Hillary as Secretary Of State? Change?

[BeAChooser]

As a physician, I can tell you that your medical analysis is fatally flawed.

Oh ... so now you are claiming to be an expert? This should be fun. Since I have already posted a link to on-line medical resources that state the anti-depressant Foster was given is for insomnia at the dosage it was prescribed and in the manner it was to be taken, why don't you provide one that proves that wrong.

But as I stated, I have no interest in playing this game.

Oh, I see, you are going to run.

I could spend an hour or two debunking this claim

Surely it wouldn't take an hour. I found my link in about 30 seconds.

ETA: If you would like a hint at the absurdity of your claim, try this little exercise. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands.

Having trouble actually dealing with the facts? Having to "conjecture"? Haven't you heard that conjecture isn't proof of anything?

 

[LibraryLady]

I've pulled out the discussion of bigotry and sent it ot AAH. If you want to start another discussion in a separate thread, please do so in a civil manner. This applies to all. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Tricky]

I'm not happy with the Clintonesque administration though, you can talk about policy for better or for worse but my position is if you promise to bring about change I don't see much change if the cabinet looking a lot like the Clinton era. It's starting to sound to me like same policies, different president.

I am a little unsure about it too. Obama seems to be borrowing a lot from past administrations (including Bush's), but as I detailed earlier, just because you have the same people doesn't mean they do the same thing. It is important not to waste experienced people because they are "tainted" with having been part of another administration. It isn't like people in politics work for eight years then disappear. They have careers too. Sometimes they change jobs. But I'm not giving Obama a free pass on this. I'm waiting to see how he uses people. I fully expect to disagree with some of it.

And it goes against that checklist Obama sat out as the criteria for applying for one of the cabinet spots... NY times article. (and for the record I don't expect anyone to be squeaky clean in politics, but some of his choices come across to me as relatively weak enforcement of those standards).

Interestingly, one of the main complaint of would-be-advisors is that the vetting process is too strict. They appear to be digging through closets with shovels looking for any trace of skeletons. Admittedly, this is not the same as making sure they are qualified, but it is clear that Obama doesn't want any Palin-like surprises. I'm frankly shocked by some of his choices. I really didn't think there was any chance of Hillary being S of S, and keeping Gates on as secretary of Defense is nearly mind-boggling for a man who ran on "get rid of this administration".

In general, I am impressed that Obama can put politics aside and truly look at what a candidate can offer, but it makes me nervous too. At this point, all we can say is "we'll see".

That's my take... include some people that have "must-haves" to work with policy, but the net change from Clinton to Bush and back to clintonesque seems at the surface anyway to be very little change

I don't think it's a change "back to clintonesque", but certainly it will be a lot more like the Clinton days than the last eight years. Let's face it. There are a lot of experienced people who worked with the Clintons, and Obama is, in fact, a Democrat. I sure don't want him pushing a lot of unexperienced cronies (the name Michael Brown comes to mind) into positions because they are "fresh voices".

The real question is will it be "Hillary Unleashed" or will she be forced to toe the line and mold her agenda to fit with Obama's. It's going to be very interesting.

 

[Tricky]

But since the naysayers on this thread apparently won't even address a single specific question regarding the case.

You mean except for the ones that did?

You see, BAC. This is why we don't bother. It makes so little impression on you that it is not worth doing. You don't even remember it.

Why don't you address that growing list of people who had to be "in on it". Doesn't that bother you at all?

Starr
Fiske
The Clintons
Other Clinton administration officials *
FBI agents *
Policemen *
Pathologists *
Foster's wife
Foster's friends *
Physicians *

And, oh yeah, Snopes.

This is where conspiracy theories always fall down. There had to be so many people who hate America and want to protect the Clintons. From my experience, only about 50% of people, maybe as many as 55%, really like the Clintons. Couple that with the fact that the Republicans held all the Presidency, both houses, and had a ideological majority in the Supreme Court for six of the last eight years, and you almost every single Republican refusing to give the Clintons what they deserved. They could have acted on this "evidence" if it had been worth their time. They could have launched an investigation, especially considering Hillary Clinton was a sitting Senator. When did they become protective of the Clintons?

The paranoia required to keep this belief up must be a tremendous strain on you. I wonder if you can get a prescription for that. And if you did, would you fight it?

