Hillary Rodham Clinton Going to Announce Today

-

inside-hillaryclinton.jpg
Hillary Clinton will be announcing she is running for President today.
A good chance to see her in presidential mode will be at the New America Foundation‘s “10 Big Ideas” event — which oddly is not posted yet on New America’s website — on 31 January 2007 at the Hyatt Regency on Capital Hill. I think the time of the event runs from 11 am until 2:30 p.m.
For info, contact Elizabeth Wu at wu@newamerica.net.
The meeting will feature major speeches by Hillary Clinton and Lindsey Graham and a number of New America Foundation fellows and program directors on big “domestic policy ideas” that they are promoting — in the ‘expected absence’ of much of this discussion in the President’s State of the Union speech.
More soon.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

80 comments on “Hillary Rodham Clinton Going to Announce Today

  1. paul peugh says:

    i think hillary clinton, running for president is great ideal, when clinton was in office this country had lots money, now bush has taking all that away, we pay for higher gas prices at the pump,cost living gone up, this world need to wake up, let clintion’s have it for another 8 yrs.i think the clinton’s will do some good things this country needs, we need more jobs, quit giving our jobs to hispanic people when us american people need these jobs, i can say one thing they did for every american, they made sure we had good health care before they left office, now it all gone thanks to bush, i cant even see my doctor anymore, cause he not in my health plan, health care need to be lower, and i think clinton one will get things done for us american people, american wantnt be poor like we are now, once clintion get back in office. hillary clinton, you got my vote, you go girl, get what american needs, american people need you and bill to run this country, get thing lower, and back to way things was, i could care less what they did in whitewater thing, who cares, bill and hillary clinton did a promise job, and well done, until bush mess it all up, this thing on iraq, was the dumbs move i’ve seen, we shouldnt have been at war this long, should did what his father done, and got are troops home fast, now clinton wants to end it, i’m so gald for it, all i can say, its about time we ended war in iraq, enough killing are troops, if they want to kill, let the people in iraq kill each other, it time to bring are troops home to there wifes and children, and loves one.hilary, go get your preident and make us american agian, where we can be proud to call this the united states of american, god bless you hillary and bill clinton.
    a true american

    Reply

  2. pauline says:

    Oh, yes, the above article from 1/23/07 is entitled,
    “Hillary Clinton and the Israel Lobby”

    Reply

  3. pauline says:

    “George W. Bush’s position on Iran is “disturbing” and “dangerous,” reads a position paper written in late 2005 by American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). One year ago the Bush administration accepted a Russian proposal to allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear energy under Russian supervision. Needless to say, AIPAC wasn’t the least bit happy about the compromise.
    In a letter to congressional allies, mostly Democrats, the pro-Israel organization admitted it was “concerned that the decision not to go to the Security Council, combined with the U.S. decision to support the ‘Russian proposal,’ indicates a disturbing shift in the Administration’s policy on Iran and poses a danger to the U.S. and our allies.”
    Israel, however, continues to develop a substantial nuclear arsenal. In 2000, the British Broadcasting Corporation reported that Israel has likely produced enough plutonium to make up to 200 nuclear weapons. So it is safe to say that Israel’s bomb-building technologies are light years ahead of Iran’s budding nuclear program. Yet Israel still won’t admit they have capacity to produce such deadly weapons.
    Meanwhile, as AIPAC and Israel pressure the U.S. government to force the Iran issue to the UN Security Council, Israel itself stands in violation of numerous UN resolutions dealing with the occupied territories of Palestine, including UN Resolution 1402, which in part calls on Israel to withdraw its military from all Palestinian cities at once.”
    http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=10372

