Jump to content
BeAChooser

The P B S Whitewash Of Clinton's Legacy

Recommended Posts

Sure. I suppose that's as good an *excuse* as any. :rolleyes:

 

 

And do you think they *educate* anyone when they so badly mischaracterize a Presidency as they clearly did (I think I've proven it) in the case of Clinton? No, that's not *education*, that's *indoctrination* with *propaganda*.

 

 

For example? I'm not saying they didn't, but you need to prove it with some examples.

 

And if they did, then again they failed to *educate*. They MISinformed the American Public. And that's not something that taxpayer dollars should be used for. Wouldn't you agree?

 

And also, do we *really* need a government funded entity to *entertain* us? :)

In the Reagon program, nothing was said about the Iran/Contra scandel and nothing about the release of the Irananian hostages days after his election - for example. BTW, don't presume to tell me that I need to do to prove anything to you. If you want further clairifcation, just ask?

 

PBS puts out some of the best stuff available on TV - educational and otherwise. I will turn to that programing before any other. Sorry you can't appreciate it. If you want dirt on Clinton, there are plenty of other outlets to find it. Just becase PBS didn't focus on that does not mean they misled the AMerican public. I would say the typical PBS viewer is of higher intellect and education than say someone who watches Fox News and are already aware of much of Clintons misdeeds and can find plenty of info on that if they feel a need to dig down into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must agree with you, about Clinton's popularity and about Bush 43 squandering the huge surplus that Clinton left.

Clinton did NOT leave a huge surplus. He left a large deficit. If you think otherwise, then you didn't pay attention to my post #54.

 

If you did read it and you still think that, then you're being WILLFULLY ignorant of the facts.

 

What you are claiming is the sort of misinformation that I'm complaining about PBS spouting.

 

When Bush's 8 year term was up this country was in dire straights.

Well that's true, but it's debatable whether the country was in as dire a straights as Obama loving liberals/progressives/Democrats/socialists/communists would have you believe. As evidence, I point you to the fact that the 1981-82 recession was just as bad (and in many ways worse), and without a massive stimulus, but with tax cuts and the right attitude instead, Reagan managed to turn the economy around. And by this time following the peak of the recession, the economy was truly booming, with growth rates far above the current levels and an unemployment rate that had plummetted from the peak during the recession.

 

And getting back to the OP topic, did you ever consider that some of the policies of Clinton and the Democrats were largely responsible for the sudden downturn in the economy at the very end of Bush's 8 year term? Shouldn't THAT be part of the Clinton legacy that PBS presents to the public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Reagon program, nothing was said about the Iran/Contra scandel

I'm surprised if this is true, given the clear political bias that PBS has shown over the years. But I'm not really sure what PBS documentary you watched, since in the comparable American Experience documentary by PBS on Reagan (see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/ ), the Iran-Contra affair is prominently discussed, including the Iran-Contra hearings (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/reagan/5/ ). For example, that website contains this summary of what happened:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-foreign/

 

Reagan's zeal to defeat communism was not limited to direct U.S.-Soviet relations. He was willing to lend U.S. support to any faction, any where, fending off communist control. Such was the case in Angola, Afghanistan, and most especially in Central America. Within days of taking office, Reagan suspended U.S. aid to Nicaragua and declared his support for contra rebels fighting to overthrow the newly installed Marxist-led Sandinista regime. With memories of Vietnam still fresh, Reagan knew the public would not abide direct U.S. military intervention in the affairs of another nation. Consequently, the CIA was employed to indirectly support the contras militarily. When word surfaced in 1984 that the CIA had mined Nicaraguan harbors, Congress passed the Boland Amendment outlawing further U.S. military assistance to the contras. Reagan viewed the amendment as short-sighted and politically motivated. He made clear his determination to continue supporting the contras, whom he called "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers," through alternative means. This decision would eventually lead to a foreign policy embarrassment and a constitutional crisis known as the Iran-Contra affair.

 

… snip …

 

Investigations during the Iran-contra affair revealed a "shadow government," operating without public knowledge or congressional approval, being run out of the White House. For months, Reagan refused to admit that arms were traded for hostages -- that he had, indeed, negotiated with terrorists. Meanwhile, congressional hearings were convened to investigate the illegal diversion of funds to the contras. The all-too-familiar question of "what did the president know, and when did he know it," summoned up the ghosts of Watergate.

You see, PBS didn't ignore it and didn't try to whitewash it. Not at all.

 

And as to Iran-Contra itself, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. As nefarious activities go, Iran/Contra was NOTHING compared to what the Clintons did in selling out this country to the Communist Chinese government for campaign contributions, much less all the other illegal and improper activities I've listed that occurred during their administration that PBS completely ignored. Iran/Contra was about a President circumventing Congress with the "good" intent of defending this country from communist enemies abroad, not helping a potential communist dictatorship against us by supplying restricted technology and giving them access to secrets in exchange for money that went into the Clinton's pockets and DNC coffers ... under the table.

 

Iran Contra may have been unwise, and perhaps even unConstitutional, but it was not in the least traitorous. What the Clintons did DEFINES the word. Iran-Contra also showed that when transgressions by a Republican were exposed, unlike Democrats, most of them would step up to the plate and do the right thing to punish and correct those activities. Democrats did just the opposite in Chinagate, CampaignFinancegate, Filegate, and all the other crimes the Clintons committed. Democrats showed their true colors during the Clinton years ... and as we are seeing under Obama, nothing has changed. Indeed, Obama's administration is filled with Clinton administration holdovers, many of whom were directly involved in some of the serious scandals I've mentioned here.

 

and nothing about the release of the Irananian hostages days after his election - for example.

Here again, the comparable PBS American Experience documentary on Reagan did indeed discuss the hostages and the circumstances of their release, as the above quote proves. In fact, there are many other references to that at PBS's American Experience: Reagan website. For example, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/bonus-video/presidents-lying-reagan/ . Look at that. It's not at all flattering towards Reagan and not in the least a whitewash.

 

There is NOTHING comparable in the documentary that PBS did on Clinton. They WHITEWASHED Clinton's legacy, hiding Chinagate, CampaignFinancegate, Filegate, and a host of other serious illegal activities. Yes, they spent (wasted?) 40 minutes focusing on the consensual affair between him and Monica, and a little bit about the perjury that followed (that many Democrats ignored or even applauded), but did they go into the gory details of Juanita Broadrick's rape? Or the DOZENS of other women that we know were either raped, assaulted or sexually harassed over the years by him? No? Would you like a list, because I have one? No, I suspect you don't and you're quite content to have been, once again, manipulated by PBS.

 

I would say the typical PBS viewer is of higher intellect and education than say someone who watches Fox News and are already aware of much of Clintons misdeeds

If true, then PBS viewers have no excuse. Then it's willful on their part … ignoring the serious crimes that were committed. Not a very flattering picture of PBS viewers, if you ask me, regardless of their *intellect* and *education*. I'm sure many of them will work to reelect Obama with the same stunning willful ignorance, lack of common sense, and "don't care" or "it's all about me" attitude. Afterall, Obama, if nothing is, is *entertaining* and full of those same characteristics. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I mentioned having a list of the women Clinton raped, assaulted and harassed during his life, perhaps I should just present that next.

 

A couple dozen women can certainly testify to the "American Experience" that Clinton gave them. Surely that should have been part of the documentary PBS produced on Clinton's legacy if they wanted their viewers to truly understand the man?

 

Here's the list of the ones we know about (and I might have missed one or two):

 

I'll begin with the case of Juanita Broaddrick who said she was raped in an Arkansas hotel room back in 1978. When this came out, Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, said "Any allegation that the president assaulted Ms. Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is absolutely false." Of course, in 1978 Ms. Broaddrick was not known as Ms. Broaddrick but as "Mrs Hickey". And she alleged rape, not "assault". So I suppose technically Kendall told the truth. As to Clinton's direct response, when Sam Donaldson asked Clinton about the rape at a news conference, saying "Can you not simply deny it, sir?", Clinton deferred to his lawyer by saying "Well, my counsel has made a statement about the … issue and I have nothing to add to it." "issue"? Let's see what the "issue" was …

 

Here's is an excerpt from NBC's interview of Broaddrick describing the rape:

 

Broaddrick: "Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip (she cries). Just a minute... He starts to, um, bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. (crying) And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him ‘No,’ that I didn’t want this to happen (crying) but he wouldn’t listen to me."

 

Myers: "Did you resist, did you tell him to stop?"

 

Broaddrick: "Yes, I told him ‘Please don’t.’ He was such a different person at that moment, he was just a vicious awful person."

 

Myers: "You said there was a point at which you stopped resisting?"

 

Broaddrick: "Yeah."

 

Myers: "Why?"

 

Broaddrick: "It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to ‘Please stop.’ And that’s when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip."

 

Juanita Broaddrick: "When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says ‘You better get some ice on that.’ And he turned and went out the door."

 

A week before the House voted on Impeachment, David Schippers, who acted as the chief Clinton impeachment prosecutor in the House, invited members of Congress to examine the secret evidence in the Ford Building. Many did so. The evidence those Representatives saw was ultimately instrumental in causing the House to impeach Clinton. Just days after the impeachment vote Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon told the Arizona Republic that what he saw in the Ford Building left him "nauseated." Delaware Rep. Mike Castle was reduced to tears, according to CNBC's Chris Matthews. Connecticut Rep. Chris Shays said on a talk radio that, based on secret evidence he reviewed during the impeachment controversy, he believes President Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, not once, but twice.

 

When the matter went to the Senate trail, the House Majority Counsel opened the files again. However, when asked if any Senators of either party took the trouble to examine the material, Schippers said in disgust, "No, not a single one."

 

Now what did Schippers have to say about the Broaddrick allegation? First of all, Schippers discovered that Independent Counsel Starr had investigated it. The media reported it as inconclusive. But here is what Schippers says:

 

"That business of Broaddrick being deemed inconclusive is not true. What actually happened is, I think Starr decided not to follow up because once Lewinsky cooperated, they figured they had their impeachable offense and decided to concentrate on that."

However, you know what *I* think about that rationalization of Starr's actions. ;)

 

Schipper's staff next learned that Broaddrick's charges were corroborated by several witnesses interviewed by the OIC. So Schippers sent two of his investigators (the two who had first learned of the Broaddrick allegation) to Arkansas for a meeting with Broaddrick and her lawyer. At the meeting she was reluctant to acknowledge the assault but in a telephone conversation to the investigators later that day, she spilled her heart out. For an hour and a half, she described the ordeal. The investigator, who had worked with rape victims during her days on the Chicago police force, told Schippers, "Juanita fits the pattern of the classic rape victim." Schippers told the Washington Post that his staffers interviewed Broaddrick more than once and "have assured me that she is the most credible witness that either one of them have ever talked to." The interviewers of Broaddrick at NBC came to the same conclusion. And a Fox News poll, following "Dateline's" Broaddrick interview, showed that 54 percent of Americans believed Broaddrick's allegation. Only 23 percent found them untrue.

 

Schippers said on a talk show that his staffers had developed evidence that showed obstruction of justice and physical intimidation of witnesses related to the accusations of sexual harassment and rape against the president.

 

From his book, "Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment":

 

Let me tell you something. They (BeAChooser - meaning Clinton's people) were all over that woman, and it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. ... Just to let her know 'We can do what we want.' By the time we had learned what they were doing to her, the decisions on witnesses had already been made."

When asked whether he would have called the Clinton rape accuser to testify had he known about the witness tampering in time, Schippers admitted, "Yes, I would have tried to do it." He also stated that had the statute of limitation on the rape not expired (it's only 6 years in Arkansas), he'd have prosecuted Clinton for rape. And keep in mind that Schippers was a democrat who voted for Clinton TWICE.

