• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

John McCain Quotes

What does that tell you about this reporter? She QUOTED McCain in her article saying those words ... when he apparently did not say those "exact" words ... without telling folks that she wasn't sure exactly what was said. You do know what quote marks mean when used in an article, don't you? Well I'm dismissing this allegation because the ONLY named source so far claiming that joke was made clearly was dishonest in her reporting. And the rest of what she said suggested she had a hidden Democrat bias.
Wrong on absolutely every count. As is evident from the article:

* Norma Coile is not the originator of the story.

* She was quoting, or, if you prefer, QUOTING a press release from the National Organization of Women.

* She specifically says that the press release of the Arizona Women's Political Caucus gives a different wording for the joke.

* She does not herself allege that McCain made any joke; she merely says that "reportedly", according to press releases by the NOW and the AWPC, he made such a joke.

* This is not dishonest unless there were no such press releases.

* "The rest of what she said" includes six-and-a-half paragraphs reporting what a McCain aide has to say on the subject. It is an objective reporting of claim and counter-claim.

Whereas Sam Stein at the Huffington Post, who reported that, did what journalists are supposed to do. Print the facts.
The facts as supplied to him voluntarily by that same biased dishonest Norma Coile ... which are in perfect agreement with her article.
 
Last edited:
No it's not. The reporter wrote an article with a direct quote with very specific language. Without telling the readers she didn't really know what McCain said. Only when later queried ... after leftists throughout the country had run with the story on blog after blog ... did the author admit to not actually knowing what McCain said. Her description is that he said "something" involving rape. I call that dishonesty. A clear indication of a hit piece by her that did exactly what it was supposed to do ... motivate a bunch of hypocritical sheep to dislike McCain. :p
You're still wrong. Vide my previous post.
 
You don't know that McCain didn't say it.

I don't know that Obama didn't say it.

Just like you don't know what was in those trucks

No, YOU don't know what was in those trucks. I at least have multiple sources telling me WMD related materials were in those trucks, including a source the ISG concluded was "credible". You folks claim they must have been carrying something quite innocent yet you apparently can't get one Iraqi to actually tell us what the trucks contained. :D
 
* Norma Coile is not the originator of the story.

Ok, fair enough. I took a closer look at the article she actually wrote rather than the link I cited that discussed the article.

I still say it is dishonest to put quotes around something in an article when you don't know for a fact they said it. And you admit she knew because two organizations gave different wording to the joke. And as to whether we should believe either, she later admitted "I'm not sure exactly what the wording was of the joke, but something was said." Not very definite. How one group could report the word gorilla and the other not is difficult to understand.

* She was quoting, or, if you prefer, QUOTING a press release from the National Organization of Women.

Ok. I'll just point out AGAIN the utter hypocrisy of anyone from NOW being upset about a rape "joke" when they wholeheartedly supported a rapist in office through two terms.

* She does not herself allege that McCain made any joke; she merely says that "reportedly", according to press releases by the NOW and the AWPC, he made such a joke.

And journalists are supposed to take the press releases of NOW and AWPC at face value without confirming something as inflammatory as this article? Did anyone ever actually reach the women she named in the article who were reportedly there and confirm the press release? If so, where are the followup articles in the press on this? It certainly would be something I'd expect the liberal mainstream media to continue harping on if they had. This looks more like the typical Democrat smear piece which turns out to be false, does its job in the elections, and then thanks to a complicit media we never hear another word about.
 
You think it's irrelevant that the blogger whose page you cited as your source for a supposed joke by McCain about rape is a hypocrite? :)

Yes. How dense are you?

I have no idea what those "witnesses" actually said. And neither do you. Because the author who claims he made this quote admits that what she quoted were not McCain's words. All she could say was that he said "SOMETHING" about rape.

You're being dishonest by selecting the throwaway word "something," and ignoring the context. Someone from Huffington Post followed up by asking this reporter about a story she had written over twenty years ago. You go on to ignore her certain statement that it involved rape and an ape. Unless you want to argue it was one of the good ape rape jokes, I'm not sure where you're going.

I challenge you to come up with another source for this claimed quote other than Norma Coile.

The reporter did not rely on a single account. It would be interesting if this has not yet been mentioned on these forums because I had known about since the story came out. I never even thought of creating a thread on it. Compare with the numerous anti-Obama threads, particularly the one on Michelle Obama's alleged "whitey" comments.

You GOP jackasses are so slimy, so full of ****, the only reason you have any amount self-respect is due entirely to your awesome obliviousness.
 
