Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (34071)	2/15/1999 11:58:00 AM
From: lorrie coey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Typical male fantasy fare...."working girl"!!! LOL!..in your wet dreams.

To: Les H who wrote (34071)	2/15/1999 1:17:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Les, Article... MONDAY FEBRUARY 15 1999 WorldNetDaily David Limbaugh worldnetdaily.com Bill Clinton's forgiving spirit As Bill Clinton turned to re-enter the White House after reading his post-acquittal statement, Sam Donaldson asked him whether he could forgive those who tried to remove him from office. He then returned to the microphone and delivered his answer. With all due respect to Mr. Donaldson, isn't the question itself misguided? What possible entitlement could Bill Clinton have to forgive anyone? We might as well just ask O.J. the same thing about Marcia Clark. Acquittals born of jury nullification are not vindication. But this wasn't just another provocative question from the pugnacious reporter. Donaldson, like the rest of us, was aware of Clinton's reputation for revenge and was probably thinking of The New York Times report that Clinton's advisers said he was planning revenge because he was furious at House Republicans over his impeachment. White House press secretary Joe Lockhart emphatically denied that Clinton was launching a campaign of revenge. Other than the fact that all statements coming out of the White House must be treated as presumptively false until demonstrated otherwise by clear and convincing evidence, are there any other reasons we should be skeptical about these denials? First, let's look at Clinton's precisely chosen words to Donaldson: "I believe any person who asks for forgiveness has to be prepared to give it." He didn't say, "Of course I'll forgive, because it's the right thing to do," but rather "I (or any person) will, if there's something in it for me." Donaldson's question was not whether any person could forgive, nor whether Clinton was prepared to forgive, but whether he, Bill Clinton, could forgive. Note that in his speech he never asked for forgiveness. Are we, therefore, free to assume that he has no intention of forgiving? Let's look at the other evidence: A. The liberal New York Times didn't say their source was a Republican, but White House advisers. B. Clinton's own statements are incriminating: 1. The post-grand jury speech where, under the guise of contrition, he issued vitriol against Ken Starr and his attackers. 2. When Dick Morris reportedly suggested that Clinton trash Monica when her story first surfaced, Clinton didn't tell him, "No, that would be wrong," but "Not yet, because she may still be sympathetic to us" (and unsympathetic to the prosecution). 3. His defamatory statements to Betty Currie and Sidney Blumenthal that Monica was the aggressor. C. George Stephanopoulos warned early on in this scandal that if Bill Clinton was going down he would take others down with him through a scorched-earth policy. Is George clairvoyant, or did he have first-hand knowledge of the planned tactics of the First Avenger? Or was it just a coincidence that, later, dirt was systematically delivered against Clinton's most powerful opponents: Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, David Schippers, Bob Barr and others? Larry Flynt talked about exposing Democrats but curiously never got around to doing it. D. Bill Clinton denies any connection with Flynt's and Carville's destructive actions, yet both say they are engaging in such behavior to help the president. If that's true, doesn't it stand to reason that he could call them off if he wanted to? His failure to do so speaks volumes. Plus, we may have witnessed an unintended admission by Carville during his recent appearance on Letterman: "I'm proud to be his friend. I'm proud of the job he has done. I'm proud that he asked for my help in his hour of need and I was proud to provide the help." E. If Stephanopoulos, Currie, Blumenthal, Flynt, Carville and other unnamed Clinton advisers aren't close enough to Clinton for you, how about his wife? The New York Daily News reports that she is "dusting off her war bonnet" and is prepared to "start settling some scores." Is there really any question that Clinton has been behind the politics of personal destruction and planning for more as The New York Times story implies? The evidence pointing towards that conclusion are his own self-revealed attitude and that of his wife, the words of his named and unnamed advisers, and his consistent history of intimidating and terrorizing women. The evidence pointing against it are the denials of Clinton and Joe Lockhart, two of the most credible men of the era. As Heather Higgins of the Independent Women's Forum quipped, "He's the architect of much of the politics of personal destruction. Of course he is going to do this." To paraphrase some familiar aphorisms: When there's this much smoke there must be a raging fire; Hell hath no fury like an amoral, narcissistic, megalomaniacal sociopath scorned; and anger is only one letter short of danger.