 

On MEET THE PRESS in February of 1999, Bill Bennet stated that Clinton's personal records document that he was at the hotel at the time of the rape. Bennet also said that White House staff on backgound were saying that Clinton was alone in the room with Broaddrick and that they had sex. Bill was the brother of Bob Bennet, the President's personal lawyer in the Jone's suit. It was Bob Bennett who supplied Broaddrick with the first draft of the affidavit she signed, denying she was raped. A New York Times article said "On the advice of her lawyer, Bill Walters, a Republican state senator, she agreed to let him call a friend of his, Bruce Lindsey, White House deputy counsel, she said. After the call, the President's lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, faxed Walters an affidavit another woman had used to deny involvement with Clinton. She said Walters changed the names and facts and Mrs. Broaddrick signed it on January 2, 1998. Contacted Tuesday, Lindsey and Bennett would not comment."

 

Connect the dots.

 

During the Jones discovery, Clinton made a 158 minute phone call to someone named "Juanita". This call was referred to by Monica in the Tripp tapes in the section where she questioned what they were going to do about her. Tripp later denied Broaddrick was this Juanita, perhaps by using a Clintonesque distinction - her name was not Broaddrick when she was raped. But note that the day after that phone call is when Broaddrick had her lawyer apply to the White House counsel's office for a false affidavit sample.

 

Connect the dots.

 

After questions surfaced dealing with Monica Lewinsky’s false statements in her affidavit, denying sexual contact with the President, which Clinton had earlier asserted was "absolutely true," one of the OIC lawyers asked Bill Clinton why he had allowed his lawyer, Bob Bennett, to tell a federal judge that "there is absolutely no sex of any kind." Clinton responded "Well, in the present tense that is an accurate statement." Clinton later responded to a direct question concerning the "completely false" nature of his statement as follows: ''It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the -- if he -- if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not -- that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement." (Yes, this is the famous "is" statement of Clinton's).

 

Connect the dots.

 

Schippers believed Broaddrick filed the affadavit because of intimidation from Clinton. Even Wikipedia, a rather left leaning source at times, says this:

 

"She was so terrified. And the reason she was terrified was because she saw what had happened to Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers and all the rest of them." Although Broaddrick said no one had pressured her to file a false affidavit, she complained that she was being watched from parked cars, her home had been broken into, her pets released and her answering machine tape stolen while she and her husband were away briefly during the House impeachment probe.

Connect the dots.

 

Not even Al Gore would directly defend Clinton. At a 1999 town hall meeting he was asked a question, by a woman named Katherine Prudhomme, about the Broaddrick rape. She asked "When Juanita Broaddrick made the claim, that I felt credible, that she was raped by Bill Clinton, did that change your opinion about him being one of the best presidents in history? And do you believe Juanita Broaddrick's claim?" In a stuttering 10 minute response, not once did Gore say he didn't believe Broaddrick's accusation or that he beleived Clinton (or at least his lawyer). Instead, he claimed not to have seen the interview of Broaddrick (which is in itself such a transparent lie that Democrats never should have even considered him for President). Gore finally said "Whatever mistakes he made in his personal life are, in the minds of most Americans, balanced against what he has done in his public life as president". In other words, Gore (a typical Democrat?) was willing to forgive Clinton for a "mistake" (raping a woman) because he did many wonderful things in his public life (like sell America out, with Gore's help, to the Chinese Communists?). Is this what Democrats became under Clinton's tutelage?

 

And Broaddrick wasn't the only women Bill Clinton abused and harassed during his life. Here are some more that we know of (and who knows how many incidents have still gone unreported, after seeing the way all these women were treated by the media).

 

"Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Liz Ward Gracen, Juanita Broaddrick, Sally Perdue -- all women linked to Clinton through both consensual and nonconsensual sexual encounters who have alleged over the last eight years that they were targets of everything from Clinton-inspired burglaries to IRS audits to death threats. Gary Johnson, a neighbor of Flowers who claimed to have videotaped evidence of her relationship with Clinton, was severely beaten and left for dead just days before the 1992 Democratic convention. Longtime Clinton critic Larry Nichols, who filed a landmark lawsuit in 1990 naming Flowers, Broaddrick and three other women linked to Clinton, was assaulted by a baseball bat-wielding thug outside his Arkansas home earlier this year." And those aren't my words ... they are David Schippers (remember him?). That's 6.

 

Then we can add Monica Lewinsky (or do you think what Bill did to her was proper, especially given the testimony that just before the dress appeared he was ready to paint her as a "stalker"?), Dolly Kyle Browning, Katherine Prudhomme (an ordinary citizen who was audited because she dared ask Gore a question about the Broaddrick rape) and the "Juanita" that Monica and Tripp discussed (and about whom Tripp said "this was a woman whose relationship with the president would have again gone to the pattern of behavior -- which was precisely what the Paula Jones attorneys were searching for ... This was a woman with whom we thought the President might have difficulty") Unless you want to admit here and now that the Juanita they talked about was indeed Broaddrick, that's 10.

 

Looking back, in 1969, Oxford University asked Clinton not to return after Eileen Wellston charged that he raped her. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. In his book, Unlimited Access, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich reported that Clinton left Oxford and was told he was no longer welcome. In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, who was a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it. In 1974, a University of Arkansas student said Professor Clinton groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. Several former students at the University confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students. In 1979, Little Rock legal secretary Carolyn Moffet said Clinton tried to force her to perform oral sex in a hotel room at a fundraiser. That's 14.

 

In 1991, Sandra Allen James, a political fundraiser said Clinton invited her to his hotel room, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She said she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel room to ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut. In 1992, Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's campaign plane, said Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault. That's 17 (even though one's not named).

 

Paula Jone's lawyer in her lawsuit also named Beth Coulsen, Shelia Lawrence, Marilyn Jo Jenkins, Cyd Dunlap and Cathy Ford as women Clinton had either assaulted or harassed. That's 22.

 

Former Arkansas state trooper L.D. Brown, who served on then-Governor Bill Clinton's security detail from 1982 through 1985, in 1994 told the The American Spectator that he personally solicited over a hundred women for Clinton. I wonder if any of them objected? After all, from 1978-1980, state troopers reported seven complaints from women claiming Clinton attempted to force sex upon them. Let's just count those, that's 29.

 

And then one could add this from a STAR Magazine report (which oftened happened to be quite accurate in discussing Clinton): Citing "never before seen FBI files -- now "kept under lock and key by Congress," ace reporter Richard Gooding reveals: "Clinton made passes at several female White House Secret Service agents," and "at least two more women claim to have had encounters with Clinton similiar to Juanita Broaddrick" "Three female agents have told colleagues of presidential hanky-panky, including one who is said to have filed a complaint that (Clinton) frequently 'hit on her,' sources say. That agent later withdrew the complaint when her request for a transfer was granted." "The secret FBI files contain even more serious allegations of brutish behavior against Clinton. According to one insider, there is the story of the wife of a former top Clinton aide who has confided that the president once pinned her against the wall, ignoring her protests, as he ran his hands over her body -- virtually a carbon copy of the Oval Office groping episode described last year by Kathleen Willey." "Also in the files are confidential FBI interviews with at least two women who claim to have had experiences similar to the 1978 rape alleged by 'Jane Doe #5', Juanita Broaddrick." Yes, I know its the "STAR" but the STAR did break the Gennifer Flowers bombshell in 1992 and followed-up with Gooding's 1996 expose on presidential guru Dick Morris' fling with a Washington hooker. But OK ... I won't count these. I don't need to inorder to make my point.

 

And we mustn't forget Hillary. You don't really want to claim she wasn't abused ... do you? So let's see ... that adds up to 30 women. A lot of them Democrats. All of them hurt in one way or another. Shouldn't that be the real legacy of Bill Clinton? Shouldn't PBS have more fully explored this aspect of Clinton's life then spending 40 minutes on just the Lewinsky saga?

 

Or is what PBS did just par for the liberal mainstream media?

 

Afterall, a few years ago The Los Angeles Times had to apologize to George Wills for removing mention of the rape from a column he wrote. They did it without even consulting him before they published it. In the column he wrote "It is reasonable to believe that [Clinton] was a rapist 15 years before becoming president, and that as president he launched cruise missiles against Afghanistan (a nearly empty terrorist camp), Sudan (a pharmaceutical factory) and Iraq to distract attention from problems arising from the glandular dimension of his general indiscipline." And without telling Wills, they selectively removed reference to the rape allegation, then published the column. And when they did apologize, they buried that apology well back in the paper. You probably missed that, too.

 

While NBC showed enough interest and journalistic integrity to interview Broaddrick, most of the mainstream media simply ignored the story completely, or only made the briefist dismissive mention of it on page E18 … once. And even NBC showed it's bias. First, it delayed showing the interview. Even though their own interviewer (Lisa Myers) stated that she believed Broaddrick's claim to be true, NBC sat on the story throughout the entire impeachment trial. They didn't show it until AFTER the Senate vote. They were actually scooped by the Wall Street Journal because Mrs Broaddrick eventually went to them after she came to believe that NBC had killed the story permanently. Only then, once the story was out, did NBC show the interview (highly edited) and then they only showed it once. They never re-broadcast the interview or allowed any other news outlet to broadcast it, or even portions of it. And they had very little followup to the story. Remember the "Free Ms Myers" buttons, calling on NBC to let her continue covering the story? NBC didn't act as an unbiased press ... it took sides.

 

Sam Donaldson (of ABC) was the only reporter who dared ask about the rape. ABC was the only network to report the question and the non answer. And ABC News wasn't immune from showing it's bias either. They spent very little time addressing the allegations. Here's what Sam Donaldson said about the attitude at NBC concerning the allegation (from http://www.observer.com/node/41324 ): "When I asked Sam Donaldson whether there had been rancorous arguments at ABC over coverage of Mrs. Broaddrick, he stammered. "I am dodging your question," he said. "I can tell you that people in charge of our coverage, at managing editor status, have not seen this as a story they wanted to spend a lot of time on."

 

And so did the rest of the mainstream media. Julia Malone, a national correspondent for the Cox newspapers, grew so upset by the neglect of Mrs. Broaddrick's story that she organized a panel at the National Press Club. And according to the above link:

 

Seventy-five people attended the panel. Ms. Myers declined to appear (as she declined to comment to me on the matter). Ms. Rabinowitz [of The Wall Street Journal] said that NBC had treated the story like a "dead fish." Fox News anchor Brit Hume argued that neglect of the story reflected a deep bias in the media against material that might hurt someone they had voted for. Ms. Malone echoed that point. "My impression of Tom Brokaw is that he was not a newsman on this decision, he's a Democrat." (I sent Mr. Brokaw a letter, and he left me a message. "I have just a little bit for you, not much, because we have felt strongly from the beginning that our decisions in the Juanita Broaddrick story or any news decisions we make have to be kept within these walls, otherwise we'll spend too much time explaining and too little time reporting." He told me to call him back, then didn't return my call.)

In 2001, CBS anchorman Dan Rather was asked by O'Reilly why his network carried seven reports on mere rumors that President Bush had once used cocaine, but when Juanita Broaddrick came forward to accuse Clinton of rape, it merited just two mentions on the "CBS Evening News." And Rather dissassembled thus: "I barely remember that case but I do remember it. … snip … Juanita Broaddrick, to be perfectly honest, I don't remember all the details of Juanita Broaddrick. But I will say that - and you can castigate me if you like. When the charge has something to do with somebody's private sex life, I would prefer not to run any of it." So according to one of the icons of the liberal media establishment, rape is part of somebody's "private sex life"? That's CBS' policy?

 

Most of the mainstream papers barely mentioned the rape allegations at all. The Los Angeles Times, for instance, buried the accusation on page 13 in a single story that began with the denial from Mr. Clinton's lawyer. And I've already demonstrated how sensitive they STILL are to the story.

 

Even the leftwing's defender of women, NOW, was dishonest about the "issue". Gloria Steinem and most other prominent feminists (who ALL vote Democrat, I bet) bent over backwards to defend Bill. Gloria, to her credit, did say at one point that "if Clinton had raped women, beaten up Hillary—real private sins would not be forgiven, no matter what the value of the public behavior." But then she and all the other did just the opposite ... "forgive". There were were even headlines in papers such as the New York Observer declaring "New York Feminists Stand By Their Bill, Not By Broaddrick" (http://www.observer.com/1999/bill-clintons-big-spring-break ).

 

It is all rather disgusting, so no wonder PBS doesn't want to explore this aspect of Clinton's behavior, because it speaks to liberal cognitive dissonance regarding Bill Clinton. And PBS execs are nothing if not liberal. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(crickets) :D

 

And let's keep in mind that had Hillary won the primary, a rapist, serial felon, sociopathic liar who'd committed many impeachable acts would again be in a position of huge power.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And let's keep in mind that had Hillary won the primary, a rapist, serial felon, sociopathic liar who'd committed many impeachable acts would again be in a position of huge power.

 

 

Top three Presidents.

 

1. Andrew Jackson

2. Teddy Roosevelt

3. Bill Clinton

DEAL WITH IT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And let's keep in mind that had Hillary won the primary, a rapist, serial felon, sociopathic liar who'd committed many impeachable acts would again be in a position of huge power.

 

Top three Presidents.

 

1. Andrew Jackson

2. Teddy Roosevelt

3. Bill Clinton

DEAL WITH IT

 

Oh, great. So by your standard, if a president succeeds because pushes or signs excellent legislation negotiated or written by the opposition party that leads to prosperity, it's okay that he commits rape, felonies and impeachable acts and lies like a sociopath to Americans.

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, great. So by your standard, if a president succeeds because pushes or signs excellent legislation negotiated or written by the opposition party that leads to prosperity, it's okay that he commits rape, felonies and impeachable acts and lies like a sociopath to Americans.

I think he was joking. If you notice, those other two Presidents are the lowest ranked Presidents of all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Crickets)

 

I'm really surprised at the lack of interest by the liberals of this forum in challenging the assertions that I've made regarding Bill Clinton (and Hillary). Afterall, Bill is still one of the biggest icons of the Democratic Party. He's so admired by liberals around the world that when polled, he is overwhelmingly picked as their favorite man (and woman): http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/ad-lib/2011/dec/28/most-admired-man-and-woman-world-barack-obama-and-/). And yet, so far, not one Democrat has stepped forward to challenge the accuracy of anything I've posted with a SHRED of evidence to the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since none of the liberals here at LiberalForum stepped in to defend Clinton against the accusations I made/proved in my thread on PBS' Clinton documentary (http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/119154-the-pbs-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/ ), maybe I can get some reaction out of them by examining another man who is widely admired by Democrats … Ron Brown … and by proving that the Clintons may have been involved in his death or certainly a coverup surrounding the circumstances of his death (another topic that PBS ignored in their Whitewash of Clinton's *legacy*).

 

After Brown died, he got a hero's funeral. Even Bill Clinton attended. Remember him being caught on video?

 

 

Go ahead, watch him laughing after the somber event and then see that laughter turn to crocodile tears the moment he sees he is on camera. Yes, that's your other hero, liberals. :rolleyes:

 

Recently, Ron Brown even had a major street in Washington DC named after him with great fanfare (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/ron-brown-and-michael-a-brown-amid-a-fathers-legacy-a-sons-own-path/2011/03/26/AFD3Fh5B_story.html ) by the Obama administration. As the WP article noted, "It is a still a source of speculation, what could he have been — secretary of state, vice president or, perhaps, the first black president — if he’d lived." So there is no question that Ron Brown is almost as much an icon to Democrats as Clinton.

 

But I wonder what rank and file Democrats would think if they'd been made aware back then, by the mainstream media that appears to *guide* their thinking, of all the facts that I'm about to relate? You see, the mainstream media hid most of what follows from the public … especially Democrats who form the bulk of their viewers. So let's see if any of this forum's self-described liberals can now counter these facts or will this thread cause an epiphany in them regarding the criminality of the Clinton administration and mainstream media's dishonesty? Unfortunately, based on long experience, I predict the answer will be a solid "no" to both possibilities. Instead, they'll probably ignore everything I'm about to present, just like they've obviously been trying to ignore what I already noted about Clinton on this thread. :D

 

I'll start out by setting the scene and providing a motive for the death of Brown.

 

Now for those too young or too old to remember, Ron Brown was the Secretary of Commerce during Clinton's first term. He died during a trade mission flight to Croatia on April 3, 1996. Officially, the plane he was on accidently crashed into a mountain near the destination airport. Officially, it was "pilot error". Or "Bad Weather" … you see, officials never could quite make up their minds which.

 

One fact that the WP article above fails to mention is that at the time of his death, Ron Brown was under investigation by the FDIC, the Congressional Reform and Oversight Committee, the FBI, the Energy Department, the Senate Judiciary Committee and even his own Commerce Department Inspector General. He was scheduled to be deposed under oath by Judicial Watch regarding the illegal sale of trade mission seats for campaign contributions. The Justice Department asked that the deposition be postponed until he returned from what became the ill-fated trade mission.

 

He was also about to be indicted by an independent council named Daniel Pearson. Brown's wife and son had already been indicted on related charges by Pearson. Pearson had plenty of documentary evidence and testimony on over a dozen serious crimes by Ron (like ending the trade embargo against North Vietnam for $700,000 dollars in bribes). The situation was so serious that Brown had just retained a $750 an hour attorney. So serious that he spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal. And matters were only getting worse.

 

Just days before Brown's death, another 20 witnesses were subpoenaed by Pearson regarding Brown's dealings. It seems that an Oklahoma gas company called Dynamic Energy Resources gave Brown's son Michael $500,000 in stock, a $160,000 cash payment, and exclusive country club memberships. Former Dynamic president Stewart Price had told a Tulsa grand jury (under oath) that the money was to be routed to Ron Brown, who was expected to "fix" a big lawsuit for Dynamic.

 

Next thing you know, the plane Brown was on crashed. And almost immediately thereafter, the Pearson probe was shut down. The DOJ let his wife off and eventually only gave Michael nothing more than a slap on the wrist. However, Judicial Watch continued its efforts, questioning Nolanda Hill, a democrat fund raiser and one of Brown's key business partners, under oath. Nolanda Hill testified that she paid Brown $500,000 for his interest in First International, Inc., a company that never made any profits. First International defaulted on government loans totaling $40 million. The loans were passed to the FDIC, which was unsuccessful in collecting anything from the company, even though at that time the firm was making large contributions to the Democratic Party and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to Brown through shell corporations. These payments to Brown (three checks for $45,000 each) were the core of the evidence gathered by Representative Clinger that forced Reno to hire Daniel Pearson in the first place. They were cashier checks, all cut on the same day in 1993, with sequential numbers even though the money supposedly came from three contributors acting independently. And Brown never disclosed or paid any taxes on these amounts. He was in big trouble.

 

Just one week before Nolanda's testimony, the Whitehouse had her charged with a crime. Judge Lamberth revealed that Hill testified that Brown told her he was ordered by Leon Panetta and John Podesta, two of Clinton's Whitehouse Chiefs Of Staff (Panetta is now Obama's Secretary of Defense, by the way), to "slow down" the effort to comply with Judicial Watch's subpoena for documents. Judge Lamberth said there is ample evidence that department officials did so. It's called obstruction.

 

Nolanda Hill also testified that, shortly before the crash, Brown met with Panetta and turned over a stack of documents that would have proven he sold seats on trade missions for very large, illegal, contributions to the DNC. These documents were withheld in violation of the Judicial Watch subpoena. Nolanda swore under oath that Brown told her that he told Panetta: "if I go down, so will everyone else".

 

Nolanda Hill also testified that shortly before Brown died, he went to see Bill Clinton and told him that he intended to enter a plea agreement and testify against the Administration. She testified that prior to making this threat, Brown wasn't scheduled to be on the trade mission flight that crashed. She said the White House told Brown to go at the last minute. Curious.

 

It is worth noting that much of Nolanda Hill's testimony has been proven true or corroborated by other witnesses over the years. There was nothing ever presented by the Clinton Whitehouse or DOJ to suggest she made up the allegations. They tried to smear her but they never proved that what she claimed was untrue ... for example, by proving that Brown had no meeting with Clinton shortly before the flight.

 

Now consider this ... Ron Brown was at the focus of much of the campaign finance illegalities that occurred during Clinton's tenure and was the conduit for much of the technology passed to the Chinese during the early Clinton years. Is it only coincidence that Clinton personally changed long established rules so that the export of such technology could be approved by Ron Brown without oversight ... with just his signature? The agencies who previously did that oversight were all on record as being against the exports that eventually occurred.

 

According to sworn testimony from Nolanda Hill, many millions of dollars in illegal DNC and Clinton campaign contributions were received through the sale of trade mission seats and in exchange for authorization by Ron Brown's Commerce Department to sell what in previous administrations was considered highly restricted missile, computer, radar, satellite, manufacturing and encryption technology. Others testified to brown bags full of illegal campaign cash coming from the Chinese.

 

Brown worked closely with John Huang, James Riady (an indonesian billionaire who illegally gave millions to Clinton and the DNC), Johnny Chung (no, not the poker player), Mark Middleton (the highest Clinton Administration official to plead the 5th in Chinagate), and dozens of other people connected with criminal activities by the Clinton's and DNC. Keep in mind that well over a hundred people took the 5th or fled the country in connection with the Chinagate and campaign finance scandals ... and that was with DOJ head Janet Reno and the Justice Department seemingly trying to coverup, rather than seriously investigate the matters. Clearly, if Brown had talked (and, again, sworn testimony indicates he was threatening to talk), he'd have caused a really serious problem for a lot of these people. For instance ...

 

John Huang, who by all accounts was one of Clinton's close friends, worked side by side with Ron Brown after working in the Whitehouse. He was an employee of Riady at one time. After leaving Commerce, Huang went to work for the DNC. His involvement in campaign finance violations was uncovered by Judicial Watch. He falsely represented under oath that he was "a budget clerk," "participated in no fundraising," and "kept no records at the Commerce Department." He invoked the 5th Amendment over 2000 times in many depositions. He was labeled a "Chinese agent" by people in the CIA, FBI and Congress. Yet, he was given a Top Secret clearance by the Clinton Whitehouse without a background check and attended over 100 Top Secret briefings. The Clinton Justice Department failed to pursue the allegations of spying and never even deposed him. He received only a "wrist slap" for admitted campaign finance violations. He was given a grant of immunity in the Judicial Watch case to force him to testify ... yet he still continued invoking the 5th!

 

Johnny Chung, who participated in trade missions to China in 1994, was one of the few to actually turn state's evidence (after Waxman, the top Democrat on the Committee before which he testified, blatantly tried to get him to plead the 5th) (see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_21_15/ai_54852011/ ). Among other things, Chung testified that the head of China's military intelligence, General Gee Shengdi, gave him $300,000 for President Clinton's campaign. He said he was told by the General that other people were also receiving money "to do good things for China". Investigators saif that many aspects of his testimony checked out. Chung participated in a FBI wiretape that clearly suggests there was an agreement between Clinton and the Premier of China on how to coverup Chinagate. The FBI assigned dozens of agents to protect him (and, in fact, they arrested an armed man who tried to kill Chung at his office).