    Reply

  4. Robert Morrow says:

    Note to all about when Lisa Meyers interviewed Juanita Broaddrick about Bill’s rape of her in 1978. When Juanita started talking about how she was sure by Hillary’s actions that Hillary knew about Bill’s rape of her, Lisa Meyers and Co. stopped the taping and told Juanita they did not want to talk about that!!!
    Hillary covers for rapist Bill
    and she brags about setting up Arkansas’ 1st rape crisis hotline
    Doug from Upland, a poster on FreeRepublic, personally knows someone (probably Larry Nichols) who was in the room in 1978 with Buddy Young when Hillary came running in and said, “You will never believe what the motherfucker [Bill] did now, he tried to rape some bitch!”
    Later at a political rally for Bill being held at someone’s house, Juanita attended it, still terrified to tell anyone publicly that Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton had raped her (twice, within 15 minutes). Juanita wrote in a public letter (10-15-00) to Hillary:
    “Do you remember how you [Hillary] thanked me, saying “we want to thank you for everything that you do for Bill.” At that point, I was pretty shaken and started to walk off. Remember how you kept a tight grip on my hand and drew closer to me?
    You repeated your statement, but this time with a coldness and look that I have seen many times on television in the last eight years. You said, “Everything you do for Bill”. You then released your grip and I said nothing and left the gathering.
    What did you mean, Hillary? Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to continue to keep quiet?” – Juanita Broaddrick
    Juanita said that she became physically ill within seconds of Hillary’s grasping behavior and had to leave the party/rally within minutes. Juanita says, “I could have passed out at that moment and I got my hand from hers [Hillary’s] and I left. She was just holding onto my hand. Because I had started to turn away from her and she held onto my hand and [Hillary] said ‘Do you understand? EVERYTHING that you do,’ cold chills went up my spine.” That’s the first time I became afraid of that woman.”
    In other words, Hillary was telling Juanita to shut up about Bill’s savage rape of her. In 1998 when Juanita finally publicly said that Clinton had raped her – she had privately out cried to her husband and friends at the time in 1978 – she was audited for the first time EVER by the IRS, run by Hillary’s close friend from Yale Law School Margaret Milner Richardson. Additionally, Juanita’s home was broken into (and her three cats were let loose) just like Gennifer Flowers’ condo was illegally entered in 1992 and Juanita was under surveillance, too. So Juanita gets physically raped by Bill and then she gets financially raped by Hillary when she comes public. That’s Hillary: co-President, co-Governor, co-Rapist.
    Juanita is not the only woman Bill has sexually terrorized. Have you ever had a boy dog jump up on your shin and start madly humping it like it thought your shin was a girl dog? That is how Hillary’s fake husband Bill courts women – like that dog madly humping your shin. He also likes to painfully bite girls’ lips. If a girl says “NO” 6 times in a row and finally can’t speak anymore because Bill is savagely biting and chewing her bottom lip, Bill thinks this means “yes.” Actually, he does not care.

    Reply

  5. hillnoshesgottogo says:

    Sorry about the double post…it’s my first time here…let the games begin! hillnoshesgottogo

    Reply

  6. hillnoshesgottogo says:

    Hillary Clinton
    A Poem
    Hillary’s here…
    Hillary’s there…
    Hillary Clinton’s everywhere!
    Hail to the Chieftess and her First Mate
    May God have mercy on our Ship-of-State
    Pray God will give us a cleaned up slate!
    Give no more headlines of indiscretions
    Give no more words of feigned intentions
    Reveal yourself and your predilections!
    We’re all ears and we’re all eyes
    Watching and waiting as you spew forth your lies
    Believe me, Senator Clinton, you’re no surprise!
    HILL NO! SHE’S GOT TO GO! TM
    http://www.hillnoshesgottogo.com
    H R C
    A presidential wannabe!
    Yes? No? Maybe so…
    HILL NO! SHE’S GOT TO GO! TM
    http://www.hillnoshesgottogo.com
    My fellow Americans … choose anybody but Hillary! Choose Edwards, choose Obama, choose another worthy Democrat … anybody but Hillary!

    Reply

  7. hillnoshesgottogo says:

    Hillary Clinton
    A Poem
    Hillary’s here…
    Hillary’s there…
    Hillary Clinton’s everywhere!
    Hail to the Chieftess and her First Mate
    May God have mercy on our Ship-of-State
    Pray God will give us a cleaned up slate!
    Give no more headlines of indiscretions
    Give no more words of feigned intentions
    Reveal yourself and your predilections!
    We’re all ears and we’re all eyes
    Watching and waiting as you spew forth your lies
    Believe me, Senator Clinton, you’re no surprise!
    HILL NO! SHE’S GOT TO GO! TM
    http://www.hillnoshesgottogo.com
    H R C
    A presidential wannabe!
    Yes? No? Maybe so…
    HILL NO! SHE’S GOT TO GO! TM
    http://www.hillnoshesgottogo.com
    My fellow Americans … choose anybody but Hillary! Choose Edwards, choose Obama, choose another worthy Democrat … anybody but Hillary!

    Reply

  8. Winnipeger says:

    frank, frank, frank…
    if you knew anything about judaism, you’d realize that for hillary to announce on shabbat is an AFFRONT to observant jews, not a tip of the cap.
    if she really wanted to suck up to AIPAC she would have rested on shabbat, as jews are commanded and announced on sunday.
    any observant jews who support hillary were not able to listen to or see her announcement because they do not watch television, listen to the radio, talk on the phone, etc. from sundown friday night until after sundown saturday.

    Reply

  9. Frank says:

    Winnepeger Winnepeger, Winnepeger…..in response to your question about Hillary’s announcing on the Jewish Sabbath I thought it appropriate for her to do so to reflect a layman’s recognition that the big money behind Hillary’s drive for the presidency is AIPAC driven.
    Connect the bloody dots.

    Reply

  10. Winnipeger says:

    Winnipeger, your response to my warning is duly noted and you can expect legal action against you beginning Monday. See you in federal court.
    Next?
    Posted by: JUDITH HANEY at January 21, 2007 02:49 AM
    ROTFL!!!!!!!

