Posted on 03/01/2002 10:52:56 AM PST by watsonfellow
I don't think she has lost weight.
The lady's name was Fitzgerald, one name I would especially remember.
Really? And he hired Linda when and for what job?
While Im sorry she has cancer, she is not a national icon, she is a national pariah. As for Bush, why should he hire a known malcontent, gossip, someone who could never be trusted in an environment that requires trust. Furthermore, if there is one thing that Bush despises it's those who leak info to the press. Bush owes her nothing.
If anyone owes her a job its those in the cottage industry that grew up around Whitewater. Why not give them hell? How about John Fund, he could use someone to keep him away from his girl friend? How about that nutcase and his legal foundation thats currently sueing Cheney? How about her good friend, Lucienne? Hell if you feel so strongly about it, why dont you hire her or get your company to hire her? She has strong secretarial skills and only wants a six figure salary plus plenty of time to gossip.
She didnt do this country a great service. She drug the entire country through the mud, lowering discourse, and bringing grossness into everyday conversation. She's also responsible for the large increase in oral sex among teenagers who point out its not sex.
Whistle blowers have never done well. That's why you have to either be extremely committed or a fool to run off at the mouth. Get a life. Whitewater is offer. Its a new century. Again, I say if you are so concerned about her, you hire her. Its not the governments responsibility to feed this women.
LOYALTY was also a top criteria of the last administration, wasn't it? The Clinton's insisted on the loyalty of their people keeping quite as just about every law you can name was systematically broken. And from where I stand, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the Bush and Clinton administrations (or their staunchest supporters). at least as far as upholding laws is concerned. If there were, by now we would know how many FBI files were were really taken, know whether the information in those files is still in DNC hands (or on their computers) and know Hillary's role in the whole ILLEGAL BLACKMAIL scheme. But Bush, perhaps because of what was contained in those THOUSANDS of files that Linda testified UNDER OATH to have seen being loaded onto DNC databases, hasn't done a thing about Filegate. Has he? Just like he has ignored ALL the other crimes the Clinton's and DNC committed. The Riady non-refund. Chinagate. Emailgate. Election tampering in Florida. The death of Foster. The death of Brown.
No ... I'm afraid I don't see a whole lot of difference between the Bush's and the Clinton's.
Their followers are BOTH willing to trash the reputation of someone (Linda) who did think the law mattered.
Whining about how the government "owes" her something is for Rats.
Spoken like the good democRAT that I think you really are.
During our first exchange last year, in defending the "move-on" philosophy, you argued against the possibility of foul play in the Ron Brown and Vince Foster cases ... by smearing credible sources like Christopher Ruddy and Judicial Watch without providing ANY basis for do so, by refusing to discuss the facts in those cases at every turn, by deliberately spreading untruths and misinformation about those cases, and by pretending to be knowledgeable about the cases when you clearly were not. You were ONLY interested in "moving on".
It seems to me that you are attempting to do the same thing here. If you wish to disagree, let us talk about Filegate, which is where Linda did, IN FACT, do this country a great service. You maintained a year ago that allegations of foul play in Foster's death were just conspiracy otherwise two special prosecutors and their staff's wouldnt have agreed that it was a suicide. I asked you then, which you never answered, why if Starr is as honest as you claimed did he allow Clinton to keep the 900+ FBI files that EVERYONE agreed were illegal for the Whitehouse to have? They were STILL in the Whitehouse's possession YEARS after Starr concluded his investigation and he (and Clinton) told the public they had been returned to the FBI. What's the problem ... is the answer not in your talking points?
Anyone else who wishes to see that Dave S is not what he claims to be ... a conservative republican ... can visit the following two threads. The first is http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a8c176b2669.htm. The second is http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3ac236c107b3.htm. They show by how he debates and what he defends, that he is anything BUT a conservative.
In fact, I'll repeat my top 10 reasons (from the latter thread) why Dave S is a democRAT:
And one last time, I'm NOT A DEMOCRAT. I BE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN.
You protest too much! We know you are a democRAT because you argue JUST like a democRAT and you argue a position that ONLY new-age democRATS could possibly support (like ignoring the crimes of murder, mass murder and treason).
Here are the top 10 reasons why you are a democRAT:
1) you run from using ANY facts to support your arguments,
2) you put your "faith" in the authorities even when those authorities are clearly controlled by the likes of Clinton ... even when those authorities have already been caught in lies and actions that show they are corrupt,
3) you put your faith in the mainstream media (why it's not biased ... how else would you know about Broaddrick ... HA!),
4) you resort to adhominen arguments and unsubstantiated smears to try and delegitimize your opponents and their sources,
5) you try and link reasonable questions about a set of events (like the Brown death) to non-related "conspiracy theories" that you think will be viewed as discredited (and perhaps rightly are),
6) you imply that your opponent said something on a subject you think will make him look like a "kook" when in fact he has never said anything about that subject,
7) you impune the intelligence of your opponent rather than argue the facts he has presented (no ... anything but THAT!),
8) you claim ignorance of the facts ... even when they are presented to you over and over,
9) you are completely poll driven (rather than driven by "principles"),
10) you use logic like "they all do it"
You don't fool any of us. You IS a democRAT (by any definition of "is").
I'm gone. Wasted too much time already.
Bye now ... but be assured that if you try to suggest Bush and Republicans "move on" then I or someone like me will be there to point out the obvious ... THAT YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT.
I seem to recall a taped Monica telling Linda how frightened she was that something was going to happen to her. She was afraid of the Big Creep. It sure happened to a bunch of other people. Bill isn't so frightening but his hatchetwoman (wife) is.
Tell that to Ron Brown ... although it was indeed Hillary who was on the same plane that "crashed" and "killed" Brown just a week or two later.
You said it!
Very interesing. Do you have a source/link to where that came from?
"Gee, why didn't I think of that?"
The Harlem Globetrotter
(Credit to Safire for BJ's newest handle.)
I'd be curious as to the source of this claim too. By the way ... so did Dave S. He admitted it in one of the URLs I mentioned. Interesting ... as you say.
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.