I still say it is dishonest to put quotes around something in an article when you don't know for a fact they said it.
It would have been if preceeded by the words: "John McCain said". However, in the English language, quotation marks can serve other purposes besides attributing statements to John McCain.

And you admit she knew because two organizations gave different wording to the joke.
Your use of the word "admit" is almost creationist in its audacity.

I point out that in the original article, she tells her readers that the two press releases do not agree on the details. I do not "admit she knew" so much as prove that that she told her readers.

And as to whether we should believe either, she later admitted "I'm not sure exactly what the wording was of the joke, but something was said." Not very definite. How one group could report the word gorilla and the other not is difficult to understand.
After all this time, we may never know. Or care.

Ok. I'll just point out AGAIN the utter hypocrisy of anyone from NOW being upset about a rape "joke" when they wholeheartedly supported a rapist in office through two terms.
And I'll point out that the act of hypocrisy that you allege would be possible only to the possessor of a time machine.

And journalists are supposed to take the press releases of NOW and AWPC at face value without confirming something as inflammatory as this article?
No, and she didn't. She did not repeat what NOW and AWPC alleged as facts, which would be taking them at face value; she reported that the allegations had been made, and gave space to a response by a McCain aide.

Did anyone ever actually reach the women she named in the article who were reportedly there and confirm the press release? If so, where are the followup articles in the press on this? It certainly would be something I'd expect the liberal mainstream media to continue harping on if they had. This looks more like the typical Democrat smear piece which turns out to be false, does its job in the elections, and then thanks to a complicit media we never hear another word about.
As I have pointed out, if NOW and AWPC issued those press releases, and if Torie Clarke gave that response, the story is true.

Your reasoning about the "liberal media" I find baffling. "Where are the follow-up articles in the press on this"? you ask. Yes, indeed, where are all the follow-up articles about allegations of tasteless humor made against a nationally unknown congressman that got a few paragraphs on page 28 of the Tucson Citizen? I mean, given the incredible importance of the story, and that all this happened as recently as 1986, teh internets should be awash with them. It's a mystery.
 
You understood what I meant by "initial combat". Mission accomplished was when when the Iraqi army collapsed as an organized force and we could start the process of rebuilding Iraq's government, security forces and infrastructure. And McCain was accurate, unlike many on your side of this debate, about how long it would take to get to that point.
Yeah, see I just disagree. Measuring a war by one battle is ridiculous and not what the McBush junta was talking about before the war.
My personal opinion is that socialists in Belgium should butt out of our election and mind their own business.
And Republicans wonder why the U.S. have gotten kind of a bad reputation around the world.
Do you really think the war continued because of the people who welcomed our troops and their liberation in large numbers? Are you that out of touch with what went on in Iraq? What can I say if you choose to simply ignore the MANY media outlets that reported the welcome our troops received. Even French radio reported it.
I actually think it's just completely irrelevant. Once again, by talking about "being received as liberators", McSame was saying that no resistance or civil war would spring up after the war.
And you haven't a clue what Bush told Americans to expect because you apparently read anything he said or wrote at the time. You just believe whatever garbage your little socialist party's propaganda organ is spewing out for you today.
Yes, you're right, my backwards country did not have any access to the Internets in 2003 or any other media, only the propaganda of our glorious socialist party was then available to us.

Thanks for further demonstrating you awesome knowledge about all things foreign.
And Iraq hasn't been a catastrophe ... it's turning out to be a great victory
Yes, hundreds thousands dead, millions of refugees, continuing violence to this day, enormous poverty, a military involvement that has lasted for more than five years, increased terrorism throughout the world, the situation in Afghanistan getting worse and worse...

A great victory!
Actually, he consistently said that we were fighting the war the wrong way and that we needed to deal with it using better counterinsurgency tactics.
"I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent."

What brave resistance to the Bush policies!
1) Sectarian violence is way done from a year ago.

2) al-Sadr's Iranian backed militia no longer controls any Iraqi regions and it's leader has fled the country to Iran.

3) al-Qaeda's top Iraqi leadership is either dead, captured or has fled the country (apparently for Afghanistan). al-Qaeda is having trouble recruiting in Iraq, and may not be sending new recruits from elsewhere to Iraq any longer.

4) US and Iraqi casualties are way down.
As I said, violence's down...for now.
5) Iraq's security forces are nearly up to full strength, increasingly well trained, performing well in combat, and close to taking over responsibility for all regions of Iraq outside a few military specialties.