    Reply

  11. Pissed Off American says:

    BTW, check it out. Wesley Clarke now gets to join the long list of “anti-semites”, right in line behind Jinmmy Carter………
    http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/22198.html

    Reply

  12. Pissed Off American says:

    Hey Haney, you musta missed my response to you. I will repost it here after a couple of additional comments. First, it is somewhat inexplicable to me that you cannot see that your ridiculous threats of litigation serve to underscore my stated opinion of you and your tactics. “Slimey” perfectly describes them, and if you think you can squeeze a dollar out of being called “slimey”, than hey, feel free to jump up and down in your attorney’s office all you want. As I said, your tactics are despicable, and your obvious fixation on the Clinton’s of yesteryear is just a bit over the top, in light of the current state of our nation.
    And, if in fact you have a “good name”, why in God’s name are you abusing it so horribly here? You aren’t doing yourself any favors with this horseshit, Haney.
    Here, in case you missed it…
    I don’t relish seeing Hillary in the White House any more than you do. But your tactics are despicable, and dishonest. And the way you present them is every bit as “slimey” as the worst of the “organized” swiftboaters.
    There is plenty of reason to oppose Hillary, not the least of which is her complete absence from any meaningful attempts to rein in the Bush Administration these last six years.
    But if you are the kind of “compatriot” that I feel I must align myself with to oppose her nomination, no thanks, I’ll do it my own way. I have to look in the mirror in the mornings. I find your horseshit every bit as slimey as the worst of the Rovian crap.
    This country has enough PRESENT problems, without you and your ilk dredging up old slanders and unproven accusations. Personally, at this point, I don’t care if Bill screwed his way through an orphanage, or Hillary had every lawyer that ever opposed her dumped somewhere in the Bermuda Triangle. Such events pale in the face of the carnage we see unfolding in Iraq, and the treasonous crimes of the Bush Administration. If you truly want to do this country some good, than lets get these lying bastards out of the White House. After that, there will be plenty of time for you to fixate on Bill’s crotch and Hillary’s (past) duplicities.

    Reply

  13. Dennis says:

    It is unfortunate that we are coming to another presidential election where the citizens of the United States have to chose between the lesser of evils.
    It’s not that there aren’t other good and better people. It’s just that our current system of “Let’s buy a president” by the corporations, or “In exchange for your compaign contributions, I’ll give you what you want when I’m elected” crooked politicians prevent qualified, ethical people from wanting to serve in politics.
    You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

    Reply

  14. Den Valdron says:

    There’s something about the Clinton name that brings the crazies out of the woodwork. Judith/Rob/Haney/Morrow seem obsessed with dragging out an endless catalogue of fictional and paranoid grievances.
    Do us all a favour, tell it to someone who cares. The level of obsession and pathological indifference to facts suggests disturbed personalities at work.

    Reply

  15. liz says:

    No more Clintons. No more Bushes. These families have no chokehold on the presidency. If Hilliary is elected, it’s more of the same. Remember Bubba is Big Bush’s best freind.Continuing Bush/Clinton is bad for America.

    Reply

  16. Ben Rosengart says:

    What the hell is going on on this board, Steve?

    Reply

  17. JUDITH HANEY says:

    TO: STEVE CLEMONS
    Be advised that I am referring your website to my attorneys for the purpose of filing civil claims against anonymous individuals who have maliciously libeled and slandered me.
    I will subpoena your records and obtain their identities via their internet service providers beginning Monday.
    Your failure to monitor your website and prevent harm to me and others who post here is unacceptable and constitutes negligence on your part. You have allowed mentally disturbed sociopaths to post personal messages to me, and in so doing, you have given these people a vehicle that they would otherwise not have available to them.
    Judith Haney
    P.O. Box 380911
    Birmingham, AL 35238

    Reply

  18. JUDITH HANEY says:

    Winnipeger, your response to my warning is duly noted and you can expect legal action against you beginning Monday. See you in federal court.
    Next?

    Reply

  19. Robert Morrow says:

    Hillary, a misogynist “feminist” calls Bill’s sex victims and girlfriends
    “bitches,” “whores,” “sluts” and “trailor trash” and says they must be “destroyed.” Then she hires a secret police to harass, intimidate and terrify these women into silence. Hillary is very worthy of jail and it is both disturbing and laughable that she is a presidential candidate. I forecast Hillary will not even make it out of the Demo primaries.
    Anthony Pellicano, one of the many thugs she has used, is in jail in LA for doing the same sort of things he did for the 1984 Arkansas Mother of the Year.

    Reply

  20. Robert Morrow says:

    Dear American Friends,
    There is a very real possibility that Hillary, Bill and/or Buddy Young, their top aide, organized the murder of Jerry Parks on Sept. 26, 1993.
    Hillary and Bill have been accused of a lot of things over the years and, in fact, most of it is true. People ask, why there is so much antipathy towards them? Quick answer: they have used, abused, and personally violated so many people – many of these victims are friends, supporters, Democrats, campaign contributors – and they brazenly lie so often, people just don’t forget that. Outside of ideological battles, the Clintons have made such a deep well of enemies because of their narcissistic behavior.
    I personally think Vince Foster, Hillary’s boyfriend and emotional husband, was severely depressed, because he had compromised himself with the Clintons, and he went into a suicidal meltdown and killed himself on July 20, 1993.
    But I also think Hillary or Bill personally ordered Buddy Young, the leader of his state trooper security detail, to beat up and nearly kill on June 26th, 1992, Gary Johnson, Gennifer Flowers’ neighbor, who had security camera videotapes of Bill entering Gennifer’s condominium often. They stole Johnson’s tapes, savagely beating and nearly killed him.
    Secondly, I think that the same people who beat up Gary Johnson were the sames ones who killed Jerry Parks on Sept. 26, 1993. It is very possible that Hillary or Bill gave direct orders (or looked away approvingly) to Buddy Young to murder Jerry Parks so that Parks would not release his surveillance file on Bill that Hillary and Vince Foster had paid him to create. That politically explosive file, complete with photos and detailed notes, details Bill’s vast amounts of affairs.
    Based on this and Hillary’s other use of a secret police engaging in criminal intimidation tactics, I think the Clintons should be in jail absolutely nowhere near the reigns of political power.
    I have not even mentioned Bill’s history of rape (Juanita Broaddrick) and serial sexual assaults and Hillary’s 30 year role in protecting and enabling him.
    So I am definitely supporting John Edwards in the 2008 Democratic primary, not Hillary.
    Robert Morrow 512-306-1510 Austin, TX
    Jerry Parks had been hired by Hillary and her boyfriend Vince Foster to spy on Bill in the 1980’s and beyond. Parks was killed on September 26, 1993. Check out this link:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3881be833d65.htm
    THE PARKS MURDER – Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
    Crime/Corruption Opinion (Published) Keywords: JERRY PARKS, MURDER, ASSASSINATION, FOSTER, DRUG TRAFFICKING, CLINTON, HILLARY
    Source: The Secret Life Of Bill Clinton
    Published: 1997 Author: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
    Posted on 01/16/2000 04:50:11 PST by Uncle Bill
    THE PARKS MURDER – Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
    The Secret Life Of Bill Clinton
    1997 Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
    Phone Call Rings Clinton Alarm Bells
    Foster ‘hired detective to spy on Clinton’
    “I’M A DEAD MAN,” whispered Jerry Parks, pale with shock, as he looked up at the television screen. It was a news bulletin on the local station in Little Rock. Vincent Foster, a childhood friend of the President, had been found dead in a park outside Washington. Apparent suicide.
    He never explained to his son Gary what he meant by that remark, but for the next two months the beefy 6′ 3″ security executive was in a state of permanent fear. He would pack a pistol to fetch the mail. On the way to his offices at American Contract Services in Little Rock he would double back or take strange routes to “dry-clean” the cars that he thought were following him. At night he kept tearing anxiously at his eyebrows, and raiding the valium pills of his wife, Jane, who was battling multiple sclerosis. Once he muttered darkly that Bill Clinton’s people were “cleaning house,” and he was “next on the list.”
    Two months later, in September 1993, Jerry and Jane went on a Caribbean cruise. He seemed calmer. At one of the islands he went to take care of some business at a bank. She believed it was Grand Cayman. They returned to their home in the rural suburbs of Little Rock on September 25. The next day Jane was in one of her “down” periods, so Jerry went off on his own for the regular Sunday afternoon supper at El Chico Mexican Restaurant.
    On the way back, at about 6:30 PM, a white Chevrolet Caprice pulled up beside him on the Chenal Parkway. Before Parks had time to reach for his .38 caliber “detective special” that he kept tucked between the seats, an assassin let off a volley of semi-automatic fire into his hulking 320 pound frame.
    Parks skidded to a halt in the intersection of Highway 10. The stocky middle-aged killer jumped out and finished him off with a 9 mm handgun–two more shots into the chest at point blank range. Several witnesses watched with astonishment as the nonchalant gunman joined his accomplice in the waiting car and sped away.
    It was another three months before news of the murder of Jerry Luther Parks reached me in Washington. The U.S. national media were largely unaware of the story, which surprised me because Parks had been in charge of security at the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign headquarters in Little Rock.
    On my next trip to the state I decided to drop by at the archives of The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette to see if they had covered the death. There were two routine homicide stories by reporter Ward Pincus, mostly focusing on disputes that Parks had had with a former partner.
