I did not see the interview (no TV). Why did she change her mind? Putting myself in her position (a southern business woman living amongst the Dixie Mafia-- a woman who has not the principle and courage even to die for the truth) I would do precisely as she did.
Based upon what I have read, various rumors have been floating around about this thing for years. The rumors reached a fever pitch in 1992 to which Broaddrick responded by hunkering down, presumably hoping they would fade into a tolerable mumble (which they did).
With the Lewinsky matter the rumors revived, this time with a threat of her being called as a witness against Clinton. This required action more drastic than mere silence. She filed an affidavit, this merely to keep out of everything and allow the thing to fade to its formerly tolerable level.
The news media had hounded her for years, even chasing her down the highway, but in recent years it became quite ferocious and persistent, even bringing in allegations of bribes and shady deals involving her husband of eighteen years. While at a dinner, I think a Thanksgiving dinner, someone passed around a copy of the Star in which she and her husband were alleged to have cut a shady deal with Clinton concerning the rape. It ruined the dinner of course (how moronic of the person who did this), but it also snapped her resolve to ignore the issue.
She knew the height of the matter was on its way and that if she did nothing about it, it would be indelibly etched in history by the deviant hands of Bill Clinton. She came forth because she had to protect herself. She knew the capability of the Dixie mafia don to even spin history, grinding her and her husband up without mercy, and so she decided to let it all hang out for the record. By doing this she would then have registered the truth, even if no one would believe her. She changed her story because she realized everything was at stake, especially the peace of her husband and the historical record concerning him. No doubt he has for decades seethed about this, and could not bear seeing Clinton not by any means taken to task for it. This is why they are insistent on having the raw truth told about it, and why when NBC held the story they were both so hurt. These people are acting precisely as people who have been mortally wounded. In these circumstances we should expect to see precisely what we are seeing, apparent contrariness and all. |
