< It still doesn't pass the test even out now; people
just don't go for 20 year old allegations that have no proof. Nobody can even place Clinton at the place!!!!!!! You folks will believe anything as long as it is bad about him. You have no integrity.>
You are both comical and ridiculous Jonathan. The Washington Post deemed Broaddrick's credible enough to run her story on their front page. Do they have no integrity ?
What is your logic for villifying people who believe Clinton did in fact rape this woman, while at the same time exempting yourself from the same kind of villification for accusing her of being a manipulator and a liar ?
It all goes to the issue of credibility of the 2 parties doesn't it ?
Well, on this issue of credibility, I find Broadrick's story much more credible than Kendall's denial. (Nurse being witness to injury and torn clothes, previous encounter between Clinton and Broadricks, pattern of lying by Clinton, no money sought for story, absence of any facts in Kendall's denial.)
And I suggest to you that most people, if truly impartial and informed of all the facts, would find Broadrick's version more credible than Kendal's denial.
You can chose to disagree with this judgment, but you certainly have no right to act like a pig being slaughtered if people do not agree with you.
I say let's hear Clinton's version to put the issue to rest. The charges are too important to be shoved under a rug. Until Clinton gives us his version, you had better get used to hearing that Broaddrick story over and over, and debating it on the facts given to us.
So far, unfortunately for you, we only have Broaddrick / witnesses version of events, and this President's history. |
