gee biting brodderick's lips so any movement is painful, so he could control her while he raped her is not consent. Remember "you better put some ice on it"?
You know maybe you're right........maybe Clinton did rape Brodderick although I have to say its uncanny how some of these women changed their positions right after some long talks with the GOP and an exchange of $$$ but whose to say that all the GOP did was convinced them to speak the truth.....for all women......so that men like Clinton couldn't get away with their raping ways in the future. If so, so what? Clinton is no longer president. Bush is.
So instead, why don't you read the following and then we can have a nice discussion about a topic that is currently germane to both of us:
George Bush: A Lot Can Happen in Three Years
Editorial
From 9/11 until the start of 2005, President George Bush succeeded in setting the political agenda for America and the world almost without effective challenge. At home and abroad he defined himself, and was widely seen, as the war president. In America, he was also at key stages the tax cutting president, the oil industry president and the religious conservative president. It all brought him unprecedented unpopularity around the globe, but extraordinary political success at home. Thirteen months ago, Mr Bush was narrowly but decisively re-elected for a second term after a ruthless and crude campaign, while his Republican party consolidated its position in control of both houses of Congress. His Democratic party opponents were in disarray. The Republicans ruled America and America ruled the world.
Today, those political triumphs seem rather more deceptive. The Bush ascendancy of November 2004 has collapsed with remarkable speed. The year now ending has been a seamless calendar of difficulties. Despite occasional bursts of optimism, the news from Iraq has been consistently worse and bloodier than anticipated. Mr Bush's dire mishandling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina dealt his reputation a particularly lethal blow. His clumsy attempts to fill long-awaited supreme court vacancies dismayed his supporters and alienated his enemies. The centrepiece of his domestic programme, privatisation of the social security pension system, failed. Conservative Republicans over-reached themselves in the Terri Schiavo right-to-die case. Key allies - Scooter Libby from the White House and Tom DeLay in the Congress - were indicted in connection with abuses of power. In November, Republican candidates were defeated in high-profile governorship elections in Virginia and New Jersey. That month, Mr Bush's approval ratings hit a new low of 36%, though they have since recovered somewhat, after an upbeat December on the stock market and an apparently successful Iraq election.
Nevertheless, there is now a very real sense in which America and the world are starting to treat Mr Bush as already a lame duck president. Commentators speculate that the president has run out of ideas. "When I watch Mr. Bush these days," the normally sympathetic commentator Thomas Friedman wrote recently, "he looks to me like a man who wishes that we had a 28th amendment to the constitution - called 'Can I Go Now?' He looks like someone who would prefer to pack up and go back to his Texas ranch." Increasingly, America's political elites - to say nothing of America's friends and foes around the world - are focused on two dates: the midterm elections on November 7 2006, when it is possible that Mr Bush's party will lose control of Congress, and the presidential contest of 2008 to elect his successor.
These are fascinating questions and there is no disputing that both dates matter. Indeed the midterms are already shaping the Iraq policy not just of the administration itself but also of its allies - see this week's Polish decision to keep some troops there for another year - and doubtless of its insurgent enemies too. But the world should not write Mr Bush's obituary too soon. There is no guarantee that the Democrats will recapture the Congress next year - the party's standings remain poor - and no guarantee that, if they do, this will signal a change of direction in 2008. The possibility of a President Hillary Clinton will be one of the great stories of the coming years - but that outcome is anything but certain and its consequences unclear. And in any case, it does Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and the stretching global agenda no favours to act as if the next three years do not matter. It may be a relief in some ways not to have a President Bush whose leadership is as effective as it once was. But is it really so much better to have one whose leadership is ineffective, and for such a long time too?
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
guardian.co.uk |