 

Mark Middleton, an Arkansas lawyer, longtime confidant of President Clinton and a former high-level White House aide, was, according to Chung, one of those identified by General Gee Shengdi as receiving money ... $500,000 dollars. Macao businessman Ng Lap Seng, who was closely linked to major Chinese-owned enterprises, was regularly bringing in large sums of money to the US, according to customs records. On June 20, 1994 Ng arrived with $175,000. Two days later he met with Charlie Trie and Mark Middleton at the White House, and that evening Ng sat at Clinton's table at a DNC fundraiser. Middleton, had a pass that allowed him to visit Charlie Trie's apartment at the Watergate at any time … an apartment paid for by Ng. When asked in the House committee hearings on campaign finance abuses that occurred in 1996 whether he conspired with government officials in China or elsewhere to illegally funnel contributions to the Democratic National Committee or the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign, Middleton took the 5th Amendment 28 times … the highest ranking Clinton administration official to do so in Chinagate. And Janet Reno did nothing.

 

Charlie Trie participated in trade missions to China and, unlike Middleton, admitted to illegally funneling foreign money to the Democrats. Charlie appeared to have had lots of "friends". One of them, Wang Jun, met with Brown shortly after attending a "coffee" with Clinton. The same day, Clinton signed a waiver allowing Loral to transfer formerly restricted information to the Chinese. Note that Loral's CEO, Bernard Schwartz, was the single largest contributor to the DNC (over half a million dollars).

 

James and Mochtar Riady, Indonesian billionaires and ex-employers of John Huang, were longtime friends and financial supporters of Clinton. Authorities said they had a long relationship with Chinese intelligence. Clinton, while out of the country, met privately with them ... at a time when they were avoiding US authorities who sought to question them. In spite of Janet Reno, James Riady was eventually indicted for illegally funneling millions of dollars in foreign money into Clinton and DNC campaign coffers. Near the end of his term, Clinton tried to arrange a "Justice" Department deal for Riady to protect him from prosecution but it didn't go through before Bush took over. And much to Bush's disgrace, he let a deal go through anyway.

 

Ira Sockowitz (who you'll read later reported to the White House that two people survived the Brown crash) not only worked for Commerce but knew John Huang. In May 1996, he and his boss moved to the Small Business Administration (SBA). Three days later, Commerce approved a SCI clearance (above Top Secret) for him. Sockowitz visited Commerce and removed 136 secret files (many of them dealing with China) from his old safe. He told his old secretary that he was gathering personal items. Commerce said he violated his clearance by not returning the files. He claimed he needed them for his SBA job but the SBA disputed that. Sockowitz left the SBA in Nov 1996 and the Justice Department stopped investigating in Dec 1996 ... without ever interviewing Sockowitz, his boss or his replacement. Reno strikes again.

 

The bottom line is this. Clinton and the Democrats stole two Presidential elections using tens of millions of dollars in money obtained illegally from the military in Communist China, a country whose defense minister recently said he sees war with the United States as inevitable. Chinese spies were given continued access to classified nuclear, radar and submarine secrets. There was sworn testimony by individuals in our counter intelligence community that they were ordered by their superiors during the Clinton years not to pursue these espionage cases. The connection with Ron Brown is that the technology Brown approved (for example, 10 billion dollars worth of super computers), during a time when the Administration knew of the spying, made it possible for the Chinese to use the secrets they stole. Surely this was a treason worth killing someone, in order to keep it from coming out in court. Won't you liberals agree?

 

Next, I shall examine the circumstances and evidence surrounding Brown's death and the aftermath. Note that every claim made below can be verified with reliable sources, including radio and television interviews that some of the named whistleblowers made over the years. You may have trouble locating some of the sources now because so much time has elapsed since the scandal broke, but enough still exist to verify these claims as true.

 

The controversy all started at the Armed Forces Institute Of Pathology (AFIP) in Dover where Ron Brown's body was brought after the crash. During the examination of Brown's body by AFIP forensic pathologist Colonel Gormley, Chief Petty Officer Janoski (who was both chief of forensic photography at AFIP and the official photographer in this case) exclaimed in a loud voice, "Gee, this looks like a gunshot wound." As she has stated, what led her to that conclusion is that the wound on top of Brown's head, which is documented in pictures she took that are available on the internet, was "perfectly circular" and "inwardly beveling".

 

Here's a photo of the wound:

 

http://archive.newsmax.com/images/ronbrown/Photo_3.jpg

 

Forensic pathologist Lt. Colonel David Hause, who was considered to be one of the military's leading experts on gunshot wounds at the time, was working on a body two tables away from the one where Brown's body was being examined. When Janoski voiced her comment, he remembers going over to look at the wound and saying "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." He said he suggested that Gormley get authority from superiors for an autopsy, or if that was impossible, seek permission from the next of kin. Hause said he did not pursue the issue or investigate further because he assumed Gormley concluded it was not a gunshot after looking at the x-rays.

 

Lt. Colonel Cogswell, another top forensic pathologist at AFIP and who was involved in more than 100 plane crash investigations over the years, was at the crash site when Brown's body arrived at Dover. He's testified under oath that the wound was described to him over the phone by Colonel Gormley (turns out this was after Brown's body had been embalmed and released for burial). He told Gormley it sounded like a gunshot wound and that Brown needed an autopsy. Gormley ordered Cogswell to search the wreckage for any piece of debris which might explain the wound. Cogswell found nothing that matched the description even though later, an AFIP official named Erich Junger (AFIP's chief forensic scientist) would claim they'd found "a very reasonable explanation" for the hole "when we looked around the aircraft area itself." Junger lied. In fact, both Cogswell and Hause said they couldn't remember finding a similar wound in a plane crash victim's head. Both said that while parts of the plane could certainly pierce the skull during a crash, the resulting hole probably would be left jagged or irregular after the object entered and exited the skull. That hole is certainly not jagged or irregular. In the end, Cogswell didn't pursue the matter further because, like Hause, he assumed Gormley had sound reasons to rule it death by blunt force trauma in the official reports.

 

And that's where matters stood for about six months. Then CPO Janoski, who later signed a sworn statement to the effect, said that she was told by Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was at the examination, that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" (indicative of gunshot) was discovered in the x-rays. Janoski further testified under oath that Sentell said a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" (to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image) and that Colonel Gormley was involved in their creation. When later asked about these accusations by journalists, Sentell declined to comment.

 

After talking to Sentell, CPO Janoski says she realized that she had taken slide photos of the first set of x-rays while they were displayed on a light table in the examination room. She located the slides and showed them to Colonel Cogswell. After looking at these slides, Cogswell began to publicly state that an autopsy should have been performed. He even included this case in a talk he gave on "mistakes in forensic pathology" at professional conferences and training courses (remember, he was considered a top expert in the field). He told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray (http://archive.newsmax.com/images/ronbrown/Photo_1.jpg ) shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" like that you'd see from a gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in photos of the wound and that the side X-ray (http://archive.newsmax.com/images/ronbrown/Photo_2.jpg ) indicates a "bone plug" from the hole that is displaced under the skull and into the brain. All of that is contrary to what Gormley officially claimed.

 

Look at the above photo of the frontal x-ray (which AFIP authenticated) and you can clearly see yourself that there are small white flecks of something on the liberal side side of the head behind and above the eye socket, the so-called "lead snowstorm". So for Gormley to have officially stated that there was nothing suspicious in the x-rays is a transparent lie. Likewise, the other two photos prove that Gormley's reasons for declaring the death a result of blunt force trauma (the wound did not penetrate the skull and because the brain was not visible) are obvious lies. Brain matter is clearly visible and an x-ray showing a bone plug driven into the brain and offset from the hole proves the brain was indeed penetrated. Clearly, Gormley lied.

 

After these facts became known to members of the press, AFIP imposed a gag order on Cogswell, forcing him to refer all press inquiries on the Brown matter to AFIP's public affairs office. Cogswell said he was told he could leave his office only with the permission of Dr. Jerry Spencer, Armed Forces Medical Examiner. He was then escorted to his house by military police, who, without a warrant, seized all of his case materials on the Brown crash.

 

At that point, Lt. Col. Hause came forward and publically agreed with Cogswell that an autopsy should have been performed. Hause's eyewitness examination also contradicts Gormley's claims. He said "what was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain. I didn't remember seeing skull". Hause concluded that the piece of skull "punched out" by the impacting object had displaced into the head. Hause stated that "by any professional standard" Brown should have received an autopsy and that the AFIP's actions against Cogswell was "shooting the messenger."

 

After Hause talked to the press, the gag order was extended to include all AFIP personnel. They were ordered to turn in "all slides, photos, x-rays and other materials" related to the Brown case. All personnel at the AFIP were prohibited from talking to the press and had to stay at their work stations for the duration of their working day. All personnel, including ranking officers, even had to obtain permission to leave for lunch. But the cat was already out of the bag. The photos and the x-ray slides were already in the public domain. Alan Keyes, the spokesman for AFIP at the time, had already acknowledged that the internet photos were authentic. So the controversy grew.

 

A journalist showed Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory, the photos of the wound and x-rays and asked for his expert opinion. Fackler responded "It's round as hell. ... That's unusual except for a gunshot wound." He also said brain matter was visible in the wound, contradicting Gormley's "official" claim. He was surprised that the hole was described on Gormley's report as "approximately .5 inches." Using calibrated instruments, he noted it was somewhat smaller than .5 inches, "and a little bit small for a .45-caliber bullet hole." Fackler explained that the skull can be slightly "elastic" and bullet holes can be slightly larger or smaller than the actual bullet caliber. He said the hole was more consistent with a .40-caliber or 10 mm bullet, like those widely used by law enforcement agencies.

 

Similarly, the x-ray and photos were shown to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. After examining the photos of Brown's wound, he said the white flecks in the frontal x-ray suggest a "lead snowstorm" of fragments left by a disintegrating bullet. He added that the "tiny pieces of dull silver-colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the circular wound itself and near the hole suggest "metallic fragments" as well. He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone." Wecht also said Brown's body was relatively intact … that lacerations were superficial, and that other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. He said x-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable. Wecht concluded, "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied." And to this day, not a single forensic pathologist in the US has come forward to contest that statement.

 

The truth is that every single forensic pathologist who has made a public statement with regards to this case (except the head of AFIP, Mr. Dickerson, who can be easily shown to have lied about both the nature of the wound and the opinions of his own staff) has gone on record stating that Brown should have been autopsied based on the suspicious nature of the wound. Even Colonel Gormley, as I'll note next, eventually did so. No wonder there was a still growing controversy.

 

Leading members of the black community (such as Jesse Jackson Jr.), who had heard about the possibility of a gun shot wound in Brown's head, began to ask for an investigation. So despite the gag order, in a clear attempt at "damage control", Colonel Gormley was allowed to give a live interview on Black Entertainment Television. In the interview, Gormley immediately attacked the other pathologists and regurgitated the official line. He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound. He also stated that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He also denied that two sets of x-rays existed.

 

But then, on live TV, he was confronted with the photograph taken during the examination by Janoski, which clearly shows brain matter in the wound. He ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible, excusing his former statements as a "memory lapse". He then acknowledged that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry (i.e., an autopsy). Next he was confronted with copies of Janoski's x-ray slides and he again immediately changed his story. He said that this first set of x-rays had been "lost" so that a second set was required. It was then pointed out that the Janoski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm", which he didn't refute during the interview. Only later would he claim the flecks of metallic density near the eyesocket in the frontal x-ray were caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassettes (thus dropping the "lost slides" explanation). But Janoski, an expert on cameras and film, responded that this could not be true since none of the other images from that day showed this so-called defect, so the cassette cannot be the cause. All in all, the interview was a disaster. The doubts about the case only multiplied.

 

Another month went by and the Clinton friendly Washington Post, in an effort to help out, reported that AFIP had convened a review panel of all its pathologists, including Cogswell and Hause. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the unanimous conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot. But according to Cogswell, he refused, following the advice of his lawyer, to participate in the review because he thought it would be unfair and biased. So it wasn't unanimous. Dickerson lied. Cogswell said that most of those participating in this review panel were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He said that all of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and a new name ... Air Force Major Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion. Yet, even though Hause and Parsons soon corroborated Cogswell's statement, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly continued to state AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous ... an unabashed lie.

 

Then, in yet another press statement intended to defuse the controversy, AFIP claimed that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory. But Chief Petty Officer Janoski said, under oath, that she was present for the entire examination and did not observe any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue. And the government supplied nothing material to prove there actually were tests of any kind.

 

Next, Janet Reno joined the coverup. She told the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime. But I ask you folks … how "thorough" could that review have been when no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists or military photographer who blew the whistle? Hmmmmm?

 

Colonel Gormley has since, in documents submitted to a court (http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/ois/cases/other/ronbrown/rbrown.htm ) admitted to Judicial Watch that he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they agreed that the hole looked like a gunshot wound, "at least an entrance gunshot wound". Furthermore, Gormley confessed that the highest levels in Commerce, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the White House "requested" there be no autopsy. But Cabinet Members at the time, such as Ron Brown, were covered by federal laws that deal with assassinations of federal officials and certain acts of terrorism. As such, the matter should have been referred to the FBI as soon as an apparent gunshot wound was discovered. But that didn't happen. It all smacks of a coverup.

 

In the end, one event more than any other saved the Clinton administration from seeing this house of cards collapse. The discovery of Monica and the blue dress. Because that story immediately took the pressure off the mainstream media to cover the Brown controversy. Perhaps being supportive of Clinton, the MSM let the matter die and instead devoted all their *journalistic* efforts to Clinton's affair with Monica. Or perhaps they knew that sex will outsell murder any day of the week. Regardless, you'd be hard pressed to find any main stream media source that reported the above facts in the Brown case. What's that tell you, folks?

 

Now, I'm always being challenged by Democrats regarding the reasonableness of any *scenario* in which Brown could have been murdered. Snopes (written by a left-wing couple in California), captures the way they think:

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

 

"Simply imagining a scenario under which Ron Brown could have been shot takes one into the realm of the absurd. Was he shot in the head during the flight, in full view of thirty-four other witnesses? (If so, how did they get off the plane?) Did the killers shoot him before the flight, then bundle his body into a seat (just like "Weekend at Bernie's") and hope nobody noticed the gaping hole in his head?"

But there are various problems with this logic. First, it puts the cart before the horse. Don't most criminal investigations focus on determining if a murder has occurred based on the facts, before simply ruling one out as an "absurd" possibility? In any other case, if all the expert pathologists were saying that based on what x-rays and their visual examination of a wound show there might be a bullet wound in the victim's head, wouldn't the normal procedure be to perform an autopsy, regardless of how difficult one might think it would have been to shoot that victim? If pathologists then confirmed it was a bullet wound, then it would be appropriate to ask how it was done. And investigators would ask that question no matter how "absurd" the scenario to inflict that bullet wound might seem at the time? They wouldn't just dismiss the bullet because putting one there seemed an absurd impossibility before they found the bullet.

 

IF this was a murder, then logically whoever ordered it needed it to look like an accident and be in a location where the FBI, American police or anyone else they couldn't control wouldn't be involved, and where media access could be controlled. A crash in Croatia would fit the bill. Clinton controlled the military and was friendly with the local strongman. Military people generally do what they are told and don't ask questions. Military people who do ask questions can be punished without drawing the attention of the public, thanks to an American media that was firmly in Clinton's pocket.

 

Snopes acts as if the only possible scenario here is one where Brown is shot in front of 34 witnesses while on the plane. That isn't necessarily impossible (remember, the rear of the plane was intact and the rear door of the plane was found open, so perhaps the killer simply did the deed and then jumped out?), but it also isn't the only possible scenario. A credible scenario is that the plane was spoofed into the mountain to provide a reasonable cover for Brown's death and perhaps cause that death. Aviation Week (a source of some authority in the aviation world back in the 90s) stated that the flight path of the plane was consistent with a portable beacon spoofing the plane into the mountain. The government later admitted that a portable airport beacon went missing from the airport sometime before the crash. Furthermore, the person in charge of that airport's beacons died after the crash before investigators could interview him under rather curious circumstances (*reportedly* shooting himself in the stomach with a shotgun). It's not absurd to believe that if the plane was made to crash (in an effort to kill Brown), then whoever was responsible would do the logical thing and make sure someone would be there to verify his death after the crash … and deal with him should it turned out he was not dead. In other words, Brown might have been shot in the head after the crash because he survived the crash (and I remind you that Wecht said his survival was possible given the nature of his other injuries). And not absurd that someone who might known what happened would also be killed in a staged "suicide".

 

Since in this scenario one could not be certain the crash would kill Brown, the instigators of the crash would want to have someone reach the crash site before any rescue party and make sure he was dead. Remember, the murderers would know where the plane was coming down because they controlled the portable beacon. And we know that the search effort was misdirected initially (out over the ocean instead of near the airport) so that it took hours and hours for rescuers to reach the crash even though it was only a few miles from the airport. There was plenty of time for a "clean up" crew, if you will, to get there first. And guess what? The Associated Press reported that the first Croatian rescuers arrived and found several Americans already at the site … even though officially the first US personnel didn't arrive until after the Croatians.

 

A crash in Croatia also would make it possible to control access to the site (i.e., keep nosy journalists away), something that the instigators might want. And that's what the State Department did … they ordered camera crews and journalists away from the crash site. That's one of the things that Ira Sockowitz (who was implicated in Chinagate, by the way) handled. And what a coincidence that Ira was supposed to be on the ill-fated flight (he admitted this years later) … but just happened to *miss* it. Yet, he was able to get to the crash site in time to be their point man and keep the MSM away from the site … and report back to the Secretary Of State about "two" survivors. It's almost like he knew it was going to happen.

 

We also know key administration officials and military personnel were in the position to control every aspect of the investigation.

 

Prior to Ron Brown's death, an Air Force crash investigation consisted of two phases, a Safety Investigation Board (SIB) and an Accident Investigation Board (SIB). Ron Brown's crash was the first time in US Air Force history other than a clear case of friendly fire shooting down a helicopter in Iraq, where the Air Force skipped the SIB. Top Clinton Administration and Air Force officials claimed that the reason they ordered the SIB skipped was to speed up the investigation process, due to Brown's *important* status. But this Air Combat Command link (http://www.acc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2356 ) states: "AIB Reports are completed and released in approximately 60-90 days. This figure includes time after the reports are written for completion of technical review and coordination, then approval by the convening authority (the Major Command Commander), and a briefing to family members (if applicable)." Since it took the Air Force 60 days (from the crash on April 3, 1996 to June 7, 1996) to release the Accident Investigation Report in the Ron Brown Crash, what time was actually saved? The reason is transparently bogus.

 

To make this work, you also needed a few key individuals at AFIP to be involved. Besides Dickerson, they had their man Gormley, also now a proven liar, examine the body *officially*. He had complete control over the official conclusion regarding the cause of Brown's death. If Janoski hadn't been standing nearby, voiced her thoughts (based on photographing many other cases of gunshot) and taken photos of the first set of x-rays before they were destroyed by Gormley, no one in the public would ever have known the hole in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound or that there were x-rays showing suspicious features.

 

After the Whistleblowers came forward, the Air Force also tried to control matters by having Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters knowingly or unknowingly lie to family members of the air crash victims in a letter attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. Perhaps they were just hoping to keep those families from lawyering up to pursue the matter, even though they'd already signed an agreement not to sue in return for the millions of dollars in compensation that each family received on average (an agreement, by the way, that blamed weather for the crash even though the official crash report ruled out weather as the cause). Or perhaps the reason was less innocent.

 

Anyway, Peters stated in the letter that: "Due to the initial appearance of Secretary Brown's injuries, the medical examiners carefully considered the possibility of a gunshot wound. However, their examinations combined with X-rays ruled out that possibility." But, as noted above, this claim is an absolute lie. Peters' letter also said "the medical examiner determined there was no gunshot wound, and therefore concluded there was no need for further examination. Had there been suspicion regarding the nature of Mr. Brown's death - or the death of any other person on the aircraft - medical examiners would have pursued permission to perform a full internal examination." That's another clear lie, given that calls for an autopsy were voiced repeatedly during the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing one have been shown to be bogus. And Peters' letter stated that "The alleged 'bullet fragments' mentioned in the reports were actually caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassettes. Medical examiners took multiple X-rays using multiple cassettes and confirmed this finding." Still another lie, for the reasons already noted above.

 

As a final bit of control, Clinton administration military heads punished every one of the military officers who went public about the suspicious activities at Dover and AFIP. Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski were all reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise. With no explanation, Janoski was given 32 hours to clear out of her office (with no replacement available), had her staff taken away from her, and was made an assistant to an audio-visual manager at another location in a job that had never existed before. Cogwell was banished to dental pathology, a field in which he was not qualified. Hause was transferred to Fort Leonard Wood and made a hospital pathologist, a significant demotion. Parsons likewise was made a hospital pathologist. The government also tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences. In short, their military careers were all ruined.

 

They were also given negative job evaluations (for the first time in careers spanning over 10 years). For example, Cogswell's evaluation, which was six months late, states that he was "disruptive to the work environment with immature behavior." He has been "unresponsive to counseling," it continues, adding that he has used "inappropriate language" and worn "inappropriate dress." Cogswell was even criticized for his manner of driving in the AFIP facility's parking lot. The belated report bears three signatures, including those of Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer and AFIP Director Col. Michael Dickerson, both proven liars. The signatures are not even dated. But just a year earlier, Dickerson and Gormley wrote in an evaluation that Cogswell was "the number one forensic pathology consultant in the Department of Defense." That he was "an extremely capable officer" who was given "the toughest assignments." That "his professional acumen is incomparable" and that he was "an exemplary officer and outstanding physician." And in an evaluation in 1995 signed by Gormley and Dickerson, Cogswell was called AFIP's "expert on gunshot wounds."

 

Now seriously, do ANY of the liberal on this forum think this was fair treatment of outstanding military officers who only raised what appear to be quite valid questions? Don't you folks find the destruction of their careers and reputations the least bit suspicious and worthy of investigation? Or don't you care? Hmmmmm?

 

In summary, this isn't all that complicated a conspiracy. Or all that "absurd." So don't get the cart before the horse. Before declaring the "absurdity" of Brown being murdered, shouldn't we just find out if Brown actually was murdered? Why don't you liberals join me in calling for an exhumation and autopsy of his body? Unlike Vince Foster's, Brown's body was not cremated. Competent pathologists with all the technology we have today could probably still determine if there was a bullet wound … or not. And while we wait for that autopsy to occur, if Democrats wish to insist on focusing on absurdity, consider these ...

 

- the absurdity that both voice and transponder communication with the plane would cease when the plane was still 8 miles from the mountain it supposedly just hit by accident. Yet, that's the case. (And note that cutting the plane off from communication with the airport would have been critical to ensure it was spoofed into hitting the mountain.)

 

- the absurdity that the chief maintenance officer at the airport who was in charge of the airport beacons and the backup portable beacon would (it was claimed) commit suicide via a shotgun to the chest over a girlfriend just a day after the crash and before investigators could interview him? Yet, that's the case.

 

- the absurdity that the Clintons and various government spokespersons repeatedly claimed the plane went down in the worst weather in a century, yet the Air Force report would say weather played no significant role in the crash and planes landed without incident both before and after the crash occurred. Yet, that's the case.

 

- the absurdity that the Clinton administration would want to silence someone who was threatening to take their whole criminal affair down with him by turning state's evidence in Chinagate and CampaignFinanceGate. Yet, there was sworn testimony by a confidante of Brown to that effect. And testimony and statements by a judge that immediately after Brown's death there was a flurry of paper shredding at the Department of Commerce.

