Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BROADDRICK WANTED TO JUST GET THE STORY "OUT THERE"
Arkansas Democrat Gazette ^ | 2-99 | Michael Leahy

Posted on 01/02/2003 8:02:48 AM PST by doug from upland

PERSPECTIVE COLUMN: Stoking fires of history

Broaddrick just wanted to get the story 'out there'

MICHAEL LEAHY

VAN BUREN -- The previous evening had been difficult. "When that woman cried, I cried," she'd said to her husband, referring to the woman on the television program they'd just finished watching, the woman who just happened to be herself. She was Juanita observing Juanita from afar. She often speaks with this kind of detachment, as this is Juanita Broaddrick's way of protecting herself, of doing her best to distance herself from the pain she endured in 1978 and must recount now.
    A couple of days earlier, over the telephone, she had said she could still see herself lying on the bed after, she says, Bill Clinton suggested she put some ice on her swollen lip and left the room. She referred to herself as "the body," as if she felt vaguely dead by then, like so many rape victims. Another detail sprung to her mind, something she hadn't said on camera for NBC. She said she lay there on a bed in the Camelot Hotel that spring morning, unable to move, lip swelling, panty hose torn, until a terrifying possibility entered her mind. "This was a powerful person who had done this to me," she said. "I thought somebody was going to come in at any moment and get rid of the body, rid of the evidence."
    No one will ever be able to substantiate her story. But she says she has lived with humiliation and fear for 21 years, so perhaps you can understand at least why she hasn't spoken on your timetable.
    The morning after a nation heard her claims of having been raped by Bill Clinton 21 years earlier, she sat on her living room couch and listened to her phone ring for at least the 10th time in 15 minutes. She sighed, contorted her body in black stretch pants, looked awkwardly over her shoulder and cocked an ear toward an upstairs answering machine, whose speaker she'd turned up to a level audible throughout her large house so she could hear the many scratchy, pleading voices without ever having to move.
    The voices echoed off her high ceilings. It was like being in a taxi dispatch, with all these loud, harried-sounding strangers wanting her to pick up so they could take her to New York, Washington, L.A., Atlanta, wherever she wanted to go. Now an unctuous female voice, oozing flattery and identifying itself as affiliated with Fox Television, requested a minute of her time, adding that Patricia Ireland of the National Organization of Women had had something respectful to say about her just that morning and the voice would like to fill her in. Please, pickup.
    "Fox," Broaddrick groaned. A Fox crew had harassed her once, telling her husband that she might as well submit and let herself be filmed because they'd be getting what they came for in any case, chasing her on an Arkansas highway at speeds approaching 95 miles an hour in an attempt to get footage of Jane Doe NO. 5. "I'm letting that one go."
    "Hmm, Patricia Ireland saying something," murmured her husband David.
    "Oh." Broaddrick leaned back on the couch, quite underwhelmed, holding some flowers that a friend had sent over, a congratulatory bouquet after her NBC appearance. David turned to a journalist sitting across from his wife. "MSNBC had a poll this morning saying that 84 percent of the people believe Juanita; only 16 percent Clinton."
    "But that doesn't really mean anything," his wife quickly interjected. "It wasn't a scientific poll. Who knows what people really think?"
    This is one of Juanita Broaddrick's charms, her level-headed bluntness. She doesn't have much patience for imprecision or half-truths, which probably best explains why last summer and autumn she was never so much as tempted to amend (which is to say bend) her version of the truth (after the lies of her earlier affidavit) to supply Ken Starr's and Henry Hyde's lieutenants with a better opportunity to oust Bill Clinton from office. They asked her everything that might have changed the course of the impeachment proceedings and subsequent Senate trial: Did Bill Clinton ask you to lie? De he or any of his aides attempt to intimidate you from testifying truthfully in the Paula Jones case? Did the president offer you a bribe or do anything in your matter that we could construe as an effort to obstruct justice?
    No, no and no, she answered.
    She never sought to aid Clinton's impeachment. She never has showed any signs of wanting to file a lawsuit against him or make money off a lurid book.
    Of course, her story would have been more useful to the prosecutor, not to mention sensationally compelling, had she merely added that, say, a sinister Clinton threatened her in that room at the old Camelot Hotel before he donned his sunglasses and left. It would have been more perilous for Clinton had she claimed he offered her a bribe in exchange for her silence.
    But it is this very lack of anything akin to a supportable, impeachable allegation, coupled with the ambiguities and gaps in her story that, ironically, make it harder to see her as a liar and--to the contrary for anyone who has recently sat across from her in this living room--only add to the impression of a pained, plain-speaking woman whose charges seem invested with the raw, eerie credibility of a story with no neatly tied bows; a woman with no perceptible motive for lying--not money, not celebrity, not even justice, given that she can't bring her accused attacker into any court, insofar as the statute of limitations on an alleged rape would have run out about 15 years ago.
    Twenty-one years is a long time to wait before thoroughly telling a story and so it was almost inevitable that she would forget some particulars, that things would be hazy, that she would remember a few things one week and other details the next. Over the phone the day before, she had thought of something she'd never told the NBC Dateline crew because the point never had occurred to her until that moment. "I told Mr. Clinton at the time he first kissed me in that room that I was in a relationship with another man who wasn't my husband," she said. "He knew it right then. He knew I had that affair to hide; that I would be reluctant to come forward if for no other reason than to cover the embarrassment I felt over an affair. I really feel he held that over me right then and afterwards. He never said so--he never would, that's not his way; he's too smart--but I felt he did hold it over me. He'd mentioned I was married. I think that was useful to him."
    As you read this, she is enjoying a weekend of gambling in an undisclosed city with her mother, wearing a baseball cap and sunglasses to conceal her identity, having entered Monica's world.
    She has no illusions about what will happen next. There are no witnesses to her claim, so "nothing will probably happen," she says. "But at least it's out there."
    Why is having it "out there" at all important?
    One can think of several reasons, not least of which is that a brave, reputable woman deserves an airing of a charge so damnable. Aside from this, history merits a complete accounting of the charges against a president of whom we can no longer say that such accusations are "preposterous" or "beyond credibility" or "outrageous." He is not Jimmy Carter or George Bush or Dwight Eisenhower or even LBJ. He is a liar, his true character having been exposed many months and women ago, a man who increasingly looks to us less like Slick Willie than Jekyll and Hyde. Juanita Broaddrick can take some solace in knowing she will have stoked history's redemptive fires.
   