 

[A'isha]

Well first of all, its easy to claim something is a *conspiracy* website,

"The federal investigative records on this web site prove the existence of an FBI / Independent Counsel / Media cover-up of the murder of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster."

That's not a conspiracy website?

but it would be far more effective for you to actually show that anything they state about the Foster case (certainly anything I've repeated) is false. I can't help but notice that you WON'T do that ... even when repeatedly challenged to do so.

Second, you obviously don't know ANYTHING about fbicover-up.com. Because if you did, you'd know the author of that website was an eyewitness at Marcy Park. You'd know that for the first time in history, a panel of three judges FORCED a special prosecutor to attach an addendum to his report, written by the author of that website, specifically accusing the OIC of witness intimidation and tampering with evidence. I bet you didn't even bother to glance at the site before making your comment. And I now challenge you to show that ANY claim made by Patrick Knowlton or his attorney on that website is false. Bet you run instead.

He basically proves himself wrong (or, at the least, is guilty of cherry-picking evidence from his "witnesses" when it suits his theory, and ignoring them when it would prove detrimental to his "case").

In his giant-ass court filing (which bears, in its pedantic minutiae, no small resemblance to Groden and Livingston's Kennedy assassination conspiracy book), Knowlton goes to some great pains to try and establish the fact that Vince Foster had been dead for a while (per Knowlton's own claimed witness statement). Lots of dried congealed blood, no flows or pools when the body is moved, and so on.

And yet, in the transcription of his audio CD interview with former US attorney Miguel Rodriguez (who Knowlton says blows the murder cover-up wide open because Rodriguez refused to go along with the cover-up and was removed from Starr's investigation), Knowlton (as "narrator"), says very plainly that the Fiske and Starr report "falsely" said that a large quantity of blood was found with the body.

Rodriguez corrects Knowlton, saying "By the way, you know why there was blood,", and says there was lots of blood gushing out because the body was moved onto a slope:

"They lifted the body and pulled it to the top of the ridge, top of the berm, and once they did that blood started flowing fast. And then when they took the body and put it into the body bag, which was right – in other words they – it was on a slope – they pull it up onto the slope. When the body is horizontal or even at the top of the berm it's not quite horizontal it's a little bit of a back-slope – and all of a sudden the blood starts gushing out, there's a lot of blood then under the body. "

In other words, the "barely any blood, and what was there was old and dried" evidence Knowlton relies on to support his claim that Vince Foster was murdered long before he was supposed to have committed suicide was shot down by his own star witness!

I invite you to try and show that the specific facts I stated regarding Starr are false. Bet you run instead.

Your ridiculous insinuations that Starr faked a typewritten note from Foster's doctor (especially when the contents of that note are the very thing you use to "prove" Starr a liar), for one.

I stated specifically why the Snopes article on Fosters death is flawed.

You are welcome to show what I said wrong. Bet you run instead.

What you said: "Note that Snopes states "Vince Foster committed suicide on the night of 20 July 1993 by shooting himself once in the head, a day after he contacted his doctor about his depression." But that claim is untrue. The doctor said Foster contacted him about INSOMNIA and he proscribed medication that was 1/6th the dose normally used to treat depression."

What his doctor said, as quoted by you: "I talked to Vince on 7/19/93, at which time he complained of anorexia and insomnia. He had no GI (gastrointestinal) symptoms. We discussed the possibility of taking Axid or Zantac to help with any ulcer symptoms as he was under a lot of stress. He was concerned about the criticism they were getting and the long hours he was working at the White House. He did feel that he had some mild depression."

The relevant portions are highlighted for you. Vince Foster contacted his doctor, and did talk about his depression then. Just as, remarkably, Snopes said.

I invite you to tell us specifically which evidence I've twisted. Bet you run instead.

I told you what evidence you twisted in the very post you quoted. Very convenient of you to delete that part, then mockingly "bet run instead."

If you did, you offered no specific criticism of the facts I brought out in that case either. Running?

Other contributors got there first, that's all. No point in repeating the unnecessary.

But if you're feeling particularly masochistic, I'd be happy to contribute.

That's your interpretation, but for the record I clearly didn't do that here.