6) Iraq has made significant political progress and continues to demonstrate it's government is respected by the people and able to weather crises and elections.

7) Iraq's economy is starting to boom, and not just in Kurdish areas. Foreign investors are now wanting to invest in Iraq.
Those statements are, let's say, at least slightly optimistic.
 
Last edited:
I can't help but noticing that most of the quotes in this thread present neither context nor sourcing. Why not?
 
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
You think it's irrelevant that the blogger whose page you cited as your source for a supposed joke by McCain about rape is a hypocrite?

Yes. How dense are you?

At least folks now know where you really stand and you didn't get to do a "drive by" and leave the scene. And I'm not half as dense and those who see nothing wrong with the hypocrisy of NOW.

You're being dishonest by selecting the throwaway word "something," and ignoring the context.

You are being dishonest by ignoring the context in which that claimed quote was presented to the media ... in an press release by groups of women belonging to an organization whose president said we should ignore credible (according to the FBI investigators!) allegations of rape by Bill Clinton. There has been NO confirmation that he actually said that joke. The women the article named as eyewitnesses have apparently never been asked if that was a correct accounting. Couldn't be reached? Or when they were reached did their response not fit the charge so the drive-by media did what it does time and again ... slam a conservative with a false allegation then move on?

Unless you want to argue it was one of the good ape rape jokes, I'm not sure where you're going.

I'm saying you people want to worry about 30 year old jokes when you had a live rapist (and worse) running the Democrat party for a decade recently with the very same people now complaining about the joke running interference for him all that time. :D

The reporter did not rely on a single account.

No, they got press releases from two groups of women that were basically unfriendly to McCain and conservatives. :)

Compare with the numerous anti-Obama threads, particularly the one on Michelle Obama's alleged "whitey" comments.

You'll notice I never showed up on those threads to defend it. Also, you might be interested to know that the origin of that smear ... was a Democrat.

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080613120414.aspx

Did "Conservative Bloggers" Spread Michelle Obama "Whitey" Rumor?

The Times implies it did -- but the rumor entered the blogosphere on the website of a Hillary Clinton supporter.

:D

And do you want to know the way the Drive By media works. Well, the "whitey" saga offers a good example and here's an interesting analysis of it. I know you won't like it because I know you hate the source:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_061208/content/01125109.guest.html

:D

You GOP jackasses are so slimy, so full of ****

Why? Because the Clintons gave us so many ways to point out your party and supporters' blatant hypocrisy? :D
 
Did "Conservative Bloggers" Spread Michelle Obama "Whitey" Rumor?

The Times implies it did -- but the rumor entered the blogosphere on the website of a Hillary Clinton supporter.
What a marvellous example of the False Dichotomy.
 
Quote:
Did anyone ever actually reach the women she named in the article who were reportedly there and confirm the press release? If so, where are the followup articles in the press on this? It certainly would be something I'd expect the liberal mainstream media to continue harping on if they had. This looks more like the typical Democrat smear piece which turns out to be false, does its job in the elections, and then thanks to a complicit media we never hear another word about.

As I have pointed out, if NOW and AWPC issued those press releases, and if Torie Clarke gave that response, the story is true.

But it says in her article that she tried to contact the named individuals to confirm the press releases but couldn't do it? Did no one else in all this time try to contact them? Maybe you folks should do so know.

Afterall, you must think this joke will offer a great distraction to the fact that Obama openly lied when he claimed "it would take at least 10 years to get any oil" if we started drilling offshore today. That's a lie. As is much of the rest he says about energy.

The joke will do even better at keeping the public from realizing that events clearly show that Obama has been utterly wrong about Iraq year after year. If we'd done what he said to do in 2007, Iraq would now be in chaos and al-qaeda and Iranian militants wouldn't be fleeing the country but sending even more recruits there. And Obama will be wrong a year from now if Americans are foolish enough to make him President.

It will also provide a distraction to all the new taxes Obama proposes for our country and the negative effect those taxes will surely have on our economy and standard of living for many years to come.

It will distract potential voters from asking questions about his long term relationship with groups and individuals who openly declare their hatred of the US and even advocate (in fact, actually engaged in) terrorism against the country and its people.

By all mean, try to make this campaign about "jokes".
 
But it says in her article that she tried to contact the named individuals to confirm the press releases but couldn't do it? Did no one else in all this time try to contact them? Maybe you folks should do so know.

Afterall, you must think this joke will offer a great distraction to the fact that Obama openly lied when he claimed "it would take at least 10 years to get any oil" if we started drilling offshore today. That's a lie. As is much of the rest he says about energy.