This article was published on Sunday, February 28, 1999



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2facedmojohon; broaddrick; clinton; rapist; thankstotrent; unpunished

1 posted on 01/02/2003 8:02:48 AM PST by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
It still amazes me that the 'rats defended a rapist and attacked the victim.
2 posted on 01/02/2003 8:20:09 AM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
After all we've seen from the RATS, I guess I am no longer amazed, just disgusted.
3 posted on 01/02/2003 8:28:41 AM PST by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
It's not that amazing really.

A liberal is a groupthinker by definition. The group and the affiliation to that group become so powerful, that somewhere along the line it is inevitable that the liberal witnesses harm done to innocent people and chooses to ignore the injustice to remain in the group.

When this line is crossed, the only way to go back is to admit that your whole belief system is flawed, that everything you've fought for is a fraud. This is nearly impossible for a liberal.

Better to accept the bearing of false witness, the destruction of character, and yes even violent physical harm done to good, decent and innocent people, then admit you are and always have been a dupe, fraud and intellectual midget (PC small person).

Eddie01 "Liberals Lie About Everything all the Time"
4 posted on 01/02/2003 8:36:33 AM PST by The Real Eddie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
No kidding!

Imagine if it was a white republican!

5 posted on 01/02/2003 9:29:12 AM PST by Taiwan Bocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
Stop Being AMAZED By"The RATS"!They will do ANYTHING to win POWER!!
6 posted on 01/02/2003 9:36:34 AM PST by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Taiwan Bocks
Imagine if it was a white republican!