This thread was specifically started by me to discuss whether the criminality of Hillary on three specific named scandals should be a factor in Obama making her Secretary of State. You could have accepted my statements of fact in the OP regarding those scandals.

Given your past record, what possible incentive would I have to do that?

But you're right; I stand corrected on that point. The Vince Foster thing was in your OP as a possible reason to be wary of Hillary Clinton's selection as Secretary of State, and so any discussion of that allegation is perfectly on topic.

I apologize for accusing you of hijacking this thread when you did not.

Statements I'm perfectly willing to defend and have on this thread with not one successful challenge to those facts. But you don't. If any expansion of the discussion has occurred, it's because with broad strokes the naysayers dismissed all allegations against the Clintons. Now I have tried my best to keep this thread focused on the three scandals named in the OP and provide verifiable facts to support my concerns. I've remained on topic. You are the one now waving hands and trying to derail the thread.

SO ... do you have anything SPECIFIC to challenge the facts I've laid out?

You mean other than this post?

If not, I really question your reason for being on this thread.

I have no doubt in my mind that you do.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Interestingly, one of the main complaint of would-be-advisors is that the vetting process is too strict. They appear to be digging through closets with shovels looking for any trace of skeletons. Admittedly, this is not the same as making sure they are qualified, but it is clear that Obama doesn't want any Palin-like surprises. I'm frankly shocked by some of his choices. I really didn't think there was any chance of Hillary being S of S, and keeping Gates on as secretary of Defense is nearly mind-boggling for a man who ran on "get rid of this administration".

The resume issue seems to be somewhat of a double-edged sword, on one hand it's very personal... and on the other in so far as I can see the enforcement of those standards seems to be weak particularly with Clinton getting a position as secretary of state. I'm troubled by both, I just don't know which to be more troubled by

I don't think it's a change "back to clintonesque", but certainly it will be a lot more like the Clinton days than the last eight years. Let's face it. There are a lot of experienced people who worked with the Clintons, and Obama is, in fact, a Democrat. I sure don't want him pushing a lot of unexperienced cronies (the name Michael Brown comes to mind) into positions because they are "fresh voices".

The real question is will it be "Hillary Unleashed" or will she be forced to toe the line and mold her agenda to fit with Obama's. It's going to be very interesting.

Well obviously introducing new faces for the sake of new faces wouldn't be a very wise criteria, so in effect I don't disagree with keeping people from previous administrations for the experience value. What I'm more concerned about is essentially how he assembles his cabinet. I just hope his administration doesn't become too much like Clinton, one of the reasons why I was opposed to her in the first place is that royal families creep me out... and after a double whami of Bush I'm not sure I necessarily want the same with a Clinton-like administration...

I'd be interested as well in how things turn out with Clinton in the mix Xd
I don't think I have to say much else for you to know where I stand with her...

 

[BeAChooser]

It is obviously scribbled quickly.

How do you know the agent doesn't just have messy handwriting? How do you know the agent wasn't balancing the paper on his knee while recording Lisa's responses to the questions? And why should scribbling make the agent put a completely wrong word in the location YOU CLAIM was meant for depression? It's remarkable that you can't see how unskeptical you are acting.

Sometimes when people write, their minds get ahead of themselves

Can you provide ANY proof the highly trained agent did this? Or are you just conjecturing ... which we all know is proof of NOTHING.

But nobody "fights a prescription". They may "fight addiction" or "fight depression" but they don't fight prescriptions.

Well as you said, perhaps the agent's mind got ahead of himself. Perhaps the agent was thinking "he was fighting addiction to prescriptions" but in his haste to scribble it down he just left out the italicized words. See? I can conjecture too. Using your own logic.

And of course, if he was "fighting addiction" that would mean that he was already addicted to "sleeping pills" as you call them.

No. That would only mean he wanted a prescription that wasn't likely to be addictive ... like sleeping pills might be if he were to use those. Desyrel is not addictive. http://www.whatmeds.com/meds/desyrel.html "Desyrel is not addictive".

Foster's doctor had indeed prescribed him an antidepressant.

But at the dosage and in the manner it is used for insomnia ... according to on-line medical references. Perhaps you can help gdnp find one that disagrees.

Perhaps it was only for "mild depression".

