As a matter of fact, I rarely listen to the radio. If I do, it is to catch a baseball game or check on the weather or traffic. Same for television, although I admit that I tape Jeopardy and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Broadcast media is the worst possible source of any news that requires that you form an opinion. It is designed to give you your opinion and it works on the assumption that you will accept that opinion, "as is", no questions asked. Across the media spectrum, liberal or conservative, it starts with a point of view that it wishes to promote and molds whatever "news" story it is relating to fit that point. The same can be said to a lesser extent for the printed media, but I do try to read as much as I can of at least a dozen different newspapers weekly. I try to cover the gamut of views from that conservative standard, the Washington Times to any of the dozens of liberal major city newspapers that constitute the Cox News Service propaganda machine. I don't do this out of some altruistic search for truth. I just enjoy reading. I also spend several hours weekly surfing the internet for other news sources. Once again, this is not from any of quest for truth, it's just entertaining because you never know what you're going to come across. I mean, there are some real Bozos out there. There is not a day that goes by that I am not amazed or amused by somebody or something. I try to base what opinions I form from these sources based on my own personal experiences and from truths that I can personally verify.
Which brings me to your post. The most significant change in Juanita Broadrick's story is the fact that after immediately reporting the incident (rape) to friends and then seeking medical treatment for contusions and several severe bite marks she then made the decision to retract her charges and refused to pursue the incident with authorities. She was straight forward about her motives for silence. She stated that in a case of her word against his (Clinton's) she was bound to come out a poor second. Even then, as Arkansas Attorney General, he had a reputation for waging a scorched earth attack, utilizing the full resources of his office, against anyone that dared to oppose him. If anything, the last few years have proven just how right she was. You're correct that it was not her, but outside sources that pursued and reopened the story for their own motives. Originally when questioned as "Jane Doe # 5" she reiterated her story that nothing had happened her original silence. Shortly after that affidavit, she recanted under oath, and explained the reasons for her reluctance to come forward and for her original affidavit. It was partially from fear of reprisal and because of considerations provided her by Clinton in obtaining contracts involving nursing homes in Arkansas. Last month Ms. Broaddrick granted an interview to Lisa Myers of NBC's Dateline. Those that have seen the taped interview state that it is chilling, but completely believable. Within 24 hours of the interview, after a shitstorm of correspondence between Clinton administration officials and NBC executive offices, the interview was quashed with the understanding that it never be made public. Lisa Myers' future with the network is uncertain, but it is accepted that she has been legally gagged from any public remarks concerning the interview. Within days, ABC made overtures that it might want to pursue an interview with Ms. Broaddrick but the ensuing flexing of muscle by the administration has all but ended any chance of that. If this was a grade B western movie, Clinton would be the ruthless, arrogant, cattle baron and James Carville his slimy henchman that first threatens the honest newspaper editor and then backshoots him in an alley and burns the newspaper to the grounds. Then the cattle baron has his way with the editor's daughter, before passing her around to his hired guns.
Come on Patricia. The facts of the White House's blitzkrieg to suppress the airing of this interview are readily available through any number of sources. Can you honestly say that Clinton's use of his influence as a blunt object to bludgeon the networks into silence is the act of an innocent man? This very act in itself is a crime. It is a blatant abuse of power. You say that we are all innocent until proven guilty. That's not exactly the truth. We are all "presumed" innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty. But If I witness a crime being committed right in front of me, I don't need the deliberations of a jury to tell me, objectively, that the person that committed the crime is guilty. While I can't convict him, I still know he is a criminal.
As far as Clinton's other crimes being the creation of right-wing zealots, I can only say that I made my decisions about that as objectively and with as much verifiable information as possible. Almost all of Clinton's dealings with the powers that govern the People's republic of China are unethical and most likely criminal. He has allowed them to influence U.S. foreign policy in such matters as our relations with Taiwan. He has overridden established procedures by giving COSCO, the Chinese Army's weapons export company the rights to set up operations in the now closed Long Beach (CA) Navy Base. Gimme a break Patricia. He's given the Chinese military a navy base in California! But it is his authorization to give the People's Republic of China classified missile technology that surpasses all of his other (known) crimes and falls squarely in the realm of violating a dozen laws governed by the National Security Acts. I for one would call it treason. Without going into too much detail, let me say that I've spent my entire adult life (I am 50) involved in one capacity or another with U.S. military weapons systems. I am currently involved in the private sector with the National Ballistic Missile Defense program. I don't mean to sound like somebody important, I'm not. I am only a hands-on peon with an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering and 30 years experience with things that blow up and the systems that deliver them. I take my work seriously, but I enjoy wearing a shirt that says "If you see me running, try to keep up". Without compromising classified information, I can say unequivocally that the technical information (and in some cases, actual hardware) that has been provided under the auspices of the Clinton administration to the Chinese has given them missile technology that would otherwise have taken them at least 8 to 12 years to develop on their own, if ever. Specifically they have improved the Circular Error Probability (CEP) of their ICBM fleet significantly. The CEP is the average distance from a target that a projectile could be expected to strike. Five years ago the Chinese measured this CEP in kilometers. They now measure it in feet. In addition, this technology has the added advantage of cutting hundreds of pounds of weight from their delivery systems, enabling them to increase the payload and range of their reentry systems.
As far as the School of the Americas, let's just say that one of the main missions of the U.S. military is to implement U.S. foreign policy. If that policy requires that it train foreign nationals to act in our interests in their homelands then that's just the way it is. But, I had to chuckle when you pulled out that hoary old chestnut about forcing peasants into forced labor for American corporations. I haven't heard that one used in 20 years. It's no truer now than it was then but it has resurfaced time and again since the late 19th century when U.S. marines went to Nicaragua at the request of the American fruit growers' cartel to protect their plantations from rebel attack. I'm not saying that the school at Fort Benning was graduating Boy Scouts, but they weren't in the business of recruiting slave labor. You are correct that the school is still in operation, but how can that be possible? I thought Reagan and Bush were no longer in office. Clinton must be training these troops to fight pollution and save endangered species in their impoverished homelands, right?
As far as me being right wing, I'm not sure I understand what that means. The last time I voted a one party ticket was in '72 when I "came clean with Gene". I can't believe I actually voted for McCarthy. My only excuse is that I had been out of country for a couple of years and was kind of pissed off at everyone in general. Thank god I was one of the few that did vote for him. Since then, I've tried to vote for the candidate that I believed was best for the job, their political affiliation notwithstanding. After the charade conducted by the Democrats during the impeachment proceedings, ignoring the rule of law for the sake of protecting their own party, it will probably be a long time before I find a Democrat that I'll vote for again. |