An actress named Selene Walters accused Ronald Reagan of raping her back in the 1950's when he was President of the Screen Actors Guild. (link)

7 posted on 01/02/2003 9:37:40 AM PST by eshu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
The seldom told story is, x42(i)came back and raped her again. hence, Juanita was raped twice by this lowlife.
8 posted on 01/02/2003 11:46:23 AM PST by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eshu
What took you so long? Defending Clinton by attacking Reagan. That's getting a little old.
9 posted on 01/02/2003 12:06:11 PM PST by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: eshu
Good grief. So what do you suppose, the Reagan-rape story was suppressed by the virulently pro-Reagan media?
10 posted on 01/02/2003 12:12:14 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
a president of whom we can no longer say that such accusations are "preposterous" or "beyond credibility" or "outrageous."

Think about that for a minute, and then ask yourself this: did you EVER hear one person, friend or foe of Bill Clinton's, say anything remotely close to that? I never heard anybody even attempt to make the case that he "just isn't that kind of guy," or "he'd never do anything like that.

Interesting.

11 posted on 01/02/2003 12:19:25 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; doug from upland
Taiwan Bocks wrote "Imagine if it was a white republican! (who had been accused of rape).

I replied by posting links to Selene Walters' accusation of similar behavior by Ronald Reagan in order to make the point that we don't have to imagine - it's already happened.

Now, does this mean that I am "defending Clinton by attacking Reagan" or suggesting that "the Reagan-rape story was suppressed by the virulently pro-Reagan media"? Nope.

I have no idea why the media chose to ignore the "Reagan-rape" story, but I can speculate:

1) Maybe it had something to do with the fact that Reagan had already been out of office for 3 years by the time the story broke, so it didn't seem relevant anymore.

2)Maybe the media ignored this story because it happened decades before Reagan became president.

3) Or maybe the media ignored this story because the symptoms of Reagan's mental deterioration were obvious by 1991 and sympathy seemed to be the order of the day, rather than vindictiveness.

4) Maybe Selene Walters was deemed not credible, or had some other grudge against Reagan that later came to light, thus casting doubt upon her motivation.

In the end, who can really know for sure? Not us, I'd wager.

12 posted on 01/02/2003 2:01:46 PM PST by eshu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: eshu
You can't be serious. If the lib-media had a shot, it would've take it . . . your pretensions toward even-handedness notwithstanding.
13 posted on 01/02/2003 2:06:27 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: eshu
correction:

Maybe the media ignored this story because it happened decades before Reagan became president

--should read---

Maybe the media ignored this story because it SUPPOSEDLY happened decades before Reagan became president

The accusation itself was the story which the media ignored, not the event - just wanted to make that distinction clear.

14 posted on 01/02/2003 2:10:31 PM PST by eshu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
The media had "a shot" to go after Reagan on Ms. Walters' rape accusation. Indeed, the book in which the charges first appeared sold quite well, and Selene Walters repeated the exact same charges in an interview with People that year.

Like I said (you may wish to reread my previous post) it may be that the media collectively intuited that the charges were to old to be relevant, that since Reagan was already out of office the story wasn't relevant, that Walters wasn't credible, that Reagan was a beloved figure who deserved sympathy rather than dirt-digging, or whatever.

15 posted on 01/02/2003 2:20:46 PM PST by eshu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: eshu
Do you really think the stories are similiar:

KELLEY CLAIMS: Reagan met starlet Selene Walters in a Hollywood nightclub in the early 1950s. "Although I was on a date," she quotes Walters as saying, "Ronnie kept whispering in my ear, 'I'd like to call you. How can I get in touch with you?' " Hoping that Reagan, then president of the Screen Actors Guild, could boost her career, Walters gave him her address and was surprised when he came calling at 3 A.M. "He pushed his way inside and said he just had to see me. He forced me on the couch . . . and said, 'Let's just get to know each other.' It was the most pitched battle I've ever had, and suddenly in a matter of seconds I lost. . . . They call it date rape today. . . ."

SELENE WALTERS SAYS: Kelley's account of his late-night visit is essentially accurate, although he never forced his way into her apartment. "I opened the door. Then it was the battle of the couch. I was fighting him. I didn't want him to make love to me. He's a very big man, and he just had his way. Date rape? No, God, no, that's [Kelley's] phrase. I didn't have a chance to have a date with him." Walters says she bears Reagan no ill will, and has even voted for him:
"I don't think he meant to harm me."
16 posted on 01/02/2003 2:22:29 PM PST by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol; doug from upland
It still amazes me that the 'rats defended a rapist and attacked the victim.

Yes, but is it much more amazing than the complete lie down and play dead stance of the Senate Republicans during impeachment?

Rhetorical question.

17 posted on 01/02/2003 2:27:35 PM PST by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Thanks to our buddy Trent Lott for that.
18 posted on 01/02/2003 2:30:55 PM PST by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Hmmm... interesting, I had read both accounts before but it's illuminating to see them side by side like this. Walters' acct. is certainly less sensational than Kelley's and I wonder whether:

a)Kelley embellished Walters' account somehow or

b)Walters herself was less forthcoming with People than she was with Kelley

In either event, it's worth remembering that even if RR was "fighting" and "had his way" with this young woman, it happened a long time ago, in a different era, when that sort of thing was more acceptable (albeit rarely discussed) - the term "date rape" didn't even exist yet!

..a more innocent (naive?) era for sure....


19 posted on 01/02/2003 2:37:51 PM PST by eshu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: eshu
Well, yeah, but Walters is just one person telling a story to a scandal author; the Broadrick case has a lot more detail and compelling facts associated with her account.

I just cannot see an honest person seeing a similiarity in the stories.
20 posted on 01/02/2003 2:40:41 PM PST by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: eshu
This should be an interesting laughable comparison-

In Kitty Kelley's 1991 book Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography, actress Selene Walters accused Ronald Reagan of raping her. People magazine did a follow up interview with Walters, and all in all it had about the same credibility as the Juanita Broaddrick story. Except of course, there was no television network devoting most of its time to it, the Wall Street Journal did not devote its editorial page to it, it did not appear as headlines in all the major newspapers, it was not the topic of discussion on every talking head program, and Rush Limbaugh never even mentioned it. In fact I have not seen nor heard any mention of this anywhere by any media source other than on the net. Some liberal media, eh?

The call now from the Right and the media is for Clinton to answer to the accusation. When Reagan was approached with the charge by a reporter outside one of his biannual treks to church, he said, "I don't think a church would be the proper place to use the word I would have to use in discussing that." That was a good enough answer for conservatives though.

But we have to remember, Ronald Reagan is the moral example of conservative Americans.

Divorced, knocked up his bride to be and slapped around his daughter. Bill Clinton did none of those things, but that does not matter because he did far far worse, he got a couple BJ's from a bimbo at work.

I have to say that in her interview, Monica is one of the very few people who hit the nail right on the head with her giggly frivolity concerning it, for giggly frivolity is just what a couple BJs are. Not as Ken Starr and Company would have you believe, cause to threaten numerous families with twenty years in prison and the end of the rule of law as we know it.

Again here we are with the problem conservatives are far overdue in suffering, the abject hypocrisy of it all. The good news being, they just don't get it, and probably never will.

When the Reagan rape story recently hit the Internet, it was interesting to notice that accusations against Clinton are proof of guilt, while accusations against Reagan are just a bunch of partisan lies. But not a few moderates agreed that to be fair, both presidents should be made to answer for the accusations.

I suppose we could get Ken Starr to personally go unstrap Ronnie from his poopy chair and drag him down to some Grand Jury he has going somewhere to answer up. But I don't think much would come out rather than cries of "Mommie Mommie, I have to pee-pee," or "I liberated Buchenwald Mommie!"

And then Clinton. Gosh, the call for him to come forward sure is a swarthy partisan game. If he denies it, the story will be what a joke it is for Clinton to deny anything. We'd be hearing that attached to the end of the finger waving denial from now until doomsday.
21 posted on 01/02/2003 2:43:38 PM PST by M. Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Yeah, I agree. (Your question was really a statement, wasn't it? The answer is obvious.)
22 posted on 01/02/2003 2:45:45 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I never heard anybody even attempt to make the case that he "just isn't that kind of guy," or "he'd never do anything like that.

Al Hunt once said in one of his columns that what Clinton was accused of was 'not consistent with the Bill Clinton they know, according to women who know him' or something to that effect. I forget what point in time that was. It may have been in reference to the Paula Jones situation before the Monica Lewinsky disclosures, or after Lewinsky allegations hit but while she was still stonewalling. Tells you what kind of shill Hunt is for Democrats.

23 posted on 01/02/2003 2:45:54 PM PST by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
It still amazes me that the 'rats defended a rapist and attacked the victim.

Actually, it's quite consistent with their actions throughout recent history.

24 posted on 01/02/2003 2:46:48 PM PST by EaglesUpForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eshu
FYI - I took this from another web site and did not author it....
25 posted on 01/02/2003 2:47:17 PM PST by M. Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: eshu
One difference is that Clinton was the Arkansas Attorney General when he raped Broadrick and was a Governor and President when other things transpired.
26 posted on 01/02/2003 2:49:51 PM PST by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
The reason why I posted this info in the first place was because someone wrote "Imagine if it was a white republican" (who had been accused of rape).

My point was that we don't have to "imagine," since not only was RR accused of rape, but the book in which this accusation was made even hit #1 on the NYT bestseller list. For some reason, the accuser only did one interview, and then the public forgot all about it.

Now, as I've already noted, there are many possible reasons why the media chose to downplay this story.

It may be for a dramatic conflict of this nature to draw ratings, you need a vindictive and vigorous victim to play the role of accuser, not an elderly woman who has long since forgiven her rapist and even voted for him! That would explain a lot, actually.

27 posted on 01/02/2003 2:50:30 PM PST by eshu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland; HAL9000; kattracks
Thanks for the repost. [original thread] [another original thread]
28 posted on 01/02/2003 2:52:46 PM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach
In Kitty Kelley's 1991 book Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography, actress Selene Walters accused Ronald Reagan of raping her. People magazine did a follow up interview with Walters, and all in all it had about the same credibility as the Juanita Broaddrick story. Except of course, there was no television network devoting most of its time to it, the Wall Street Journal did not devote its editorial page to it, it did not appear as headlines in all the major newspapers, it was not the topic of discussion on every talking head program, and Rush Limbaugh never even mentioned it. In fact I have not seen nor heard any mention of this anywhere by any media source other than on the net.

Wasn't the Monica BJ scandal first broken on the Drudge Report?

Hard to believe that there was no internet, no MSNBC, no freerepublic.com, no drudgereport.com, back in 1991... did FOX NEWS even exist yet?

LOL, that might explain a lot too!

29 posted on 01/02/2003 3:00:56 PM PST by eshu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: eshu
What I find so intellectually dishonest are those who continue to say that the President is entitled to his so called "private life" and it's all about sex.

Anything unethical (sex included) that the most powerful person in the world does that would subject him to blackmail that would affect the lives of perhaps everyone on the planet - is not about one having a "private life" - besides - it wasn't about sex, it was about perjury, suborning perjury and denying a U.S. Citizen the right to a fair trial.
30 posted on 01/02/2003 3:08:06 PM PST by M. Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach
Anything unethical (sex included) that the most powerful person in the world does that would subject him to blackmail that would affect the lives of perhaps everyone on the planet

It boggles my mind that the likes of Monica Lewinsky was transferred to the Pentagon, for crying out loud, and given security clearance. We know security was treated with little regard during the clinton era...and this is but one manifestation.

31 posted on 01/02/2003 5:06:01 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: All
Timely bump!
32 posted on 02/16/2004 8:14:48 AM PST by Hon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson