Verstehen Sie?

My second point in my statement seems to fall on deaf ears (or is it eyes?),I'll then be much more blunt: the media covers news stories. While, in fact these allegations happened and at the very least, Monica and Gennifer proved to be true in sexual misconduct, the media doesn't gather proof on veracity of allegations made. They write it down the fact that the allegation was made by so and so. Sometimes later the credibilty of the speaker is brought into doubt or documented to be false. (The first happened to the Swift Boat Veterans a little when they just signed peoples names to letters without asking permission.) Unless outside proof is produced or the other side of the allegation 'fesses up', both which happened in the Clinton case with Monica, the allegation is made, but not correct (documented to be thus or otherwise).

By this Logic, Nixon is innocent since the only 'evidence' was in the press and never in court. Nice try, but wrong.

I don't have any illusions Clinton slept around in office (all of them that he held). Power does that to people, and many presidents have been rumored or practically confirmed to do the same. However, as I've stated before, I think there was another way you could of gone with this that would of been both not founded on the allegations of the greedy (yes, Monica did get something out of this, Dr. Guy, hold no illusions, even though she was correct) that not even an independant counsel verified to be correct. Or that you could of used what was proven correct as the centerpiece, and the fact the man lied to be a bad example to us and our children. Instead, you took a completely different tact that seemed to delibrately spit in our face, and one that we've frankly heard before. I think I've explained myself adqueately enough.

Is Clinton my personal hero? No, but he is a damn good politican.

let's just cut to the chase. You say 2, I say more than 2 as the damage done to Linda Tripp, the alegations from kathleen Willey and Paula Jones are true. Otherwise (on the latter) he would never have been convicted of perjury. And I know Kathleen Willey and there is a coroborating witness, so dont go there. The rest are unsubstantiated allegations that may or may not be true.

However, I ask you again, would you believe a convicted liar? or 20+ women who dont know each other? 1 or 2, maybe. 20+? Sorry, the Guy did not run into your knife 20 times.

Finally, I never said he was not a good politician. But that does not make a good person or leader. He is neither. He is trailer trash that should never have made it past the double wide of Ark.

Dr Guy

on Feb 01, 2005

Which means exactly what?

he lies, cheats and steals well.

Dr Guy

on Feb 01, 2005

Because the sleeze on the left is open and festering, and the sleeze on the right is in their minds. So they have to check into allegations, with no facts, because of the seriousness of the charges. But only an act of god should be used to check into Liberal sins. Otherwise it is just part of the VRWC. natch.

Dr Guy

on Feb 01, 2005

Lets through out this sex bull shit and focus on what he did to help america, anything? most think he helped the economy, nope, from what i learned in economics etc... he did very little to help, the economy naturally balanced out, [called a bussiness cycle; recession-->Depression-->Expansion-->(etc...) ] take a look, i am not taking sides to let you guys know.

Lucas, Welcome! And you are right. However I was not trying to judge the man on his presidency. I was tryin gto show a young woman who came of age during his tenure, that regardless of whether you are liberal or conservative, Clinton is no hero to anyone but his own ego.

Solnac

on Feb 01, 2005

By this Logic, Nixon is innocent since the only 'evidence' was in the press and never in court. Nice try, but wrong.

My logic never said Nixon was guilty, one. Two, considering Nixon was never convinced, he still IS innocent of charges until proven such according to the whole argument of the legal system. He was branded guilty because he chose to resign under rather dubious circumstances. So, techinally, until Nixon was/is convicted of ANYTHING, Nixon is in fact innocent if you believe innocent until proven guilty is not a farce. If you believe it or not, that's how the judical system supposedly functions, which is entirely different then saying, "I think he did it."

I'll say it yet again: Impeachment is charging someone, not CONVICTING them. Here, I'll cut out an excerpt since you all seem confused about this issue:

The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: "the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Ticket of admission to the U.S. Senate galleries for the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson Source:The Granger Collection
Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate. The vice president presides over the Senate proceedings in the case of all officials except the president, whose trial is presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. This is because the vice president can hardly be considered a disinterested party—if his or her boss is forced out of office he or she is next in line for the top job!

Hence, Clinton was charged with perjury but never convicted of it. The Senate didn't vote to convict. So, in basic English, Clinton was tried and found innocent. The other interesting thing about this is the Senate couldn't even get a SIMPLE majority for conviction, much less 2/3rds of one, and in fact, on one of the charges he was impeached for, a majority voted against conviction.

If you don't believe me that is, in fact, what impeachment's all about, here's some resources on the matter:

Link
Link
Link
Link

...and more if you Google 'impeachment' and bother to click around. Your assertation then that he was 'convicted of perjury' is false unless it happened out of office.

I don't assume to know the lady, dear sir, and I don't wish to go there. The last statement is true.

or 20+ women who dont know each other? 1 or 2, maybe. 20+?

I'm always a little leery of people accusing other people at different times. Seriously. It could be a case of dealing with it, but it could always be a case of, 'hey, she got some attention, and he and I did have this fling, so let's see what I can get out of it.' People copycat bombings and other stuff all the time. Accusations run rampant on public officals often, and the media tends to demonize them.

But that does not make a good person or leader. He is neither.

That's an opinion that you're entitled to. I don't think anyone could argue with you that Clinton is a 'good person' by what he's done at the very least by cheating on his wife. A good leader all depends on what your definition of a good leader is. I think Bush is a brash, self-aggrandizing hick from Texas. Doesn't mean it's necessarly proof; it's my opinon. I wouldn't use the words 'good leader' for Dubya probably ever. I'm entitled as you are.

Which means exactly what?

It means he's successful at what he does. It's like saying someone's a good software salesman. The man got elected by reasonably big margins twice. He managed to convince the American people he was electable around many scandal accusations. He got out his agenda in a way people understand. He was reelected many other times to office. And he knows at least little bit on how to work the system and what issues are important to the people at the moment. That is what a good politican is; someone who is good at their job, namely politics.

Dr Guy

on Feb 02, 2005

Now you are just splitting hairs. I did not say Clinton wsa convicted of any of his sexcapades, but that does not mean he did not do them. Just by your own logic Nixon was not convicted does not mean he did not do what was alledged (but never proven in court). So are you contending that Nixon was not guilty of the coverup? You are naive.

Dr Guy

on Feb 02, 2005

I'll say it yet again: Impeachment is charging someone, not CONVICTING them. Here, I'll cut out an excerpt since you all seem confused about this issue:

Quote away. I did not say he was convicted of his impeachment articles, I said he was convicted (or more accurately pled nolo contendre) to a charge of lying under oath, perjury. That is why he was fined $25k and lost his law license. Now go look that up, and get off the impeachment kick as I never said that he was convicted in the senate (at least you do know the difference between impeachment and conviction).

Dr Guy

on Feb 02, 2005

I fully agree that under normal circumstances it would be gloy seeking, but when there are so many and so passionate accusers, then there is a great degree of suspicion. And when it come sto believing a convicted liar or 20+ unrelated women, some with corroborating witnesses, I and most rational people chose to believe the ones not convicted of perjury.

Dr Guy

on Feb 02, 2005

It means he's successful at what he does. It's like saying someone's a good software salesman. The man got elected by reasonably big margins twice.

Not hardly. He did not even get the percentage votes in either election than Dubya got trwice. A good politician could have at least gotten 50.1%. He never got that much.

For the last time, if you are going to debate an issue, dont put words into your opponents mouth. It merely means you cannot debate the facts, and must contort them to make a point, even if it is weak and specious.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!