    I contacted the writer, who had since moved to New York. To my surprise he turned out to be the son of Walter Pincus, the intelligence correspondent for The Washington Post and a friend of Vincent Foster. In fact, Walter Pincus had lunched with Foster at the Federal City Club on July 9, eleven days before the death. Afterward Pincus had written an “op-ed” piece in The Post saying that Foster was visibly cracking under the strain of Washington life.
    It was a persuasive article, the suicide clincher. I remember reading it at the time and thinking: “Well, that’s it, then, case closed.”
    What his son told me was astounding. When he spoke to Jane Parks the day after the death she said that her husband had been involved with Vince Foster and she seemed to think there was a political dimension to the murder. She was distraught, almost hysterical. Ward Pincus did not know what to make of it, so he consulted his editors at The Democrat-Gazette. Should he go out to visit the widow and try to find out what on earth she was talking about? No, they said, don’t bother. Soon afterward, Jane Parks withdrew into her shell and refused to give any interviews to the press.
    By asking around, I learned that her son Gary, then 23, might be willing to talk. He was half-underground, sleeping on the floor in different houses, afraid that he too could be the target of attack. Messages were passed back and forth through the informal network of civic opposition in Arkansas. He agreed to talk, given that I was a “foreigner,” he said, and not part of the corrupt U.S. media cabal. It was a sentiment I encountered often in Arkansas.
    We met for dinner at the Little Rock Hilton. His escort arrived first, “sweeping” the lobby, the bar, and even the bathrooms, before giving the all clear. It was like being back in El Salvador or Guatemala, where I had worked as a correspondent during la violencia of the early 1980s. I never imagined that I would witness such a spectacle in the United States.
    A big strapping fellow like his father, Gary Parks was in constant pain from a wound he had suffered in the navy. A propeller had ripped through his right shoulder. He described his father as a harsh martinet, who once made him run miles in freezing cold weather, drenched and shirtless. But in the security business the name Jerry Parks was good metal. Bill Clinton had appointed him to the board of Arkansas Private Investigators. He was a player. He knew how to keep his mouth shut, too.
    Wolfing down a huge piece of steak–he seemed to be half starved–Gary then said that his father had been collecting files on Bill Clinton. “Working on his infidelities,” he said, grinning. “It had been going on for years. He had enough to impeach Bill Clinton on the spot.”
    At some point in 1988, when he was about 17, he had accompanied Jerry on four or five nocturnal missions. Armed with long range surveillance cameras, they would stake out the haunts of the Governor until the early hours of the morning. Quapaw Towers was one of them, he remembered. That was where Gennifer Flowers lived.
    It was a contract job, Gary believed, but he did not know who was paying for the product. Some of the material was kept in two files, stored in the bottom drawer of the dresser in his parents’ bedroom. He had sneaked in one day, terrified that his father might catch him, and flicked through the papers just long enough to see photos of women coming and going with Governor Clinton, and pages of notes in his father’s handwriting. In one of the photos Clinton was with Captain Raymond “Buddy” Young of the State Police.
    In late July 1993 the family house on Barrett Road was burgled in a sophisticated operation that involved cutting the telephone lines and disarming the electronic alarm system. The files were stolen. Gary suspected that this was somehow tied to his father’s death two months later.
    “I believe that Bill Clinton had my father killed to protect his political career,” he told me that evening. “We’re dealing with a secretive machine here in Arkansas that can shut anyone up in a moment.”
    It was a startling allegation. He was accusing the President of the United States of using a death squad to eliminate enemies. I knew at once that this was a news story that had to be pursued. It was an infinitely more serious issue than Whitewater, and Watergate, too, for that matter.
    But why would a bimbo file cause such alarm? And how much did Gary Parks really know anyway? He had been away in the navy. His father had kept him in the dark.
    It was imperative to interview his mother. It was she who knew the secrets.
    At first Mrs. Parks would not talk to me, except to confirm in a general way that there were indeed files, that they had been stolen, and that Gary was telling the truth. The Little Rock Police had told her not to talk to the press until the case was solved, and she had agreed.
    But by the spring of 1994 she was losing faith. The original detective, Tom James, had been pulled off the case. It was becoming apparent that the eyewitness accounts of the death were being ignored by the police. Witnesses had described two assassins: hefty men, with beer bellies and broad shoulders, greyish hair, in their late forties or early fifties. Yet the police kept saying that there was only one killer in the car.
    Jane Parks went to visit a top official from the State Police whom she knew well from her church network. He told her outright that the murder was a conspiracy hatched in Hot Springs by five men who moved in the social circle of Buddy Young, the former chief of Governor Clinton’s security detail and now the regional director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the south-central United States. She was given the names of the five men, and was told that they flipped coins to decide which two would carry out the execution. And finally, she was told that nothing was ever going to be done about it.
    Torn by conflicting impulses, afraid for the safety of her two sons, she agreed to meet me. It was the beginning of a three-year dialogue in which she slowly opened up, and slowly came to terms with her husband’s life as an officer in the Dixie Cartel. With time, and new drugs that restored a degree of health, she began to recall the details that had been repressed and buried.