The joke will do even better at keeping the public from realizing that events clearly show that Obama has been utterly wrong about Iraq year after year. If we'd done what he said to do in 2007, Iraq would now be in chaos and al-qaeda and Iranian militants wouldn't be fleeing the country but sending even more recruits there. And Obama will be wrong a year from now if Americans are foolish enough to make him President.

It will also provide a distraction to all the new taxes Obama proposes for our country and the negative effect those taxes will surely have on our economy and standard of living for many years to come.

It will distract potential voters from asking questions about his long term relationship with groups and individuals who openly declare their hatred of the US and even advocate (in fact, actually engaged in) terrorism against the country and its people.

By all mean, try to make this campaign about "jokes".
Well, that was amusing.

In answer to the part of it that is vaguely on-topic, I do not have access to newspapers from 1986, so I cannot say whether anyone else researched or ran a "Congressman You've Never Heard Of May Have Made Off-Color Joke Shock" story (though I'm gonna guess that the media afforded it less importance than you do).

Perhaps as this issue interests you so much, you could find out for us and let us all know.
 
Ahahahaha, so you believe that Clinton was serial rapist and serial killer and that there actually were WMD's in Iraq?

You are bat **** insane.

Well to prove I'm insane with reference to WMD, you have to tell us:

- the contents of those trucks that were observed going to Syria before the war (that a "credible" source told the ISG was WMD related)?

- the contents of the concrete bunker that was built under the Euphrates in 2002 (that locals said contained WMD) and that was looted before the CIA (in all it's *wisdom*) decided to take a look at it in 2006?

- why Iraq selectively sanitized files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD?

- where that binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED actually came from and how you *know* it was the only one?

- what the documents dated 2002 from Saddam that were found in Iraq but not translated until recently meant when they order "special" materials to be hidden?

- and, of course, why you think invading Iraq was only about finding completed WMD munitions?

****************

To prove I'm insane with respect to Clinton being involved in murder, you'll need to actually dispute the facts I've raised in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618 . :D

****************

And to prove I'm insane with respect to allegations that Clinton raped, assaulted, sexually harassed women, you need to address this:

Let's start with the Broaddrick rape.

It was a Democrat, David Schippers, who acted as the chief Clinton impeachment prosecutor in the House. A week before the House vote Schippers says he invited members of Congress to examine the secret evidence in the Ford Building. Many did so. In fact, Schippers says in his book that 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. Shays said "I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked point blank if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say that it way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick." Note that Shays told the NYTimes that the rape evidence briefly moved him into the pro-impeachment column. But then a personal meeting with Clinton changed his mind. Shays has a long history as a RINO.

Now when the matter went to the Senate, the House Majority Counsel opened the files again. When asked if any Senators of either party took the trouble to examine the material, Schippers said in disgust, "No, not a single one."
You see, it wasn't a real trial, as the mainstream media and Senate tried to portray to the public. In fact, Schippers quoted Senator Ted Stevens saying "Henry (BAC - speaking to Henry Hyde of the House Managers), I don't care if you prove he raped a woman and then stood up and shot her dead---you're not going to get 67 votes?" After Stevens made that comment, Shippers said, "I just watched one hundred Senators raise their right hand to God and swear to do equal and impartial justice. I'm only a Democrat from Chicago, but are you telling me that the Senators are going to ignore that oath also?" Stevens' response: "You're damn right they are."

Now what did Schippers have to say about the Broaddrick allegation? First of all, Schippers discovered that Independent Counsel Starr had investigated Broaddrick's charges. 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."

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 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 the charges 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 (BAC - 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 I repeat ... this was a democrat who voted for Clinton twice.

Do you know that 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 is the brother of Bob Bennet, the President's personal lawyer in the Jone's suit. It was Bob Bennett who supplied her with the first draft of the affidavit. 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 a "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 the Juanita referred to by using a Clintonesque distinction - her name was not Broaddrick when she was raped. But the day after the phone call, Broaddrick had her lawyer apply to the White House counsel's office for a false affidavit sample.

Connect the dots.

After questions dealing with Monica Lewinsky’s false statements in her affidavit, denying sexual contact with the President, to 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." He later responded to a direct question concerning the "completely false" nature of his statement: " ''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, the famous "is" statement of Clinton's). Now this is the same Bob Bennett who Clinton used to issue his Clintonesque denial in the Broaddrick case.

Connect the dots.

Do you know that DOZENS of women have come forward to allege harassment, assault and rape by Clinton over the years? Don't believe me? Well let me prove it.

