Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: All
Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight.
Cudgel thy brains no more, the clinton plots are great.

Mia T, On Neutered and Neutering
by Mia T and Edward Zehr (EZ)

Is The President A Psychopath?
By Edward Zehr
The question is being asked by many thoughtful people: "Is this
guy sick, or what?" The secrets contained in those documents
provided by the independent counsel that were so persuasive to
wavering members of the House who viewed them at the Ford
Building before voting to impeach President Clinton are leaking
out. They paint a picture of a president with severe
psychological problems. What was in those documents that left
congressmen "horrified", according to Rep. Chris Shays, and
"nauseated", in the words of Rep. Mike Castle? (Shays was able to
keep his "horror" sufficiently under control to vote against
impeachment and subsequently introduce a constitutional amendment
that would allow the president a third term). NBC presstitute Tim
Russert reportedly let it be known that watching the full five
hours of the uncut Juanita Broaddrick interview had made him
"physically ill," though obviously not so ill that he thought to
mention it on his talking head "news" show the following Sunday.
(It's only about sex, you know). What is it about President
Clinton's "private" behavior that has such an emetic effect upon
pols and press alike?
The online publication, Capitol Hill Blue, which revealed two
weeks ago that Juanita Broaddrick's charge that Clinton sexually
assaulted her when he was the Attorney General of Arkansas "is
but one of many allegations of sexual assault by the President,"
has now obtained permission from several of the victims to
publish their names.
Of particular interest is the charge made by Eileen Wellstone,
who was 19 at the time, that Clinton assaulted her near the
campus of Oxford University while he was a student there. A
retired State Department official has confirmed that he contacted
the family of the girl and subsequently filed a report on the
incident with his superiors. Although Clinton admitted having
sexual relations with the girl, he claimed that she had
consented. Despite the fact that Wellstone's family declined to
press charges, there may have been repercussions. In the book he
wrote on his experiences in the Clinton White House, "Unlimited
Access", Gary Aldrich revealed a possible reason why Rhodes
Scholar Clinton broke off his studies in the winter of 1969 to
make a tour of Europe: "there are suggestions that school
officials told him he was no longer welcome on campus . . . There
were no grades available for review to prove or disprove claims
regarding Clinton's achievement, since the university will not
release such records absent the candidate's authority."
Is it possible that young Bill Clinton blew a Rhodes Scholarship
by assaulting a young girl in his host country? One might wonder
if he were capable of such reckless behavior were it not for the
Lewinsky affair. The rumor persists to this day that Clinton did
not receive a degree as the result of his studies at Oxford. When
the question came up during the 1992 presidential campaign, he
failed to respond to it. As Aldrich wrote: "It is noted that
normally a candidate would sign a release so as to allow
investigators to confirm or deny educational claims. In this
case, the candidate will neither sign a release form nor will he
provide documentation related to his attendance and performance
at Oxford."
A woman who reported to campus police at Yale University in 1972
that Clinton had sexually assaulted her was contacted by Capitol
Hill Blue, and confirmed that the incident had happened, but
declined to discuss the details. Clinton was studying law there
at the time the alleged rape took place. Although no charges were
filed, a retired campus policeman confirmed for CHB reporters
that the incident had taken place. The alleged victim did not
wish to be identified.
The woman who complained that Clinton had accosted her at the
University of Arkansas in 1974 has also declined to be
identified. She charged that Clinton, then a law professor, had
attempted to prevent her from leaving his office, adding that he
had groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. Clinton
responded to the charge by saying that she had "come on" to him.
The outcome of the incident was that the female student left the
school and Clinton stayed. Contacted at her Texas home last week,
the woman confirmed the incident but was unwilling to make a
public statement. Capitol Hill Blue reported that "Several former
students at the University have confirmed the incident in
confidential interviews and said there were other reports of
Clinton attempting to force himself on female students."
Those who still doubt Paula Jones' account of her encounter with
then Gov. Bill Clinton in a Little Rock hotel suite should find
the allegation of Carolyn Moffet enlightening. The woman, who was
at the time a legal secretary working in Little Rock, told of
meeting Clinton at a fund-raiser in 1979. He invited her to a
meeting with him in his hotel room, according to Moffet, who
described the encounter quite graphically: "I was escorted there
by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch,
wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me
to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and
he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled
away from him and ran out of the room."
Former Miss Arkansas, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, told friends in
1982, that Clinton had forced her to have sex with him. Paula
Jones' lawyers attempted to subpoena Gracen, hoping that she
would confirm the accounts that she had been sexually assaulted
by Clinton. Gracen, however, at first denied having relations
with Clinton - and then the following item appeared in the New
York Daily News:
Elizabeth Ward Gracen -- who previously denied any liaison
with the President -- said she came forward to rebut
allegations that Clinton forced himself on her.
"I had sex with Bill Clinton, but the important part to me is
that I was never pressured," she said. "We had an intimate
evening. Nothing was ever forced. It was completely
What had prompted Gracen to issue this statement? She told USA
Today that Clinton was running for the Democratic presidential
nomination in the New York primary and that she had been asked by
his campaign to issue a statement denying that they had had sex.
"His campaign contacted my manager and asked, 'Would she issue a
formal denial?' I saw it as a situation where that made good
sense. I wanted it (the publicity) to go away," Gracen said.
But that isn't what her former friend Judy Stokes, told USA
Today. According to the newspaper, Stokes swore in the
deposition she gave in the Jones case that Gracen had "tearfully
told her in the mid-1980s that Clinton forced her into sex in the
back of a limousine in 1982."
Rick Lambert, an investigator for the Paula Jones legal team,
told the online publication NewsMax that, "I talked to Judy
Stokes for an hour and a half. At first, she was reluctant to
burn her bridges with Liz. But I finally asked, 'Do you believe
Clinton raped her?' She said, 'Absolutely. He forced her to have
sex. What do you call that?' Stokes was totally convinced it was
Why did Gracen change her story? As I reported last year, the
lady is an actress and, according to The New York Post, the 1992
denial was elicited from Gracen after she and her manager Miles
Levy, met with Clinton's TV producer friend Harry Thomasson and
his campaign manager Mickey Kantor. At a Little Rock press
conference held a week later Gracen denied that she and Clinton
were lovers. She was thereupon given a role by producer Michael
Viner in Sidney Sheldon's miniseries "Sands of Time." After that
Gracen was given another part in a TV movie called "Discretion
Assured." When he asked her agent, Levy, why Gracen refused to
talk to him, investigator Lambert was told, "Look, that would be
career suicide for Liz and you know it."
Of course, Gracen denies that the denial she made on Clinton's
behalf had anything to do with her being given a role by producer
Michael Viner. Of course. Michael Viner just happens to be the
former publisher of Dove Books who felt inspired by civic virtue
to hold a press conference in which he badmouthed Kathleen
Willey, implying that the only reason she had made those
allegations against Clinton was to promote a book she wanted to
sell him. (In fact, it was Viner who had approached Willey about
the book, but the smear seemed to work at the time). Small world,
isn't it? According to Capitol Hill Blue, Gracen's latest
version of the story is that what she had said in the Daily News
interview is false. She now says that she was pressured by
threats from the president's supporters to say that her sexual
encounter with Clinton was consensual.
A onetime Washington fundraiser, Sandra Allen James, has said
that she was invited to Clinton's Washington, DC hotel room in
1991. She alleges that an incident whose pattern should be
familiar by now, transpired -- she found herself pinned her
against the wall as Clinton put his hand up her dress. Her
screams attracted the attention of a state trooper assigned to
guard Clinton. When the trooper pounded on the door and inquired
what was going on, Clinton fled. Ms. James reported the incident
to her supervisor, only to be told to keep quiet if she wanted to
stay employed. When contacted a week ago by CHB, Ms. James, who
has since married, said that she subsequently learned of other
women who had been accosted by Clinton when he traveled to
Washington during his presidential campaign.
A flight attendant on an aircraft used by the 1992 Clinton
campaign, Christy Zercher, told CHB that candidate Clinton
exposed himself to her, groped her and made remarks to her about
oral sex. A video tape shot by ABC News showed Clinton, three
sheets to the wind, with his hand between the legs of another
female flight attendant. Zercher said that White House attorney
Bruce Lindsey later attempted to pressure her into remaining
silent about the incident.
Investigators Rick and Beverly Lambert worked with Paula Jones
lawyers from September 1997 to discover "Jane Doe" victims of
Bill Clinton. Their findings were turned over to the House
Judiciary Committee after they had been subpoenaed by the Office
of Independent Counsel. Some believe that their evidence
convinced wavering congressmen to change their votes, providing
the margin needed for impeachment.
The investigators told NewsMax that they had interviewed 209
witnesses, uncovering leads on previously unknown incidents
involving Clinton and providing additional details about events
already known to the public. According to the online publication,
a number of "promising leads" were abandoned when the Jones case
was dismissed last spring. Among the leads not followed up was
one that involved the rape of a 14-year-old girl at a Little Rock
cocaine party.
Beverly Lambert provided details of Clinton's assault on a "young
woman lawyer" he met at a Democratic fundraiser in Little Rock in
the late '70s. The incident had been mentioned in a book by Roger
Morris, "Partners in Power." The victim had talked to Morris on
condition of confidentiality. After the fundraiser at a popular
waterfront restaurant, known then as Fisherman's Wharf, "She
offered Clinton a ride home. And once he got her alone in her
car, he grabbed this woman and assaulted her. He did his
trademark thing; exposed himself, asked her to 'kiss it,' and
pushed her head down into his lap," according to Lambert.
The woman went home and told her husband, who subsequently
confronted Clinton, obtaining a "sheepish" apology from him. But
the couple were unwilling to talk to Jones' investigators. Do you
wonder why? Lambert explains:
"Right after they talked to Roger Morris, her husband was
suddenly appointed to head up the Arkansas Real Estate
Commission," says Beverly. "I'm sure that job pays pretty
well. She works for the state, too. So at this point they're
afraid for their jobs."
Does that sound excessively cynical? Shouldn't we give then the
benefit of a doubt? Beverly Lambert explains further:
"The husband was cooperative when Rick first called, but said
he wanted to check with someone before he talked further.
When he called back he was totally hostile and started
calling Rick every name in the book."
The facts about Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Dolly Kyle
Browning, Gennifer Flowers, Sally Perdue and many others have
been discussed at some length in previous columns. The heavy-
handed tactics of intimidation used by the Clinton administration
to silence these women have been largely ignored by the
mainstream press who continued to sing the Predator's praises
when they must have known what he had been up to all along. Am I
being unfair? They knew about all this even before we did. Their
silence tells us everything we need to know about them.
The conclusions to be drawn from these accounts are
straightforward enough. More than a dozen women have accused
Clinton of committing sexual assault upon them. (The state
troopers assigned to guard Clinton while he was governor of
Arkansas have told of seven additional incidents, similar to
those recounted above). The complaints have extended over a
period of years, beginning in Clinton's student days.
(1). Let us consider the possibility that the reports are false.
Why would so many women lie to implicate Clinton in a major
a. Were the women all part of a vast conspiracy against
Clinton? This hardly seems possible. Why would anyone
conspire against a young student at Oxford, for example? Why
has he withheld details of his academic history there and his
reason for leaving? And how does one account for the
corroborating witnesses in the case of Juanita Broaddrick
(and others)?
b. Did somebody make up the story of the reports? If accounts
of these complaints are false, why haven't the press or the
White House denied them? Since the names of the alleged
victims are known in about half of the cases, it should be
possible for the press to determine whether such complaints
were made -- the incident at the University of Arkansas, for
example. We await their objective conclusions with bated
breath (any year now).
c. The only other explanation for so many false reports would
be a series of random, uncoordinated lies by the alleged
victims. This strains credulity far beyond the breaking
point. Is there a single case on record of any innocent
person ever being accused by false witnesses in more than a
dozen unrelated incidents?
(2). The only other possibility is that the reports are true, in
which case the president is a serial rapist.
And what inferences are we forced to draw from all this? It would
seem that we have a government that is either too cowardly or too
corrupt to uphold the law. Remember all that supermoralist
rhetoric they were feeding us a few years back about women's
rights? The NewsMax article makes the point that many of the
women Clinton victimized were "upwardly mobile professionals, not
the stereotypical bimbos depicted by the Clinton camp," and that
their careers would have been jeopardized had they gone public
with allegations of rape against this popular and powerful white
male southern politician. Which makes the conspicuous silence of
so- called women's organizations such as NOW all the more
disgusting. They were quite prepared to destroy the career of
Clarence Thomas on the basis of unsupported allegations he had
"talked dirty" to St. Anita Hill, but seem determined to give a
pass to their psycho president for his long career as a serial
How can we trust a mainstream press that goes along with such a
blatant coverup? If they are willing to provide cover for a
serial rapist, how can we assume that they wouldn't cover up
other crimes -- the murder of a high-ranking White House aide,
for example? The mainstream press had attempted to spike both the
Paula Jones story and the Monica Lewinsky affair until the
Internet made these stories common knowledge, rendering their
silence "inoperative." Now we are seeing the whole dismal
process repeated with the Broaddrick interview.
The silence of the mainstream media with regard to the horrors of
the Ford Building grows more damning with each passing day. Their
credibility shrinks under the withering light of disclosures they
are too cowardly to acknowledge. When those talking heads lined
up last Sunday to ballyhoo the make-believe candidacy of Hillary
Clinton in the New York Senate race, without even so much as
mentioning Juanita Broaddrick, they revealed to us their true
nature. They are the manipulated puppets of the power-elite,
including most of those who play "conservatives" on TV. Their
field of endeavor is not journalism, but propaganda. They are
treacherous, deceitful people. Most mainstream pundits nowadays
use their tongues primarily to spit-shine Clinton's jackboots.
There are still many Americans who prefer to shrink back from the
truth in denial of the obvious, looking desperately for some
reason not to believe any of this. "Why didn't these women come
forward with their stories much earlier?" they ask, pretending to
have forgotten the official line on this issue, bruited about so
freely by the propaganda media when the targets were Bob
Packwood, or Clarence Thomas. The reasons for silence given to
Capitol Hill Blue and the Paula Jones investigators by some of
Clinton's undoubted victims should serve as a quick review.
The retired State Department official who reported Miss
Wellstone's allegation that she had been raped by Clinton in 1969
said that he believed her story. "There was no doubt in my mind
that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma," he
said. "But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the
embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I
filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I heard of
For those who still don't get the picture, Miss Wellstone was
contacted by CHB last week and confirmed that the incident had
happened, although she was unwilling to discuss it. Regarding
Clinton, the State Department official who investigated the
incident had this to say: "I came away from incident with the
clear impression that this was a young man who was there to
party, not study."
Miss James told CHB that the incident at the Four Seasons Hotel
in Washington had indeed taken place but she was unwilling to
discuss it publicly because "anyone who does so is destroyed by
the Clinton White House," in the words of the CHB report.
"My husband and children deserve better than that," she told
reporters for the online publication when they first contacted
her two weeks ago. She had a change of heart after reading about
the Broaddrick story and called back to give them permission to
use her maiden name -- but that is as far as she is willing to go
with the matter.
Miss Moffet, to use her maiden name, said that she was told by
her superior "that people who crossed the governor usually
regretted it and that if I knew what was good for me I'd forget
that it ever happened," she told CHB. "I haven't forgotten it.
You don't forget crude men like that."
Clear? Need I mention the threat to break Sally Perdue's legs if
she didn't keep quiet? Or the crude threats made against Kathleen
Willey, emphasized by the slashing of her tires? As a gratuitous
sadistic flourish, Willey's cat disappeared and the skull of a
small animal was found on her front porch several weeks later.
Almost as a footnote, NBC finally aired the Lisa Myers interview
with Juanita Broaddrick last Wednesday, now that it has lost most
of its news value. (That is called Real Heads-up Reporting by the
Three Blind Mice). The chopped-down, 23-minute version of the
dialogue contained no surprises. The wretched excuses given by
NBC for suppressing the interview until after the Senate vote on
removing the Predator from office are too silly to bother you
One point of possible interest is Broaddrick's allegation that
Clinton bit her upper lip in order to overcome her resistance. A
police officer and expert on sex-crimes who was interviewed on
radio by former FBI agent, prosecutor, and convict G. Gordon
Liddy (who knows the legal system inside and out), said that lip
biting is a "suppression technique" commonly used by serial
rapists. It allows the assailant to subdue the victim while
leaving his arms and legs free. The officer said that on the
basis of Broaddrick's description of the crime, he would go
straight to his "serial rapist file" to compile a list of likely
suspects. Just a thought -- is this the sort of detail a woman
would be likely to make up if she were fabricating a false report
of a rape?
A public opinion survey conducted by Rasmussen Research found
that only 20 percent of the public had seen the Broaddrick
interview aired by NBC last Wednesday. Of those who did see it,
however, 57 percent believed Mrs. Broaddrick, while only 25
percent did not. This would appear to support the general
impression that Mrs. Broaddrick's story was perceived as
Clinton's pattern of serial sexual crimes is characteristic of a
psychopathic personality. But how, you may ask, could a
psychopath possibly function in the office of the presidency? You
would be surprised. The definition by Webster gives us a clue:
psychopathic personality: 1. a type of personality
characterized by amoral and anti-social behavior, lack of
ability to love or establish meaningful personal
relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from
experience, etc. 2. a person who has such a personality.
Already, the emerging picture looks familiar. And notice that
definition says nothing about the person's ability to function in
a demanding occupation. The Bantam Medical dictionary defines a
psychopath simply as "a person who behaves in an antisocial way
and shows little or no guilt for antisocial acts and little
capacity for forming emotional relationships with others."
I would say, on the face of the evidence, that these definitions
fit Clinton like a glove. His narcissism has been noted by a
number of qualified observers, including Paul Lowinger, a
psychiatrist of the Freudian persuasion, who has written a
psychological study of the president. "In the clinical world,"
says Lowinger, "addiction, lack of a central identity, excessive
narcissism, and distortion of superego or conscience, it is
called a borderline or a narcissistic personality. The term
borderline means on the border between a usual personality with
problems and a grossly disordered one while narcissistic speaks
for itself. These diagnoses point to genetic or biochemical
factors in addition to the psychodynamic, family and family
A second opinion is provided by Robert L. Kocher, an engineer who
has done graduate study in clinical psychology. In a paper titled
"Bill and Hillary Clinton as Borderline Psychotics," Kocher sees
the problems of the president and his wife as deriving from
improper upbringing rather than genetic or biochemical factors.
He concludes:
"The problem with the both Clintons is that they were long
ago licensed to think and act at primitive, immature, and
irrational levels of functioning. Much of this was a self-
conferred licensing by a generation which has continued, and
which has been the root of most of the political, economic,
and social problems in this country."
It sounds as though what Kocher is getting at is that the first
couple's problems are a consequence of their being boomer brats.
In fact, his paper puts the entire culture on the couch and finds
it fraught with dysfunction. His opinion of Clinton fairly drips
disdain: "By his freshman year in high school Bill found he could
manipulate people with showy glibness and deception, and nobody
would call him on it."
Hocher sees the president as little more than a hollow shell of a
man, lacking real experience:
"A good memory for acting lines would carry him through easy
courses in the most prestigious schools in the country
without effort or necessity to learn seriously. From there,
he went almost immediately to being the boy governor of a
state, and on to the presidency. It was all one with a little
empty talk on a level that could be found on any high school
debate team."
Kocher's paper is well worth reading. In fact, if it were much
better I don't think I could stand it. The reason so many of our
opinion leaders see Clinton as "brilliant" is that they
themselves are pompous, superficial mediocrities who are
accustomed to skate over the surface of issues in perfect
ignorance of what lies beneath. But Kocher sheds much more light
upon what is wrong with the culture than what's wrong with
The most outspoken observer of the Clinton psyche was originally
thought to be the clinical psychologist Dr. Paul Fick, who has
written a book titled "The Dysfunctional President" in which he
says bluntly that the president is mentally ill. He describes
Clinton's behavior as "compulsive-obsessive" and attributes much
of his problem to the fact that he was raised in a dysfunctional
family with an alcoholic father. But instead of developing an
addiction to alcohol like his stepfather, according to Fick,
Clinton became a sex addict.
"Whether it's drugs, alcohol, eating disorders, or sex," says
Fick, people with this disorder use obsessive behavior to
distract them from their emotional problems. Perhaps, but Clinton
is beginning to sound less like a candidate for a 12-step program
than somebody who needs to be locked up in the interest of public
safety. For Dr. Fick concludes ominously:
"If he doesn't get intervention at this point in time, and
say he's reinforced by the public to stay in office, I firmly
believe he'll act out again before the end of his term."
Jack Wheeler, writing in this month's "Strategic Intelligence"
newsletter, quotes British Columbia University Professor of
Psychology Robert Hare's description of a "closet psychopath":
"Their most pervasive trait is a stunning lack of conscience.
They are glib, lack remorse, guilt, or empathy, are
emotionally shallow and lie easily and convincingly.
Underneath a charming, sometimes irresistibly likeable
facade, the closet psychopath is ruthless, ambitious,
selfish, and dishonest. They are social predators who charm
and manipulate their way through life, leaving a trail of
broken hearts and empty wallets. Power and control are all-
important to them, and they will use threats, intimidation,
litigation, and violence to get what they want."
Does that ring a vague bell? I have already discussed in previous
columns the striking similarity between Clinton's personality
disorder and the traits attributed to the Trickster archetype in
the Analytical Psychology of C.G. Jung. For example:
"The Trickster cycle corresponds to the earliest and least
developed period of life. Trickster is a figure whose
physical appetites dominate his behavior . . . Lacking any
purpose beyond the gratification of his primary needs, he is
cruel, cynical, and unfeeling."
Recall Clinton's parting words to Broaddrick, referring to her
badly bitten lip: "Better put some ice on that."
In other words, what these shrinks seem to be telling us is that
if a person does not get a proper upbringing, he is liable to
turn out something like this, i.e. no damn good at all. This
isn't exactly late breaking news, but a lot of people seem to
have forgotten it. How about the genetic determinants, you may
ask? Jungian archetypes are genetically determined, although
everybody is thought to have much the same archetypes bumping
around in the lower depths. (They are kind of primitive and
haven't evolved much lately). Clinton's problem, from a Jungian
perspective, would be that he has been hanging out with the most
brutish and primitive of the lot.
One of the more significant points made by Prof. Hare is that
people can actually become addicted to victimization by a closet
psychopath (remember Jonestown?) because he fulfills their
emotional need for attention. The more the psycho butters them
up, the more dependent they become.
Furthermore, in a paper titled "'Camouflage Society' from
Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder: A Case of
Diagnostic Confusion," Hare wrote:
"Yet psychopaths have little difficulty infiltrating the
domains of business, politics, law enforcement, government,
academia and other social structures (Babiak). It is the
egocentric, cold-blooded and remorseless psychopaths who
blend into all aspects of society and have such devastating
impacts on people around them who send chills down the spines
of law enforcement officers."
In other words, by dropping its guard and allowing its moral
standards to deteriorate, society has made itself vulnerable to
psychopaths with virulent anti-social tendencies. Can anyone
doubt it after watching the nauseating display of moral cowardice
and hypocrisy staged recently by the U.S. Senate?
Clinton is not merely a bad person, he has what shrinks refer to
as a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It is his insatiable
quest for self esteem that has driven him to seek the high office
that he presently holds. His reaction to losing his first bid for
reelection as Governor of Arkansas was a dead giveaway: his loss
of self esteem was such that he got down on the floor of his
official limo and would not show his face. That is why he would
rather die than resign the presidency, no matter what crimes he
is found to have committed. The end of his presidential term,
however it occurs, is bound to be traumatic for him. He seems to
entertain a fantasy of serving a third term. A de facto White
House committee is rumored to be working on it and pseudo-
Republican Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut, a
shameless Clinton lapdog, was recently persuaded to introduce a
constitutional amendment that would invalidate the 22nd
Amendment, thereby allowing Clinton to run for the presidency yet
again. The fact that the president would pursue such a quixotic
measure when he must realize that it has no chance of passage is
an indication of his mental state.
According to the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental
Disorders (DSM), a basic reference used by psychiatrists, self
esteem is exceedingly fragile in people with such a disorder.
They require constant applause and admiration from those around
them. Their response to criticism may take the form of rage, or
even shame, which they may dissemble with a public show of
indifference. Such persons are likely to have an exaggerated
sense of entitlement, which leads them to exploit others in order
to achieve their aims. Partners in interpersonal relationships
are likely to be treated as objects for the gratification of the
psychopath's self esteem. Such inflexible patterns of behavior
are described as "enduring." Clinton's behavior is not likely to
change any time soon. As one medical reference notes laconically,
the worth of any treatment for such a disorder remains debatable.
And what is one to make of the observation by the former head of
NOW for California, Tammy Bruce? She has assembled a large
collection of photographs of many of Clinton's alleged victims
and notes that most of them resemble, in some fairly obvious way,
his mother. One is reminded of serial killer Ted Bundy, whose
victims resembled a girl who had once rejected him. Or the Boston
Strangler, a psychotic serial killer with a split personality
whose choice of victims had distinct Oedipal characteristics.
Thus, it is possible to run the gamut from Jungian psychology to
Freudian, making stops in between, without exhausting the
possibilities for explaining the president's aberrant behavior.
Whatever Clinton's problems may be, they do not appear to be
But why, ask Clinton's defenders in one last desperate attempt to
hold back the flood of revelations with a feeble pretense of
logic, why would a person who was making a career in public life
commit a series of criminal acts that could lead to his exposure
and ruin?
Brent E. Turvey of Knowledge Solutions, in a paper he wrote on
unsolved serial rapes, suggested a reason:
"This rapist may grow more confident over time, as his
egocentricity is very high. He may begin to do things which
might lead to his identification if fully investigated.
Police may interpret this as a sign that the rapist desires
to be caught. What is actually true is that the rapist has no
respect for the police, has learned that he can rape without
fear of identification or capture, and subsequently does not
take precautions that he has learned are unnecessary."
Was there not a hint of this in Clinton's "victory" celebration
held on the very day of his impeachment by the house? Do
Clinton's defenders really believe that he has any respect for
them? When he spins his grotesque arguments based on what the
interpretation of "is" is, is he not, in actuality, holding them
up to ridicule? And still they come back for more. As Prof. Hare
stated, people can actually become addicted to victimization by a
closet psychopath because he fills their need for attention. Does
this describe Clinton's supporters, or what? Consider the
pathetic, puppy-dog professions of loyalty by some of the
president's admirers: "He's just like us." Or even more pitiable,
the notion that this ingratiating psychopath really cares about
their personal problems. He cares so little about his own family
that he does not think twice about exposing them to a degrading
and humiliating public scandal, and yet his attention-starved
supporters remain convinced that this glib demagogue really does
care about them.
Turvey quotes a "Power Assertive" rapist (his terminology):
"Well, I decided I'm going to put them in a position where
they can't do anything about what I want to do. The can't
refuse me. They can't reject me. They're going to have no say
in the matter. I'm in charge now."
Seen in this light, Clinton has been given an opportunity that
few psychopaths have been able to enjoy -- he has been able to
rape an entire society. Thus, his grotesque rationalizations
which invariably get snapped up and bandied about by "the best
and the brightest," can be seen as his way of showing his
contempt for all of us, but especially for those who believe him.
What greater revenge could any psychopath hope to inflict upon
society for his own lack of self-esteem? On the one hand he may
well want to be caught -- his self-loathing is real enough -- but
at the same time, he is well aware that the odds are against it.
Our society is run by a pack of sniveling cowards and hypocrites
who seem prepared to cover up even the darkest crimes in order to
protect their own positions of privilege, and he knows it. For a
complete exposure of the crimes of Clinton would be profoundly
damaging to our parasitic ruling clique. One can but watch in
horrified fascination as the psychopath and his
accomplice/victims continue on their descending spiral of self-
Is this really the kind of person we want to have in charge of a
nuclear weapons arsenal adequate to incinerate most everything on
the globe worth mentioning? Although the mainstream "news" media
played the story sotto voce this time, Clinton once again
unloaded a barrage of high explosives on Iraq just hours before
the Broaddrick interview aired. Try as he may, the president just
can't seem to stop waggin' that old dog. Talk about compulsive --
Clinton has ordered the aerial bombardment of some luckless
target country every single time a damaging piece of major news
about him has appeared on the nation's TV screens. It's the kind
of habit that can just sort of grow on a president who is out of
control and a little bit bonkers.
Remember all those shrieking, hysterical diatribes we used to get
from kneejerk-liberal college perfessers and such about having
the "wrong" thumb on the nuclear button -- Barry Goldwater's, for
example? Guess what? They didn't mean a word of it, any more than
the kneejerk-feminazis meant all that stuff they fed the public
about how women NEVER lie about rape and are ever so reluctant to
come forward and report it.
Well, now it seems that any woman who does come forward with
allegations about THIS president is automatically labeled a slut
by the very same harridans who attempted to hound Clarence Thomas
out of public life on the theory that St. Anita must be right if
only because of her gender. And our ever so frightfully SANE
perfessers can't think of anyone they would rather see in charge
of all those big bad nukes than a psycho.
As Nietzsche put it, "It is all untrue! Anything goes!"
Edward Zehr can be reached at
Published in the Mar. 1, 1999 issue of The Washington Weekly
Copyright 1999 The Washington Weekly (
Reposting permitted with this message intact

28 posted on 07/02/2003 6:24:26 PM PDT by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Treasa
30 posted on 07/02/2003 8:08:42 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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