Why do you say perhaps? The doctor said he had mild depression. No one is contesting that ... except Fiske and Starr who claim he had "clinical" depression, which is much more severe.

Perhaps it was to help him sleep

Why do you say perhaps. The doctor told the FBI he prescribed the medicine so that he could "start sleeping better".

Your interpretation makes zero sense

Right Tricky. And yours does.

 

[Tricky]

The resume issue seems to be somewhat of a double-edged sword, on one hand it's very personal... and on the other in so far as I can see the enforcement of those standards seems to be weak particularly with Clinton getting a position as secretary of state. I'm troubled by both, I just don't know which to be more troubled by

I think the thing is that Obama doesn't want surprises. With Clinton, there aren't very many surprises. Everybody knows she killed Vince Foster, so we can just move on. It's the ones who have never had much public scrutiny that he is working to make sure they are puncture-proof.

Well obviously introducing new faces for the sake of new faces wouldn't be a very wise criteria, so in effect I don't disagree with keeping people from previous administrations for the experience value. What I'm more concerned about is essentially how he assembles his cabinet. I just hope his administration doesn't become too much like Clinton, one of the reasons why I was opposed to her in the first place is that royal families creep me out... and after a double whami of Bush I'm not sure I necessarily want the same with a Clinton-like administration...

I understand and share your feelings to a certain extent. I think the Clintons made a lot of mistakes, but they were light years better than Shrub's folks. So Obama is cherry-picking the best of both, and adding a few new faces. I can't really argue with this process, but like you, I am waiting to see results.

I'd be interested as well in how things turn out with Clinton in the mix.
I don't think I have to say much else for you to know where I stand with her...

LOL. No, I hear where you're comin' from.

 

[RandFan]

It's time to show you are a skeptic, RandFan

You got me. I'm actually a Clinton shill. That's going to surprise an awful lot of JREFers.

FWIW: I don't necassarily believe that Hillary's behavior is innocent. That doesn't make your thesis true.

 

[Tricky]

How do you know the agent doesn't just have messy handwriting? How do you know the agent wasn't balancing the paper on his knee while recording Lisa's responses to the questions? And why should scribbling make the agent put a completely wrong word in the location YOU CLAIM was meant for depression? It's remarkable that you can't see how unskeptical you are acting.

I don't know any of that, but my explanation makes a lot more sense than the claim that he was "fighting prescription", a phrase that has no real meaning. You claim that this meant he was fighting addiction, but of course, there was no addiction. He had never taken the antidepressant. The phrase "fighting prescription" is not an idiom anyone has ever heard of. You have not proposed a scenario where your interpretation makes any sense.

So I don't know for sure I'm right, but at least it makes some sense. Much more than yours.

Can you provide ANY proof the highly trained agent did this? Or are you just conjecturing ... which we all know is proof of NOTHING.

No. You have no proof of anything at all either. My explanation is no less conjecture than yours. But mine isn't nonsensical. That's the difference.

Well as you said, perhaps the agent's mind got ahead of himself. Perhaps the agent was thinking "he was fighting addiction to prescriptions" but in his haste to scribble it down he just left out the italicized words.

If he had any addictions to prescriptions, that might make sense. But he didn't. So it doesn't.

No. That would only mean he wanted a prescription that wasn't likely to be addictive ... like sleeping pills might be if he were to use those. Desyrel is not addictive.

Which is another reason why "fighting prescriptions" makes no sense. He wouldn't be fighting addictions to a non addictive drug would he? If you are suggesting the doctor first suggested an addictive drug and Foster turned it down, well... that might require a little more evidence than you have been known to present. But even if this purely conjectural conversation took place, it is unlikely that the doctor would have included this in his report when they were specifically asking about what might have led to Foster's suicide.

Oh. I forgot. He's in on the conspiracy.

But at the dosage and in the manner it is used for insomnia ... according to on-line medical references. Perhaps you can help gdnp find one that disagrees.

Nevertheless, it is an antidepressant. The doctor certainly didn't know Foster was suicidal. Patients surprise doctors all the time in this regard. He recognized mild depression at least though. Doctors do this. They try small steps and move up if the small steps aren't working. (You can verify this with gdnp if you like.) They are also not perfect in their diagnosis of mental disorders. The brain is a funny, unpredictable thing.

Why do you say perhaps? The doctor said he had mild depression. No one is contesting that ... except Fiske and Starr who claim he had "clinical" depression, which is much more severe.

In retrospect, it is easier to diagnose clinical depression after the patient has committed suicide. The doctor should not be blamed for missing it. People can fool their doctors, especially as regards mental conditions. There isn't a urine test for clinical depression.

Right Tricky. And yours does.

Much more so. I'd be willing to put that to a vote here if you like. But then, we're all in on the conspiracy too. Watch out for black helicopters around your house. Just sayin'.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I think the thing is that Obama doesn't want surprises. With Clinton, there aren't very many surprises.

Clinton's also well known for her scandals and her adamant personality, she may not bring in too many surprises, but I'm really not sure I want to know what she could bring in if unleashed... heh... at this point I'll reserve my most adamant criticism for later.

I can't speak for the others, I'm not too big on politics as it is and I only know my stance with Clinton because I've heard about her much more... You have to figure I wasn't even a pre-teen when she and Bill were in power

 

[gdnp]

Having trouble actually dealing with the facts? Having to "conjecture"? Haven't you heard that conjecture isn't proof of anything?

My statement had nothing to do with conjecture. It was simply a list of the people you have implicated in the conspiracy: people who have lied, intentionally covered up, or otherwise falsified evidence. I have thus left out people like the press and Snopes, who could have been deluded.

So I'll give you another chance.

Please give us a list of all the people who have participated in the murder and coverup of Vince Foster.

Bet you run instead.

Now Tricky, you know full well that is not how I debunked the last person to make that claim. My posts have contained considerably more details. I know you are unhappy that I took your challenge regarding the depression claim apart, but must you misrepresent my statements on this forum?

I guess you haven't figured this out yet, but the winner isn't the one who posts the most words, or who posts last. It is the one who has the most convincing argument. Shall we post a poll of JREF members who have reviewed both points of view and see whether your or Tricky's analysis makes the most sense?

 

[BeAChooser]

Actually that's what Insight Magazine reports about the FBI interview (despite your attempts to disguise the source by using a Findarticles link).

First of all, I didn't disguise anything. Talk about CT. I simply posted the link where I found his FBI interview excerpts. Or are you suggesting he wasn't interviewed? That would be odd, wouldn't it. And the link I provided clearly states that "Insight On The News" is the source. So I wasn't disguising anything.

Second, you haven't actually proven that the quote by Dr Watkins in that article is false. The typed statement by Watkins in the Starr report tells exactly the same story. It says he complained of insomnia, had MILD depression and lists the same medication and dosage. So are claiming the Starr report is wrong about this?

This is the same Insight Magazine that essentially made up that story about Obama attending a Wahhabist madrassa in Indonesia

So you claim.

I was unable to find any discussion of this FBI interview on any non-conspiracy website.]

Well I guess we should interpret that statement based on your definition of a "non-conspiracy" website.

It doesn't seem to be in the actual Fiske Report on Foster's death.

So are you claiming the FBI did no interview with Dr. Watkins? Wouldn't that be a huge oversight?

So, this conspiracy to hide the Clintons' involvement in Vince Foster's murder

Have I said ANYTHING on this thread about the Clinton's being involved in Vince Foster's murder? No, I have not. I've only pointed to what appears to be a coverup by the Clinton adminstration regarding a murder, regardless of who committed it. And it's not just me and "conspiracy" websites claiming this. It's people like Miquel Rodriguez, who was Starr's top investigator.

That amused me the most (even aside from AIM being your main source for this...are you ever going to quote from an unbiased source?).

Is there such a thing anywhere? I happen to think your sources are biased. I guess we can only reach a conclusion on the basis of facts ... and I have no problem with that.

And you didn't like that article about Berman? Well try this one:

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-dr-alan-bermans-loud-silence/

Yet again, typical truther. "My theory is obviously the only one that fits the facts...as long as you totally ignore the actual physical evidence involved, that is!"

Only problem is that the physical evidence Berman used as the starting point for his analysis were the proven lies of Starr regarding what eyewitnesses said the night Foster died regarding his mental state and regarding Foster's "clinical" depression.

 

[BeAChooser]

The person who wrote this note did not write "fighting prescription", he wrote "fighting ---> prescription". Which is what I might have written if I wanted to write "fighting depression and was given a prescription."

Or if one wanted to conjecture differently, write something like "fighting addiction to prescription." That would be consistent with the known fact that Foster had been experiencing insomnia for some time and the fact that Lisa Foster told the FBI that Vince didn't want to take sleeping pills because "he was afraid that he would become addicted to them."

That certainly makes more sense than your conjecture since the dosage of anti-depressant was consistent with using the drug for insomnia, not depression.

But you go ahead and keep spinning, gdnp.

 

[Tricky]

So you claim.

No. So YOU claim. You make a preposterous claim that even many of Clinton's worst enemies don't support, and you support it with cherry-picked quotes and unsubstantiated innuendo from conspiracy theory websites.

Your claim has not convinced anyone here (except perhaps MaGZ) and you have continued to implicate more and more people in the "conspiracy" to cover this up.

Your claim has been rejected. Not just by us, but by the world, exclusive of Clinton-hating cells. If you had real evidence, there's plenty of fervent dislike for Clinton out there and there are plenty of legitimate legal firms who would gladly take it up. But you don't, and they won't. You want evidence? That's evidence.

 

[BeAChooser]

This is sounding more and more like it ought to be moved to Conspiracy Theories.

Well I hope that doesn't happen because that would only prove something about the forum that I certainly hope is not true. Also note that it was you who first led us down this path (see post #3).

 

[BeAChooser]

Interestingly, one of the main complaint of would-be-advisors is that the vetting process is too strict.

Yeah, they're required to provide a whole bunch of information that Obama didn't want to tell us about himself during the campaign.

Now back to the OP topic ... and it's not a general discussion of *change*.

 

[RandFan]

Well I hope that doesn't happen because that would only prove something about the forum that I certainly hope is not true. Also note that it was you who first led us down this path (see post #3).

It does smack of CT. It meets all of the criteria. What would it prove?

 

[Tricky]

Well I hope that doesn't happen because that would only prove something about the forum that I certainly hope is not true. Also note that it was you who first led us down this path (see post #3).

Oh, it was me who led us down this path? Gee. You don't have a very good memory, do you. Let's have a look at a part of post #1.

Hillary was directly implicated in a coverup involving the possible murder of Vince Foster.

You're not doing your credibility (such as it is) any favors here, BAC.

 

[BeAChooser]

You mean except for the ones that did?

The only one person I can think of that actually challenged a specific fact is you. And I shot you down right away. The doctor said insomnia was the concern. The doctor said "mild depression". And the dosage was for insomnia. Case closed.

Why don't you address that growing list of people who had to be "in on it".

Because you just want to derail the thread. You don't want to deal with the specific facts I listed (because you know I will shoot you down again just as I did the last time). So you throw out a red herring. Because if the evidence shows Foster was murdered then however many people were "in on it" is however many people who were "in on it". And as was pointed out previously, conjecture ... and that's all this latest argument is ... is not proof of ANYTHING.

And, oh yeah, Snopes.

I already pointed out that Snopes is just lazy and probably leans a little to the left so it's willing to swallow a Clinton protecting lie quite easily.

This is where conspiracy theories always fall down.

No Tricky. You are wrong. Where conspiracy theories fall down is that they don't fit the facts. You need only visit the CT forum to verify that. The most effective arguments against CT'ers are those that show the facts are not what they claim. And note that on this thread I have effectively shown that the facts are not what the Fiske/Starr theory claims. Making Fiske and Starr's theory the woo.

Couple that with the fact that the Republicans held all the Presidency, both houses, and had a ideological majority in the Supreme Court for six of the last eight years, and you almost every single Republican refusing to give the Clintons what they deserved. They could have acted on this "evidence" if it had been worth their time. They could have launched an investigation, especially considering Hillary Clinton was a sitting Senator. When did they become protective of the Clintons?

That argument was already addressed by me earlier. You didn't challenge the specific points I made then. So don't think that by simply repeating the claim you win the argument. What you do is display a classic behavior of CT proponents. Avoid responding to the other side's response. And besides, all this is again beside the point. Whatever the reason republicans did nothing does not change the facts. And it is the facts that point to Foster being murdered rather than committing suicide.