"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 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.

Then 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." 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 ... we won't count these. We don't need to.

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. All of them proving I'm not insane but that you are, for still believing in Bill Clinton and Hillary.
 
Well to prove I'm insane with reference to WMD, you have to tell us:

- the contents of those trucks that were observed going to Syria before the war (that a "credible" source told the ISG was WMD related)?

- the contents of the concrete bunker that was built under the Euphrates in 2002 (that locals said contained WMD) and that was looted before the CIA (in all it's *wisdom*) decided to take a look at it in 2006?

- why Iraq selectively sanitized files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD?

- where that binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED actually came from and how you *know* it was the only one?

- what the documents dated 2002 from Saddam that were found in Iraq but not translated until recently meant when they order "special" materials to be hidden?

- and, of course, why you think invading Iraq was only about finding completed WMD munitions?

****************

To prove I'm insane with respect to Clinton being involved in murder, you'll need to actually dispute the facts I've raised in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618 . :D

****************

And to prove I'm insane with respect to allegations that Clinton raped, assaulted, sexually harassed women, you need to address this:

Let's start with the Broaddrick rape.

It was a Democrat, David Schippers, who acted as the chief Clinton impeachment prosecutor in the House. A week before the House vote Schippers says he invited members of Congress to examine the secret evidence in the Ford Building. Many did so. In fact, Schippers says in his book that 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. Shays said "I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked point blank if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say that it way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick." Note that Shays told the NYTimes that the rape evidence briefly moved him into the pro-impeachment column. But then a personal meeting with Clinton changed his mind. Shays has a long history as a RINO.

Now when the matter went to the Senate, the House Majority Counsel opened the files again. When asked if any Senators of either party took the trouble to examine the material, Schippers said in disgust, "No, not a single one."
You see, it wasn't a real trial, as the mainstream media and Senate tried to portray to the public. In fact, Schippers quoted Senator Ted Stevens saying "Henry (BAC - speaking to Henry Hyde of the House Managers), I don't care if you prove he raped a woman and then stood up and shot her dead---you're not going to get 67 votes?" After Stevens made that comment, Shippers said, "I just watched one hundred Senators raise their right hand to God and swear to do equal and impartial justice. I'm only a Democrat from Chicago, but are you telling me that the Senators are going to ignore that oath also?" Stevens' response: "You're damn right they are."

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



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 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 the charges 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":



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 I repeat ... this was a democrat who voted for Clinton twice.

Do you know that 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 is the brother of Bob Bennet, the President's personal lawyer in the Jone's suit. It was Bob Bennett who supplied her with the first draft of the affidavit. 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 a "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 the Juanita referred to by using a Clintonesque distinction - her name was not Broaddrick when she was raped. But the day after the phone call, Broaddrick had her lawyer apply to the White House counsel's office for a false affidavit sample.

Connect the dots.

After questions dealing with Monica Lewinsky’s false statements in her affidavit, denying sexual contact with the President, to 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." He later responded to a direct question concerning the "completely false" nature of his statement: " ''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, the famous "is" statement of Clinton's). Now this is the same Bob Bennett who Clinton used to issue his Clintonesque denial in the Broaddrick case.

Connect the dots.

Do you know that DOZENS of women have come forward to allege harassment, assault and rape by Clinton over the years? Don't believe me? Well let me prove it.

"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 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.

Then 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." 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 ... we won't count these. We don't need to.

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. All of them proving I'm not insane but that you are, for still believing in Bill Clinton and Hillary.
Is that an actual McCain quote?
 
You meant, given that you can't spell "bait". You see you needed quotes to accurately correct my writing, you dolt.
I see, I don't call you any names (it was a spelling critique, not writing a critique, for your information)
Now aside from the infantile ad hominem attack that you based on a single typo ...
and you then choose to name call, but wish to assert that I am the one involved in ad homs?

I find that curious.

Did you notice the wink in my post, or is your eyesight impaired along with your vocabulary of four letter words?

You don't like the joke. Fine. No problems. It's all good. It's also a very, very old joke.

Now it's time to travel back to your little error. Let's examine the difference between spelling incorrectly based on a tyopgraphical mistake, and knowing what a word is:

bate vs bait

These two words differ in keystrokes on the conventional QWERTY keyboard.

left index-left pinkie-left index-left middle
versus
left index-left pinike-right middle-left middle

How does one make that mistake? Do you also use "could of" instead of "could have" in your writing, posting, or other prose endeavors?

DR
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom