HILLARY CLINTON KNEW ABOUT THE RAPE: HEAR JUANITA BROADDRICK
Posted on 01/13/2006 5:42:28 PM PST by Mia T
HILLARY CLINTON KNEW ABOUT THE RAPE: HEAR JUANITA BROADDRICK
|
Given the silence from the West Wing, Mrs. Broaddrick this week sought answers from Hillary Clinton, whose telescopic feminism apparently sees injustice to women everywhere except the kind which occurs closer to home. In a letter to Mrs. Clinton recalling their meeting shortly after the reported assault occurred, she wondered about the significance of Mrs. Clinton's words to her at that time. Thank you, Mrs. Broaddrick says Mrs. Clinton told her, for "everything you do for Bill."
"What did you mean, Hillary?" her letter continued. "Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to keep quiet?"
The not-so-subtle implication of the letter is that Mrs. Clinton is, in fact, her husband's enabler. Dealing with her husband's promiscuity and worse might keep her from dealing with the important issues facing the people of New York, namely her candidacy. One might call it a
Did he rape that woman, Juanita Broaddrick?
The rape took place while Bill was running for governor. Hillary came bursting into the room to talk to two people, one of whom I personally know.
She said "You won't believe what this [expletive] did now. He tried to rape some b*tch."
It was the job of these two to squelch the story.
|
CLINTONS' DOCUMENTED ABUSE OF WOMEN
[FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!]
The Wall Street Journal thanx to WorkingClassFilth for the video
After Juanita Broaddrick made the accusation in 1999, [Clinton]'s attorney, David Kendall, alone answered, saying any such charges were "absolutely false."
Of course, attorney Robert Bennett believed... Clinton when he said he hadn't had sex with Monica Lewinsky and defended the president then on no toss sturdy grounds.
Thus while lawyers can spare Mr. Clinton awkward moments at the podium in which he has to say, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" or "I did not fondle that woman, Kathleen Wlley" or "I did not rape that woman, Mrs. Broaddrick," their comments are, in effect, non-denial denials.
Given the silence from the West Wing, Mrs. Broaddrick this week sought answers from Hillary Clinton, whose telescopic feminism apparently sees injustice to women everywhere except the kind which occurs closer to home.
In a letter to Mrs. Clinton recalling their meeting shortly after the reported assault occurred, she wondered about the significance of Mrs. Clinton's words to her at that time. Thank you, Mrs. Broaddrick says Mrs. Clinton told her, for "everything you do for Bill."
"What did you mean, Hillary?" her letter continued. "Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to keep quiet?"
The not-so-subtle implication of the letter is that Mrs. Clinton is, in fact, her husband's enabler. Dealing with her husband's promiscuity and worse might keep her from dealing with the important issues facing the people of New York, namely her candidacy. One might call it a Faustian bargain except that even Mephistopheles might not lower himself to sign such a deal....
EXCERPT
EDITORIAL
October 18, 2000
Did he rape that woman, Juanita Broaddrick?
special thanx to Jim Robinson
The closest... Clinton has ever come to answering allegations... he raped an Arkansas woman in 1978 is a distance measurable only in light-years.
COMPLETE ARTICLE
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!
Talk-show host Tom Scott of Clear Channel Broadcasting, New Haven (WELI 960) asked Shays about the mysterious impeachment "evidence room," prompting the GOP moderate to say that Broaddrick "disclosed that she had been raped, not once, but twice" to Judiciary Committee investigators.
Shays, who is often hailed by the New York Times for his independent judgment and good sense, found the evidence compelling:
"I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked point blank if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say that it way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."
HEAR CHRISTOPHER SHAYS
The rape took place while Bill was running for governor. Hillary came bursting into the room to talk to two people, one of whom I personally know.
She said "You won't believe what this [expletive] did now. He tried to rape some b*tch."
doug from upland to Sean Hannity,
"Who is Juanita Broaddrick? I've never heard of her!" cried Betty Friedan, the founder of modern feminism. Friedan's outburst came at last Friday's conference, entitled "The Legacy and Future of Hillary Rodham Clinton." Held at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. D.C., the event offered a chilling microcosm of an angry, divided America.
Was Friedan telling the truth? Maybe. And maybe all those millions of Germans who professed ignorance of the death camps were telling the truth too. The problem is, having admitted her ignorance, Friedan showed no interest in exploring the matter further. And that was the problem with the Germans too.
Totalitarian impulses flourished at the conference. Taking a page from Soviet psychiatry, some Clintonites suggested that Hillary hating might be a mental illness.
Richard Poe
Given the silence from the West Wing, Mrs. Broaddrick this week sought answers from Hillary Clinton, whose telescopic feminism apparently sees injustice to women everywhere except the kind which occurs closer to home.
In a letter to Mrs. Clinton recalling their meeting shortly after the reported assault occurred, she wondered about the significance of Mrs. Clinton's words to her at that time. Thank you, Mrs. Broaddrick says Mrs. Clinton told her, for "everything you do for Bill."
"What did you mean, Hillary?" her letter continued. "Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to keep quiet?"