 

Democrats insist that the "official" Air Force report is the "end all" when it comes to *evidence* in this case. The Snopes site used that excuse too:

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

 

"See what the Air Force had to say about this crash."

I find it hilarious that defenders of the "official" story would reference a report that never even mentioned the statements of the pathologists about bullets and autopsies, and that completely skipped the portion of the investigation that usually determines the cause of the crash. A report that didn't even include photos of the first set of x-rays of Brown's head (and it's not even clear it included any x-rays of his head). Afterall, this report was supposed to supply the families of the victims with the facts of the case in the event they would want to pursue a wrongful death case in court. Wouldn't that information be relevant?

 

There are some other curiousities about the crash and it's aftermath that need further investigation.

 

The Croatian Ministry Of Transportation announced shortly after reaching the crash that the black boxes had been found. The US Air Force in Germany confirmed this. Several foreign news stations reported it. The Department of Commerce log mentioned above even states, "Chief of protocol Misetic called...The flight data recorder has been recovered." Then, a week later, the Air Force claimed the plane had no black boxes and that some boxes that looked exactly like the recorders had been found instead. But what boxes on this plane looked exactly like recorders? No one has ever said. Another problem with the claim that there were no black boxes is that this exact plane, just a week earlier, carried the First Lady and Chelsea and, several weeks before that it carried the Secretary of Defense. Regulations in place at the time required that the First Lady and Cabinet Members only fly on aircraft with black boxes. So was anyone ever punished for this "violation" of regulations? No.

 

Even more puzzling is that the original x-rays and photos of Brown's head injuries disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP … a safe to which only the top people at AFIP had access. Hause, along with Dr. Jerry Spencer, confirmed this happened. Yet neither the AFIP, FBI or DOJ investigated or offered any explanation for how the x-rays or photos disappeared. It looks like every effort was made by key people to coverup what happened. Fortunately, the cat (photos of the x-rays) was already out of the bag.

 

Now another tactic used by those who call people like me "kooks" in this matter is to question why Brown's family would have allowed a coverup. My response is that, first of all, the Brown family didn't know about any of this until the military pathologists and photographer blew the whistle about a year later. Until then, all they had to go on was the AIB report that left out almost all the facts I've noted. A report that contained the conclusion that Colonel Gormley admitted on live TV was "mistaken".

 

After they learned about it, there were apparently two camps in the family. One camp was the wife and son (Michael), who had already been indicted on charges related to those potentially facing Ron Brown. Naturally, they walked a very tight rope. If they made a big stink, the Clinton administration was liable to retaliate and see them prosecuted to the full extent ... which probably would have meant prison. So I suspect they made a deal. They kept quiet and said nothing, and in return the charges were dropped against the wife, and Michael was given a plea bargain that amounted to a slap on the wrist. And perhaps as an further inducement, we find that the DNC hired Michael shortly afterwards and he's been working for them ever since.

 

The other camp was represented by Brown's daughter, Tracy Brown. She claimed that after she and her family learned of the allegations (on the internet), she and her family met with an independent forensic pathologist (note, this person remains unnamed to this day). She says they looked at the x-rays and photographs and that this unnamed pathologist told them, in her words, that the wound "is not a bullet wound. It's short, it doesn't go anywhere, there's no exit wound, there's no bullet in his body, there are no metal fragments. So in my opinion, it's not a bullet wound."

 

You see the problem with her statement? That description doesn't fit the facts at all. No one looked for an exit wound and they didn't do an autopsy so how could they know there was no bullet "in the body"? And the x-rays of the head certainly were suspicious. I'd like to know the name of this pathologist that is such an expert that he's qualified to contradict two of the top pathologists in the country when it comes to gunshot (Cogswell and Wecht). They said the x-ray on the internet from the first set (which was saved only because it was in the hands of the public before the controversy broke) does indeed show metal fragments ... which even you and I can easily see is true. And note that those fragments are well inside the skull of Tracy's dad ... around the region of the eye socket, again contrary to the claim the wound goes nowhere.

 

Notice that Tracy doesn't even have the story about how those photographs got put on the internet correct. She says "So without getting into who stole the photographs in the first place and distributed them". Sorry, but no one stole these photos of Brown's head. Who gave her that idea? She might be smarter to ask how the originals of the photos and x-rays disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP and why no one in power seemed to care.

 

And by the way. Do you know what Ron Brown's family got as compensation for his death? The records show that the families of the victims received as much as 14 million dollars each. A few million might buy a lot of silence, especially if you knew the murderers were still out there and willing to go to any lengths (the dad's case serves as an example) to keep the truth from coming out about certain things.

 

Ultimately, Democrats need to address, not ignore, these facts to allay concern that there was foul play in Brown's death. Otherwise, this scandal, like the others, will sooner or later become part of Clinton's legacy. It's not going away.

 

Media complicity in this coverup

 

PBS isn't the only media outlet that has performed a WHITEWASH lately. So did the Washington Post … on Ron Brown's legacy. Here's what the Washington Post reported last March: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/ron-brown-and-michael-a-brown-amid-a-fathers-legacy-a-sons-own-path/2011/03/26/AFD3Fh5B_story.html . All one can do is laugh at such a blatant attempt by the left to rewrite it's history. And laugh at the gullibility of any liberal who might still believe the Washington Post is a *credible* source of news after reading such an article. Because it would appear, based on this article, that the Washington Post has completely forgotten that at the time of his death, Ron Brown was about to be indicted by a special prosecutor for a list of crimes as long as his arm. That fact would seem appropriate to mention in any article about Brown's "legacy" or his being *Presidential material*. But it's not.

 

And the way the Washington Post chose to describe Brown's death is nothing less than lying, too. It was a special prosecutor (not just "critics") who accused Brown of illegally using Commerce Department trade missions to reward Democrat businessmen who had contributed to the Democratic Party. And there was plenty of hard evidence to support that charge. And testimony that Brown had offered to turn state's evidence against the Clinton administration on the trade mission illegalities in exchange for leniency for himself and his family. And testimony that he'd told Clinton's top aides that if he went down, he was taking them all down. This is not CT. These are demonstrable facts that the Washington Post chose not to even mention in it's glowing article on Ron Brown, his crooked son and their "legacy".

 

The Washington Post used the same dishonest tactics to dismiss the allegations of foul play in the death. It *reported* that "Web sites purporting to show bullet wounds to Brown’s skull have popped up, as have conspiracy theories positing that he was assassinated because he knew too much about Clinton-era scandals or because, as a black man, he was too powerful." This is outright lying because the article doesn't mention that it was highly regarded military and civilian forensic pathologists who said Brown had what appeared to be a bullet wound in his head and that he should have been autopsied but wasn't because of orders from the Whitehouse. Some of those accusations were even made under oath. In fact, the WP is so dishonest that it never, ever told it's readers that top military and forensic pathologists had made such an accusation. It hid that. It's never told them a fraction of the real story. Is it any wonder that liberals are in the dark?

 

And while I'm at it, I might as well point out that The National Geographics and Discover Channel are two more sources that Whitewashed this event recently. In 2007 National Geographics did a high profile documentary on TV about the crash where Ron Brown died. It showed a supposed re-creation of the event. Curiously, a VERY similar documentary was shown about the same time on the Discovery Channel. It had almost the same basic content as the other but used a different voice as the voiceover. Both contained a lot of imagery that showed actors re-creating events ... not actual video from that day.

 

The National Geographics version mentions "bizarre rumors" that a decoy beacon could have been used to guide the plane into the mountain. The documentary makes the dismissive claim that a very large ground system on the mountain would have been needed to make that scenario possible. Such a "scheme" would be "nearly impossible to pull off" is their claim. It doesn't mention to the audience that a portable beacon went missing from the Dubrovnik airport and that the authoritative magazine "Aviation Week" concluded such a beacon could indeed have been used to spoof the plane into flying into the mountain. And there is no reference to the fact that the man who was responsible for that equipment at the airport just happened to commit suicide (or so it was reported in the mainstream media) just days after the crash ... before investigators could interview him. One would think these are facts an honest documentary would report.

 

Even more damning is neither "documentary" provides any specifics regarding evidence that pointed to foul play in the crash. For example, neither documentary says one word about concerns that were voiced by military forensic pathologists and a military photographer at the examination of Ron Brown's body and afterwords. These experts said the hole in Brown's head and what's seen in the surviving x-ray images of his head suggest a possible bullet wound and that Brown should have been autopsied as a result. These were matters of public record at the time the documentaries were made. So why no mention, especially given the fact that these experts were never convinced otherwise?

 

There also isn't any mention of what happened to the military pathologists and photographer after they blew the whistle about what they saw and the opinions they voiced. About how they were punished and their careers ruined by an administration claiming it was seeking the truth. This too is a matter of public record. The documentaries go into great detail regarding the punishment various military officers received for their role in the crash. So why not mention the punishment handed out to these experts? Afterall, it's part of the overall story. Isn't it?

 

You won't see any mention in the documentaries of the photos of the head and x-rays that in the opinion of the military pathologists, as well as several experts in gunshot outside the Air Force, suggested a possible bullet wound. These authenticated photos are a matter of public record and cause for great controversy ... especially since all the originals managed to disappear from a locked safe at AFIP to which only a few had access. Yet, not a word about them in the documentaries (or should we call it propaganda?).

 

And there are other obviously important omissions.

 

There is no mention that Ron Brown was under investigation by literally everyone at the end, including a special prosecutor. That there was sworn testimony that just prior to the trade mission he'd gone to the Whitehouse and told President Clinton that he was going to turn state's evidence in the Campaign Finance and Chinagate matters. Or that Bill Clinton cried crocodile tears at his funeral.

 

And while the documentaries make a big deal about the size and completeness of the AIB final report, they don't mention that the Air Force skipped (for the first time in Air Force history except one clear case of friendly fire) the phase of the normal crash investigation where the cause of the crash is determined ... the SIB. Or that the AIB report failed to mention that military pathologists said the word "bullet" at the examination and even called for an autopsy. Or that the report didn't contain photos of the first (or even second?) x-rays of his head. That certainly would be a strange omission from a report that was over 7000 pages long and supposedly aimed at providing information to the public and the families of the victims in case they wanted to sue for damages. Wouldn't you liberals agree with me there?

 

The documentaries also ignored the fact that Ira Sockowitz (a Clinton administration official who was associated with John Huang and Chinagate) informed the Secretary of State from the crash site that TWO people survived the crash. The documentaries just talk about the one admitted survivor, Shelly Kelly, who (they say) happened to die on the way to the hospital. There is also no mention that Shelly Kelly's body was cremated soon after arriving at Dover, without the consent of her parents or family … a clear violation of regulations for which no one was ever punished.

 

Now in the documentaries, there is the claim that soon after rescuers arrived at the crash site, they discovered there were no flight data recorders on the plane and that this was standard for military aircraft. What they fail to mention is that the Croatian Ministry of Transportation announced shortly after the crash that the black boxes had been found. And that the US Air Force in Germany confirmed they were found. How could the Croatians have made such a mistake given the unique appearance of "black boxes"? How could the Air Force have "confirmed" that without actually confirming it? The documentaries don't address this.

 

They also don't mention that regulations at the time reportedly required that planes carrying cabinet level officials (like Brown) be equipped with black boxes. Or that this exact plane had carried the Secretary of Defense and the First Lady on previous occasions, and they too were subject to that regulation. And that no one was punished for violating it. Is failing to obey this regulation any less important than the failure to obey procedures that officers were punished for, according to the documentary?

 

The documentaries re-create the scene of Ambassador Galbraith waiting at the airport ... waiting for the plane to arrive in what appears to be awful weather. This terrible weather is alluded to numerous times throughout the videos. Clearly, the directors wished to leave the viewer with the feeling that weather played an important role in the crash. Just like the administration initially tried to do with the public immediately after the crash, when they declared it was the worst weather in a "century". But the final AIB report ruled that weather played "no significant role" in the crash and planes landed both immediately before and after Brown's plane crashed with no problem. Why don't the documentaries mention that?

 

And I noticed something else in these *documentaries*. The last communication they show between the plane and the airport is when the plane is still 12 kilometers from the airport ... almost 8 miles. Indeed, that's consistent with what Christopher Ruddy reported in his series of newspaper articles on the crash. Why did they lose communication well before the plane reached the airport? Aviation Week stated they lost both radio and transponder contact at the same time. This loss of communication has never been explained by the Air Force. Ever. It's just been ignored. And you'll notice it's just ignored in these so-called documentaries, too. Don't you liberals think a loss of communication would be a major factor in this crash? That it would be something that should be mentioned, even focused on, in documentaries such as these? But then, it wasn't focused on in the AIB report either.

 

And I could go on and on listing important facts they left out of these two documentaries (and the AIB report). Isn't it amazing that the media can put this much effort into a re-creation (with actors, sets and all that), yet not even mention the facts I just noted? Isn't it amazing that the government can put so much effort into a 7000 page report, yet not even mention the facts I've noted here? They can't be unaware of those facts ... yet they don't mention ANY of them. One must conclude it is a willful coverup. To conclude anything else is simply irrational. It's letting yourself be taken for a fool. Now surely even the liberals on this forum would resent being taken for fools. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(crickets)

 

It's truly amazing how little interest the liberals at this forum have in defending their icons from charges of criminality. Guess this means they approve of that criminality. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you ever wonder what happened to all the people that worked in the Clinton Whitehouse during the times when all the scandals and criminality mentioned above were covered up? What happened to the people who committed the criminality in those scandals … if by nothing else helping cover up those crimes? Did you think they were no longer threats to our country once Clinton was out of office? Well think again.

 

We could start with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Sure, Bill's not in government now, but don't kid yourself by thinking he's had/having no affect on politics or the Democrat agenda. As for Hillary, do I really need to tell you what she did after Bill left office (something called the US Senate) … or the position she now holds in the Obama administration (Secretary of State … where despite her involvement in Chinagate, CampaignFinancegate and Filegate, she still has access to our nation's secrets)? Talk about jobs where one could cause mischief. Despite her involvement in numerous scandals (Chinagate, CampaignFinancegate, Travelgate, Filegate, Fostergate, etc), Obama picks her … even after mentioning the criminality of the Clinton Whitehouse during his campaign against Hillary. Well, perhaps Obama did it because she said "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good". Perhaps because she said “I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe”. Perhaps because she said "I certainly think the free-market has failed”. Perhaps because she said “The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it". Or perhaps because she tried to enact (behind closed doors, no less) government run health care. Or perhaps because, like Obama, Hillary is a stealth socialist who over the years has surrounded herself with hardcore socialists and communists. Just imagine … she and her husband sold this country out to the Communist Chinese, and what did Obama do? Make her Secretary of State. Does that make any sense at all … unless Obama believes as she does?

 

And what about all the others? Let's take a stroll through a list of names and see what they've been up to since leaving the Clinton Whitehouse.

 

Consider Bruce Lindsey. During Clinton's tenure, he served as an Assistant to the President, Deputy White House Counsel, and Senior Advisor. He was a fixer for Clinton who was implicated in numerous illegalities during the Clinton years (and was even named as an unindicted co-conspirator in one scandal). Wikipedia quotes Bill Burton, another former top Clinton official, as saying "There is no end to which Bruce wouldn't go for the president, There are things Bruce would do for the president that nobody else on Earth would do, and Bruce wouldn't even think twice about it." Clinton used Executive Privilege to keep Lindsey from having to talk to investigators numerous times ... in the Riady campaign finance scandal, the Lewinsky matter and in Whitewater. And as a reward for his faithful service (i.e., keeping the skeletons buried), he is currently working as the Chief Executive Officer of the Clinton Foundation. And collecting a quarter million dollar salary while doing it. Such philantrophy on Clinton's part.

 

Or consider Terry McAuliffe. He's was and is a big time Clinton supporter (former Chairman of Bill Clinton's election campaign). He was involved in Travelgate and a scandal called Teamstergate which I haven't yet mentioned. According to the NYTimes, http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/18/us/witness-says-clinton-friend-had-part-in-teamster-money-scheme.html (when the NYTimes can't even avoid discussing a scandal, you know it's bad), McAuliff was implicated by Richard Sullivan, the DNC's former finance director, as having played a "major role in promoting an illegal scheme in which Democratic donors were to contribute to the Teamster president’s re-election campaign, and in exchange the Teamsters were to donate large sums to the Democrats.” After Clinton's Presidency, McAuliffe became head of the DNC and was involved in the suspicious *purchase* of the Clinton's home. More recently he was active in campaigning for Obama, especially in his home state of Virginia, where he tried to become Governor (but failed). He's also led the Clinton Foundation's fundraising efforts and sits on it's Board of Directors (in 2010 he was the Board's chaiman and may still be).

 

Next, we have Cheryl Mills. She was a real piece of work. She was Deputy Counsel for President Clinton … and up to her neck in the illegalities of his administration. She was one of three Clinton White House lawyers who recommended Bill Clinton release the private letters of Kathleen Willey, in violation of the Privacy Act. (Yes, a federal court eventually ruled that Bill Clinton committed a crime when he authorized the release of letters written to him by Ms. Willey.) FOIA division head Sonya Stewart testified under oath that during Congress and Judicial Watch's Chinagate investigations Mills withheld documents in violation of court orders. She was also a key player in the Emailgate scandal, which was uncovered by Judicial Watch during the course of its "Filegate" litigation against the Clinton White House. Judicial Watch uncovered more than 1.8 million email communications that the Clinton White House had withheld from Judicial Watch, federal investigators and members of Congress. But, as in Filegate, the White House claimed it was just an *innocent mistake*. Mills was called to testify in EmailGate and couldn't remember numerous things she should have known. Instead she chastised the committee saying "Your investigations will not feed one person, give shelter to someone who is homeless, educate one child, provide health care for one family or offer justice to one African-American or Hispanic juvenile . . . You could spend your time making the lives of the individuals you serve better, as opposed to tearing down the staff of a president with whose vision and policies you disagree." In a law suit that Judicial Watch filed regarding Emailgate, Judge Royce Lamberth went so far as to call Cheryl Mills' participation in the matter "loathsome." Eventually, on November 6, 1997 to be precise, she admitted to the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee that she (and White House Counsel Jack Quinn) had withheld documents from the court for 15 months, including a memo suggesting Clinton wanted the $1.7 million White House Office Data Base illegally shared with the DNC. As a result, Representative David McIntosh, on that committee, sent Attorney General Janet Reno a referral involving perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Mills. Of course, Reno did nothing. And as rewards for her *faithful* service to Clinton, Mills not only now sits on the Clinton Foundation's Board, she became Hillary's campaign chairman and chief fund-raiser, and is now Counselor and Chief of Staff to Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Who says crime doesn't pay.

 

Leon Panetta is another Clinton lackey who is still causing trouble. According to the sworn testimony of Nolanda Hill, he defied court orders and obstructed a lawsuit aimed at gathering information related to Chinagate and CampaignFinancegate. He called Filegate "a completely honest bureaucratic snafu" when the facts prove otherwise. He was White House Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997, the exact period during which Monica Lewinsky repeatedly visited the Oval Office. Yet Panetta claimed to not know a thing about the relationship, that he had no recollection of Monica, even though one of the Chief of Staff's responsibilities is handling the President's schedule. After leaving Clinton's WhiteHouse, he was the chief lobbyist in efforts to hand over over the former Long Beach naval base to the Communist Chinese. Most recently, Obama hired Panetta to first head the CIA and now the Defense Department. Any of you foolish enough to think this criminal couldn't cause mischief in those two government positions?

 

And I am just getting started.

 

John Podesta was Clinton's White House Chief of Staff from 1998 to 2001. Podesta was known as the Clinton's "top scandal troubleshooter" (the Associated Press referred to him as the "point man" for the Clinton administration scandals). He was in charge of or involved in damage control for Whitewater, Travelgate, CampaignFinancegate, the Lewinsky scandal (and Clinton's Impeachment), Chinagate, Emailgate, and Pardongate. In addition to aiding and abetting each coverup, he took part in some of these scandals. For example, he was directly involved in planning the illegal trade missions and there is strong evidence that he obstructed justice during the investigation into those missions just before Ron Brown died. A key aspect of Chinagate was the illegal transfer of restricted communications and computer technology to the Chinese, and Podesta played a major role in that as part of his duties (more on that when I discuss John's brother). And what about now? John Podesta now runs the Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP). That's a far, far left organization. So far left that John came out in defense of self-admitted communist and 911 Truther, Van Jones. CAP is where Van Jones worked before joining Obama's White House and that's where he's now returned since *resigning* from his position as green jobs *czar*.

 

Tony Podesta, John Podesta's brother was a powerful DC based lobbyist. In 1994, Silicon Graphics, along with Tandem and several other major computer companies, hired Tony Podesta to lobby for them. In 1994 and 1995, while John Podesta was in charge of Clinton's computer and encryption technology export policies, Tony organized secret meetings in the White House attended by these companies' CEOs. About that same time, Ron Brown was put in sole charge of signing off on technology exports, so within weeks of those meetings, the Russians and Communist Chinese (both potential adversaries) were buying formerly restricted computer technology… like Cray super computers. These computers (and their software) allowed Russia and China to make great strides in nuclear weapons and other technologies. The computer companies later turned out to be very large Clinton donors. Since White House advisors were prohibited by law from working on matters in which they have a direct financial interest, John Podesta violated those laws ... and did National Security great harm. The computers sold to China helped the People's Liberation Army Air Force design and build their first super-sonic nuclear bomber. In 1996, IBM and Silicon Graphics sold super-computers directly to a Russian nuclear weapons lab. Those labs announced in January 1999 that they had deployed a new 550 kiloton thermonuclear warhead that they had tested using US supplied super-computers. IBM eventually was fined $8 million on that sale (Silicon Graphics was not charged but should have been). In 1997 the GAO wrote a report stating that "Silicon Graphics sold four computers to Chelyabinsk-70 in the fall of 1996 for $650,000." Chelyabinsk-70 was a well known Russian nuclear weapons lab. When this became public in 1997, John Podesta obtained an after the fact waiver from the Clinton White House counsel to protect him from the potential legal conflict of interest he shared with his brother. But to this day, John Podesta has refused to produce that document when asked. And like John, Tony Podesta is still creating mischief. Tony's own website (http://www.podesta.com/buzz?page=11 ) boasts about Newsweek in 2009 including him as one of eight lobbyists in "The Obama Orbit" and Financial Times dubbing him and his wife "The Biggest 'Power Couple on K Street". I guess treason pays. Who is he selling us out to now?

 

And let's not forget Eric Holder. He was the #2 man in Clinton's Department of Justice, under Janet Reno. In that capacity, he helped maintain the coverups in Chinagate, Campaignfinancegate, Filegate, Fostergate, Browngate, and Emailgate. He also spearheaded the pardon of fugitive billionaire Marc Rich (Rich's wife was a generous donor to both President Clinton's library as well as his legal-defense fund) by steering Rich's representatives to a former White House counsel, then helped lobby the President to pardon Rich.  Holder did so for personal gain, later admitting he hoped this would help him become Attorney General in a future Gore administration.  Mr. Holder concealed the pardon negotiations from other prosecuting and investigative agencies to prevent their opposition.  Another scandal with his direct involvement was the 1999 commutation of the sentences of 16 FALN terrorists, over the objections of the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and prosecuting attorneys. The commutations were political, obviously designed by Clinton to assist his wife's impending Senate campaign by appealing to New York's Puerto Rican vote. Holder was also instrumental in the "stealth pardons" of two Weather Underground terrorists, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans.  They were serving decades-long sentences for bombings targeting American government facilities. Holder helped circumvent the pardon process and evade objections from prosecutors regarding the terrorists' jail terms. He took action to silence a federal prosecutor who had raised questions about Waco. It's Holder who threatened to prosecute Nolanda Hill if she testified as to what she knew about Ron Brown's activities and what he told the President just prior to his death. And then followed through with that threat when she did. And with all that in his background, Obama made him Attorney General of the United States. In that capacity, Holder has been despicable. Last summer, he dismissed prosecution of an obvious case (it was filmed) of voter intimidation by members of the New Black Panthers, a group with which Obama has close ties. He refused to investigate ACORN when serious questions were raised about it. He even wrote a legal opinion allowing the Obama administration to ignore the will of Congress which voted overwhelmingly to suspend federal funding of ACORN. He was also involved in the Pigsford scandal, which involved bogus settlements to shyters claiming to be black farmers. He instigated prosecutorial investigations into CIA interrogation techniques of terrorist combatants (which all came back negative).  He has been a strong advocate for the release of the Islamofascist enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay. And currently he is mired in lies in the Fast and Furious scandal (which is worse than anything Watergate was said to be). He has taken the politicalization of the DOJ to new heights, and has used the race card repeatedly. We can thank the Clintons for all that.

 

Then there is Harold Ickes. He was also involved in Teamstergate, when he was Clinton's Deputy Chief Of Staff. Following Mrs. Clinton’s successful election to the United States Senate, Ickes personally helped launch six of the seven organizations that were key to Democrat fund raising during the 2004 election, including America Coming Together, America Votes, the Center for American Progress, Joint Victory Campaign 2004, the Media Fund, and the Thunder Road Group. Some of those are still important. Currently, he is president of Catalist, a for-profit databank that sold its voter files to the Obama and the Clinton presidential campaigns for their get-out-the-vote efforts. It allows wealthy Democratic donors to help progressive organizations and candidates by investing in the company. It maintains data on over 230 million Americans. Talk about a potential for still causing trouble. ;)

 

Derek Shearer is a particularly noteworthy fellow. In 1980, he wrote a book titled "Economic Democracy: The Challange of the 1980's" that advised folks on the liberal side that "Socialism has a bad name in America" and to just replace it with the words "Economic Democracy", which would sell better. In the book, Shearer proposed the economic dismantling of America's free enterprise system and suggested that all businesses be controlled by government socialist planners. So can you believe that prior to the 1992 election, Bill Clinton appointed him his top economic advisor. And during the adminstration, he worked in Clinton's Commerce department where much mischief occurred. Shearer was described as one of Bill Clinton's closest friends (they'd met around the time Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford). Hillary became friends with Derek Shearer as well, and through him met his sister Brooke, who eventually became Hillary's personal aide. She was one of the people the Clintons relied on for *dumpster diving* and *dirty tricks*. In fact her brother Cody Shearer also worked for the Clintons, and was identified by Chris Matthews as the man who approached Kathleen Willey (remember her?) near her home, asked her about her punctured car tires and her kids and lost cat, and then said "Get the message?" These are the type of people the Clintons kept close. Derek Shearer actively supported Hillary during her run against Obama, then when she lost, supported Obama against McCain. He recently implied that Obama should expand government, add even more regulation, and increase the deficit in the name of *progressivism* and the *environment*. Yes, this is the sort of person who the Clintons kept close and relied on for advice. A socialist (even if he wouldn't call himself one) who keeps on giving.

 

Gary Locke was linked to Chinagate. He had ties to John Huang and others who were implicated in that scandal: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/24/the-chinagatebuddhist-temple-cash-skeletons-in-gary-lockes-closet/ "The Chinagate/Buddhist temple cash skeletons in Gary Locke’s closet". He was part of the decision to remove export controls on formerly restricted techologies: http://en.chinagate.cn/economics/top/2010-05/24/content_20101865.htm "Locke said 'the US is comprehensively reviewing the export control systems and will remove unnecessary restrictions'". So it makes perfect sense (:rolleyes:) that Obama would appoint him to head the Commerce Department (which he did). :( This guy is so radical that he even thinks we "need to pay" for China's carbon emissions. Here he is speaking to the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai: "It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that."

 

Elana Kagan is certainly still in the news. Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court and the Democrats approved that nomination over all objections by conservatives. Perhaps because she was the attorney who defended Obama in all the suits filed against him with the Supreme Court demanding that he provide proof of natural born citizenship. Here are some examples from the Supreme Court website that show Elana Kagan was the attorney representing Obama: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm , http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790.htm , http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-724.htm , http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-10382.htm . And she's a socialist. No doubt about that. In her Princeton thesis, "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933", she lamented (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/elena_kagan_radical.asp ) the fact that free enterprise overcame socialism. She concluded, “In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness. … snip … Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation's established parties? … snip … Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one's fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope." And we have the Clinton administration to thank for her advancement to the Supreme Court. In Clinton's administration, she was White House counsel, Deputy Assistant for Domestic Policy, and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy. When she went back to academia, she became Dean at Harvard, and two of her *accomplishments* were hiring socialist Cass Sunstein and socialist Lawrence Lessig. She's just a gift from Clinton that keeps giving. :(

 

Let's not forget Jamie Gorelick. In 1994, just one month after Gorelick became Clinton's Deputy Attorney General, Bill Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 24. It placed intelligence-gathering under the direct control of the President’s National Security Council, and ultimately the White House. In 1995, Gorelick cited it to erect a "wall" against sharing intelligence data between foreign and domestic agencies. It required that intelligence information travel up a chain of command established by Clinton and Gorelick through the Justice Department, which Clinton controlled via Reno. Why was this wall necessary? Because just as PDD24 was signed, the FBI and the CIA were both turning up evidence related to fundraisers and the Chinese. It allowed the Clinton administration to effectively trap any information that was deemed harmful to it and the Democratic Party. As a result, Congress and the CIA did not learn until 1997, after the 1996 election, that the FBI had collected extensive evidence in 1995 linking illegal democratic Party donations to China. According to leaked classified CIA documents, between 1994 and 1997, the CIA learned that China made massive tranfers of missile, nuclear and air defense technology to Iran and Pakistan. Technology acquired from the US thanks to the Clinton administration's policies. But PDD24 prevented the CIA from telling the FBI about it. Meanwhile the White House fundraisers continued. In 1994, the McDonnell Douglas Corporation transferred military-use machine tools to the China despite Defense Department objections. Is it coincidence that McDonnell Douglas was a client of the law firm where Gorelick worked for 17 years? In 1995, General Electric, another former client of Gorelick’s, assisted China's nuclear program. In 1995, the CEO of Hughes Electronics, another client of Gorelick's old firm, got satellite export controls switched from the State Department to the Commerce Department then gave sensitive data and equipment to the Chinese, which a later Pentagon study would conclude allowed China to develop intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. After she left the Clinton Whitehouse, she found her calling as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae during the time of the fraudulent accounting (by the way, ever notice how many of Clinton's people flocked to Fannie?). She walked away with tens of millions from Fannie while cooking the books and selling hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgages that would never have been sold had the Democrats gone along with the various bills that Republicans submitted calling for increased oversight and regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Yet Obama's campaign was apparently considering her for Attorney General.

 

Franklin Raines is another Clinton admistration official who went on to do more (and grave) harm to the country. During Clinton's administration he was White House budget director. Then he became head of Fannie Mae, and stole at least $50 million out of the system, while helping Jamie Gorelick cook the books. Hearings on this ultimately led to Raines resigning and having to return at least a few of the $50 million he stole in what can only be described as an Enron-like operation. But don't you worry, in return he got a golden parachute valued at $240 million in benefits. So, for all intents and purposes, he got off scott-free and went to live a life of luxury. That is, when he wasn't helping the Obama campaign on mortgage and economic issues. And in return for that help, Franklin Raines name is curiously absent from the SEC lawsuit against Fannie and Freddie (http://news.investors.com/article/598522/201201201917/franklin-raines-not-in-fannie-mae-lawsuit.htm ). Just goes to prove that Friends of Obama get rewards, just like Friends of Clinton.

 

Now there are many other Clinton administration officials that continued to cause the country harm long after the Clinton administration ended. Many who are still doing it. Like Craig Livingstone. Sandy Berger. Bernard Nussbaum. William Kennedy III. But I don't want to spend all day composing this post. So I'll stop for now. But I think I've supplied enough to demonstrate why this topic is still important ... even today, years after Clinton's criminal administration. Just more material to add to Clinton's REAL "legacy" ... the one that PBS hid from the public.

 

And now let's listen to some more silence from the left on this topic. Seems none of them want to defend one of the greatest Democrats and Liberals of all time. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-bulk-retrial-clemens-over-steroids

 

Wow! The Justice Department assigns FIVE prosecutors to go after Roger Clemens for lying to Congress about never using performance enhancing drugs.

 

But couldn't find the manpower to investigate the suspicious death of Ron Brown or any of the other crimes noted in this thread.

 

Go figure. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Derp-de-derp...

 

So, I was asked to come over to this thread, but I really don't see why, since Clinton wasn't a liberal president, signed into law all sorts of legislation I hated long before it was even passed and continue to hate to this day, left office shortly after I turned 18, and though generally charismatic and in my opinion a pretty good speaker, is no sort of a role model whatsoever.

 

I have never cheated on anyone I was dating, in my entire life, and never would, for any reason whatsoever. I don't approve of what Bill did with Monica on any level whatsoever. Yet I also don't approve of what the Republican-controlled Congress did to punish him for it, and apparently because of that, I'm asked to 'defend' him?

 

Meh. I'm going to go look at other threads that aren't clearly a waste of my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Derp-de-derp...

I knew that would be all you'd have. You're just like all the rest. VERY SHY when it comes to discussing actual facts. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew that would be all you'd have. You're just like all the rest. VERY SHY when it comes to discussing actual facts. :D

 

You... knew I was a liberal... that I politically oppose Obama, never voted for him, and consider him at best a moderate and at worst a moderate-leaning conservative... and yet still asked me to come post in this thread? Or are you just talking smack because you're hoping to goad me into defending someone whose values don't match my own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You... knew I was a liberal... that I politically oppose Obama, never voted for him, and consider him at best a moderate and at worst a moderate-leaning conservative... and yet still asked me to come post in this thread? Or are you just talking smack because you're hoping to goad me into defending someone whose values don't match my own?

If you're to the left of Obama, liberal doesn't even begin to describe you. ;)

 

And you did step in to defend Clinton on another thread.

 

That was you who wrote

 

The impeachment bit was purely political and had nothing at all to do with Bill lying and/or abusing power, and everything to do with a Republican controlled Congress abusing its power to hold impeachment hearings over the first tiny offence they could latch onto."

But you come to this thread as I challenged to do after you wrote that, and all of the sudden your mum about Clinton?

 

What happened, Portlander? Did you get religion? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're to the left of Obama, liberal doesn't even begin to describe you. ;)

 

And you did step in to defend Clinton on another thread.

 

That was you who wrote

 

But you come to this thread as I challenged to do after you wrote that, and all of the sudden your mum about Clinton?

 

What happened, Portlander? Did you get religion? :D

 

First off, I've had religion for a very long time. Second off, I didn't defend Clinton, I attacked the Republican-controlled Congress that impeached him. Third off, Obama is far enough to the right that people can be to the left of him as a MODERATE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't defend Clinton, I attacked the Republican-controlled Congress that impeached him.

Anyone remotely rational who reads your statement can see that you most certainly did defend Clinton.

 

At least the others *liberals* here were honest enough to just run and not try to lie about that. It's a really pathetic tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone as insanely irrational as me who reads your statement can see that you most certainly did defend Clinton.

 

Yeah, you're quite the font of crazy and illogic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...