The not-so-subtle implication of the letter is that Mrs. Clinton is, in fact, her husband's enabler. Dealing with her husband's promiscuity and worse might keep her from dealing with the important issues facing the people of New York, namely her candidacy. One might call it a Faustian bargain except that even Mephistopheles might not lower himself to sign such a deal....
What did you mean, Hillary? Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to continue to keep quiet? We both know the answer to that question.
Yes, I can answer Brit Hume's question. You are the same Hillary that you were twenty years ago. You are cold, calculating and self-serving. You cannot tolerate the thought that you will soon be without the power you have wielded for the last eight years. Your effort to stay in power will be at the expense of the state of New York. I only hope the voters of New York will wake up in time and realize that Hillary Clinton is not an honorable or an honest person.
|
|
|
December 7, 1941+64
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton
The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive.
We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?
In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst?
Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.
What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.
COMPLETE LETTER |
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006
The Times' 1996 endorsement of bill clinton1 was the problem. The endorsement, you may recall, was contingent on clinton getting a brain transplant--specifically of the character lobe.2 How could The Times square that shameful, irresponsible endorsement with this monstrous failure3?
Probing questions by the host, Brian Lamb, followed, eliciting this damning historical parallel from Sulzberger: "The Times dropped ball during Holocaust by failing to connect the dots." It appears that The New York Times doesn't learn from its mistakes.6 Will it take The Times another 50 years to understand/admit that by having endorsed for reelection a "documentably dysfunctional" president7 with "delusions" -- its own words -- it must bear sizeable blame for the 9/11 horror and its aftermath8? Sulzberger's carefully worded rationalization of the clinton endorsements points to clinton "policies," not achievements; is this tacit acknowledgement that clinton "achievements" -- when legal -- were more illusory than real -- that The Times' Faustian bargain was not such a good deal after all?
Elie Wiesel makes a distinction between "information" and "knowledge."6 Information is data; it is devoid of an ethical component; it is neutral. Knowledge is a higher form of information. Knowledge is information that had been internalized and given a moral dimension. At a minimum, The Times' failure -- whether concerning clinton endorsements, or classified leaks or the Holocaust -- is a failure to make this distinction. More likely though, it is a failure not nearly so benign.
|
fyi
fyi
Early on I thought libs were simply not intelligent, incapable of broader thought. Actually, I still think so but there does seem to be a deeper difference between liberal and conservative problem-solving that goes beyond ethics and education, I don't think it's simply the desire to do whatever it takes to gain power although that genesis would be less of a danger to the country than an actual, irrational conviction in liberal dogma.
At heart, liberals believe in short-term, feel-good, unconstitutional, socialist solutions to societal woes. They are arrogant utopians and Utopia itself is illogical and unnatural. Furthermore, who defines this utopia? Hillary?
Now I've fatigued and bored myself. But I think an in-depth psychological analysis of the differences between libs and conservatives would be interesting. Might even produce a cure for Clinton supporters.
|
 also see: |
Interesting take.
bump. :)
It seems very few folks discuss the matter, same with the Barrett report, even the republicans, according to newsmax would rather target their own...amazing.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/10/122950.shtml?s=ic
Pellicano is now up on Federal charges. Will his stint working for Slick and his WINO be a factor?
Exactly what sort of work did this private eye do for the Arkansas Grifters? Shouldn't it be made public?
I just heard KSFO Morning show.
Kieran Lalor was a guest he is a former serviceman serving in Iraq. He and other military members are on a "Anti clinton crusade.
http://www.eternalvigilancesociety.org
bump.
Exactly. We must field exceptional people of character, intelligence and achievement. Enough of the professional pol, a self-selected subgroup that is mediocre, dysfunctional, self-absorbed, corrupt or corruptible.... The Founders had the right idea: The citizen-politician.
Remember this when the hil runs for president.
bump
This is the essence of them!!!
Nancee
"They have 'behaved as though they are justified in using any tactic in pursuit of their goals,' including illegality, deception, libel, threats and 'ruining the lives of perceived enemies . . . 'They believe, she continues, 'they are justified in using any means to achieve their ends for a simple and uncomplicated reason. It is that they are superior individuals whose gifts and backgrounds entitle them to leadership.' They do it for themselves; for the continuance of Them."
Both true and ironic. It is precisely their inferiority and deficiencies that drive them.
Do you have the source of that quote?
No, not off hand, but I'll go back up through your material and find it! Back soon!
:-)
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Faustian bargain except that even Mephistopheles might not lower himself to sign such a deal.
As I watched Rick Lazio's interview on Fox News this morning, I felt compelled to write this open letter to you, Mrs. Clinton. Brit Hume asked Mr. Lazio's views regarding you as a person and how he perceived you as a candidate. Rick Lazio did not answer the question, but I know that I can. You know it, too.
Connecticut Rep. Chris Shays said on a talk radio show Wednesday that, based on secret evidence he reviewed during the impeachment controversy, he believes President Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, not once, but twice.
Sulzberger quickly explained that The Times was able to endorse clinton by separating clinton's "policies" from "the man."
If we assume that the clintons are the proximate cause of 9/11 --- 