    Her account confronted me with a journalistic dilemma of the first order. Certain episodes could be corroborated, which established a pattern of veracity, but the most shocking allegations were based on her word alone. I made an intuitive decision to publish. At times the moral imperatives of reportage require one to violate the Columbia School codex. Somebody has to give a voice to the little people. I offer readers her story for what it is: her word, sometimes supported by other evidence, sometimes not.
    Jane Parks is a slender, elegant brunette, with high cheekbones and a Scots-Irish look about her. On her good days, one would never have known that she was suffering from multiple sclerosis. Tanned and carefully made up, with a soft southern voice, she is undoubtedly an attractive woman. Unaware of who she was, Kenneth Starr had once chatted her up at the Little Rock Athletic Club. She, in turn, noted that he had a “gorgeous body” in his gym shorts.
    But at the same time she is a fervent Pentecostal, a member of the Assembly of God Church. She had separated from Jerry Parks early in their marriage, during his brash, heavy-drinking days. The condition for reunion was that he give himself to the Lord and be born again, which he did. Although not everybody was convinced.
    “Jerry professed to be a devout Christian. He was obsessed with that image, but he was one of the biggest hypocrites I’ve ever met in my life,” said his former business partner, and enemy, John D. McIntire. “He was power-hungry, out to prove that he was a big shot.”
    Jane Parks was not entirely convinced either. But going through the motions was a good deal better than the boorish behavior of the past. At least he had stopped drinking.
    In the summer of 1984 Mrs. Parks was the manager of a mid-scale apartment complex called Vantage Point. She was informed by the real estate agents that a nonpaying guest would be coming to stay for a while. She was told to take care of him, no questions asked. The guest turned out to be Roger Clinton, college-dropout, rock-musician, consumate scoundrel, kid brother, or, to be more precise, half-brother, of the Governor–and a Clinton appointee to the Arkansas Crime Commission’s Juvenile Advisory Board.
    Mrs. Parks installed him in the corporate suite, room B107. The suite and her offices had originally been part of the same condominium, but they had been divided in two by a thin partition. For the next two months she and her assistant found themselves the reluctant audience of Roger Clinton’s Bohemian recreations. Even during the quiet office hours of 9 to 5 the goings-on were wild. And sometimes the conduct was so outre’ that the two of them would have to leave their office and wait outside until the ecstasies had subsided.
    The Kid Brother was going through a bad patch. At that time he was nearing the disastrous culmination of a five-year cocaine addiction. “By mid-1984, Roger spent virtually every waking hour getting high or trying to get high,” wrote Arkansas commentator Meredith Oakley, in her book On the Make.
    Roger was already the target of a sting operation by a joint state-federal narcotics task force. In April 1994 he had been filmed by hidden surveillance cameras at an apartment in Hot Springs disparaging “niggers,” and cutting a rock of cocaine for sale.
    “Boy, this is some good coke,” says the undercover informant. “It’s decent, it’s decent,” allows the Kid Brother. He knew he was under suspicion but cockily assumed that he was untouchable. “I’ve got four or five guys in uniform who keep an eye on the guys who keep an eye on me,” he explained.
    The surveillance archive is a revealing set of tapes. At one point Roger reached for the telephone to order some merchandise from his Colombian friend Maurice Rodriguez, a man listed on FBI documents as an international trafficker with ties to the Colombian cartels. This is not a mixed-up kid who crosses the line a couple of times and gets caught. This is a serious drug dealer who boasts of his technique for getting through airport security with bags of cocaine strapped to his body–once in the company of Big Brother. People are sent to prison for life for dealing cocaine on this scale.
    He needed the money badly.
    “I’ve been saving up for a Porsche,” he says. “I want a Porsche so bad, I can spit.”
    The full uncensored set of tapes was first brought to light by free-lance journalist Scott Wheeler, who has spent four years digging into the organized crime world of Hot Springs and Mena–at great personal risk. They serve as a very raw exposure of the symbiotic corruption of the Clinton brothers.
    At one point in the tapes, the undercover informant, Rodney Myers, asks Roger if he can take care of a sewer permit for a condominium project in Hot Springs. Construction had been held up by the Pollution Control Board. A $30,000 fee was negotiated, sweetened with the offer of a job for Roger.
    Kid Brother says he thinks that he can “do something,” having explained that “we’re closer than any brothers you’ve ever known. See, I didn’t have a father growing up, and he was like a father to me growing up, all my life, so that’s why we’ve always been close. There isn’t anything in the world he wouldn’t do for me.”
    At their next meeting Roger comes back to the subject. “About your other thing, I talked to Big Brother, it’s no problem.” But there is a snag, warns Roger. Big Brother had made some calls and discovered that there was one hold-out on the Control Board.
    Could the man be bribed, asks the informant?
    No, says Roger, with disgust. The holdout is a decent, upstanding man. But the Board would do what Big Brother wanted in the end.
    None of the truly damning dialogue on the tapes was made public in court proceedings, or brought to the attention of the Arkansas people. In his book Partners in Power, Roger Morris says that the segments implicating Governor Clinton were sent to the Public Integrity Office of the Justice Department in Washington. “I guess they just got lost,” one police officer told Morris, bitterly.
    The Kid Brother was arraigned in U.S. federal court on August 14, 1984. He pled not guilty to six counts of drug dealing and conspiracy, but soon “rolled over” and became a snitch for the drug task force. The announcement of his plea agreement was delayed until after Governor Clinton was safely reelected in November. In January 1985, locked arm in arm with his devoted mother and brother, Roger was sentenced to two years in the federal penitentiary in Fort Worth. Judge Oren Harris said that he could not reasonably impose probation after learning that Roger had continued snorting cocaine after his arrest.
    Bill Clinton, of course, handled it all with great sensitivity and savoir faire. “My brother has apparently become involved with drugs,” he announced. “A curse which has reached epidemic proportions and plagued the lives of millions of families, including many in our state.” His spokesmen insisted the Governor never knew his Kid Brother had tried drugs.
    The spin must have been galling for Hot Springs Detective Travis Bunn. A highly decorated Army Special Forces sergeant-major, it was he who had mounted the original case against Roger Clinton. In the spring of 1984 Bunn had recorded Roger Clinton saying: “I’ve got to get some for my brother, he’s got a nose like a Hoover vacuum cleaner.”
    Bill Clinton later turned his brother’s scandal to advantage. He intimated that he had “signed off” on the police investigation of his own brother, allowing the process of criminal justice to run its course without meddling. His trouble-shooter, Betsey Wright, claimed that Clinton had written a note to the Commander of the State Police stating that there would be no interference from the Governor’s Mansion and that he wanted the matter handled in a routine fashion.
    It was utterly bogus, the very opposite of the truth. In reality the Clinton machine had done everything it could to contain the case. Apparently, Detective Bunn felt he had enough evidence from the surveillance tapes to launch an investigation–in conjunction with federal authorities–of Governor Clinton himself. When he broached the question with the Arkansas State Police, they muscled in immediately and sabotaged his case.
    Roger Clinton was arrested before he could provide any more damaging revelations on surveillance tapes, and was kept sequestered. In violation of usual police procedure, Bunn was denied access to the prisoner. He was told, tartly, that Roger “didn’t know anything.”
    When Bunn complained to the head of the State Police Criminal Investigations Division he discovered that the arrest of Roger Clinton had not been authorized by the proper officials. It was outside the normal chain of command. Nothing could be done. “The whole thing was damage control, orchestrated by the Governor’s Mansion,” said a State Trooper close to the probe. “They had no right butting in on the Hot Springs police like that.”
    The Governor was off the hook. But it was too late to save Roger.
    This, then, was the shape of Roger Clinton’s life when he moved into the corporate suite at B107 Vantage Point. The Kid Brother soon made himself at home. Lounging about in his shorts, showing off his gold accoutrements at the pool, he was a quick hit with the teenage girls at the complex.
    Women came by at all times of the day and night, sometimes delivered by uniformed State Troopers. Roger would have the door open, the “ghetto blaster” cranked up playing acid rock. Jane’s assistant, who was in charge of tenant relations, had to inform the Kid Brother of the complaints that were pouring in from residents who paid $550 a month for the promise of tranquility at Vantage Point.
    From time to time the Governor would appear, usually in the middle of the afternoon. The limousine would be parked along the side of “A” Block, somewhat obscured from view. Jane remembers seeing the driver sitting there listening to music. She soon learned to distinguish between the voices of the two brothers behind the thin partition.
    “Roger was the filthy one. He was gross. That’s how you could tell,” she said. But if the language was different, the behavior of the two was much the same. They were sharing joints of marijuana. There could be no doubt about it. She could hear Roger saying what it was, where he got it from, what it was like. Then she could hear the Governor bleating his approval: “This is really good sh*t!”
    It was just not marijuana either. Two or three times a week the Governor was buoying his spirits with a snort of Kid Brother’s Colombian rock. The repartee was coming through the vents. She was as certain as if she had been in the suite herself. Sometimes the two brothers were alone. Sometimes young women were invited to join, and the little party was consummated with raucous orgasms. The bed was pressed up against the partition wall, just a few feet from the desk of Mrs. Parks. On two occasions she heard the Governor copulating on the bed. Who the visitors were, exactly, she did not know. But some of them appeared surprisingly young.
    Jerry Parks was then head of the Little Rock branch of Guardsmark, a security firm based in Memphis. But he also did private detective work on the side, so when Jane alerted him to the goings on at B107, he began his own discrete surveillance. He wrote down names, dates, license plates; he snapped photos from the balcony of the Parks condo on the third floor of “B” block, across the yard. By the end of Roger’s stay, Parks had collected a thick dossier on the comings and goings of Big Brother. Jane Parks believes that some of the material was in the files stolen from their house in July 1993.
    Jane Park’s account of the goings on at Vantage Point is broadly corroborated by her assistant. Unlike Jane, who can be demure, even faintly stern, the assistant is a gregarious, voluble young woman who worshipped at the same church. We had lunch at a barbecue joint in North Little Rock. A chicken-wing sort of place, with faux leather booths. It was dark and largely empty. She was nervous, holding things back. But she did confirm the critical point. The incidents happened, Bill Clinton was present on frequent occasions, and drug use was rampant.
    “Everything Jane Parks told you is true. That woman does not know how to tell a lie,” she said. “Bill had his girlfriends in there. You could hear them through the walls. They looked to me very young girls, probably 17, 18 years old.”
    I pulled out some confidential files from Arkansas State Police and started going through the names of young women to see if any of them rang a bell. Lost in concentration we did not notice that a large, corpulent, bearded, redneck wearing dark glasses had crept up on us. When I flicked my head around, I suddenly saw him sitting at the next table, staring pointedly at my guest. There was nobody else left in the restaurant.
    “Do you know him?” I whispered.
    “No, no, I don’t,” she said looking up with fright. The man did not take his eyes off her.
    “Please, can we get out of here? Right now,” she said.
    We got up without finishing our food. The big bruiser got up, too, and followed us to the cash register. Outside, I waited to see which vehicle he got into so that I could trace the plates. But he just stood there waiting, and watching, with the hint of a smile flickering beneath his salt and pepper beard.
    The Machine had left its calling card.
    It was another two years before Jane Parks began to tell me the rest of the story. She had remarried and moved to Batesville, two hours’ drive from Little Rock. Her new husband was an attorney named Harvey Bell, the former Arkansas Securities Commissioner. His life, too, had intersected with that of Vincent Foster. A colonel in the Arkansas National Guard, Bell told me that he had been the commander of Foster’s reserve unit and had later crossed swords with him in court. “Vince liked to think of himself as a master chess player, moving all the pieces, controlling the game,” he said. “He was always scheming in the shadows.”
    Jane felt safer in Batesville. The threatening telephone calls that she had been receiving had stopped. Her illness was in remission. She had held back before, she explained, for fear of violent reprisals against her two sons and herself. But she was weary of bottling up her secrets, and she no longer felt the emotional compulsion to cover for her first husband. “I’ve been praying about it. I decided that if you tell the whole truth it’ll set you free.”
    She revealed that Jerry Parks had carried out sensitive assignments for the Clinton circle for almost a decade, and the person who gave him his instructions was Vince Foster. It did not come as a total shock. I already knew that there was some kind of tie between the two men. Foster’s brother-in-law, Lee Bowman, told me long ago that Vince had recommended Jerry Parks for security work in the mid-1980s. “I was struck by how insistent he was that Parks was a ‘man who could be trusted,'” said Bowman, a wealthy Little Rock stockbroker.
    Jane thought that Jerry and Vince Foster had gotten to know each other when the Rose Law Firm represented Guardsmark in litigation. Vince had fed him little tasks during the 1980s, she believed, rewarding him along the way. In late 1989 he helped to secure Jerry a $47,959 loan from the Arkansas Teachers Retirement Fund, a huge piggy bank used by the Clinton Machine for political payoffs. As reported by James Ring Adams in The American Spectator, the loan went through the Twin City Bank of North Little Rock, a bank that had played a role in the Whitewater saga.
    Jerry, in turn, “respected Vince Foster more than anybody else in the world.” It was a strange, clandestine relationship. Foster called the Parks home more than a hundred times, identifying himself with the code name, “The Congressman.” Jane met him only once in person. It was at a “Roast and Toast” of the Governor. He walked over, graceful as always, and said: “Hello, you must be Jerry’s wife. I’d heard he’d robbed the cradle.”
    By the late 1980s Vince trusted Parks enough to ask him to perform discreet surveillance on the Governor. “Jerry asked him why he needed this stuff on Clinton. He said he needed it for Hillary,” recalled Jane. It appears that Hillary wanted to gauge exactly how vulnerable her husband would be to charges of philandering if he decided to launch a bid for the presidency.
    Had he learned to be more cautious? How easily could he be caught? Was it bad enough to destroy a candidacy? These were things she needed to know before subjecting herself and her daughter to the media glare of a national campaign. This moral check-up was a very understandable precaution.
    Later, during the early stages of the presidential campaign, Parks made at least two trips to the town of Mena, in the Ouachita Mountains of western Arkansas. Mena had come up in conversations before. Jane told me that Parks had been a friend of Barry Seal, a legendary cocaine smuggler and undercover U.S. operative who had established a base of operations at Mena airport. Parks had even attended Seal’s funeral in Baton Rouge after Seal was assassinated by Colombian pistoleros in February 1986.
    One of the trips was in 1991, she thought, although it could have been 1992. The morning after Jerry got back from Mena she borrowed his Lincoln to go to the grocery store and discovered what must have been hundreds of thousands of dollars in the trunk. “It was all in $100 bills, wrapped in string, layer after layer. It was so full I had to sit on the trunk to get it shut again,” she said.
    “I took a handful of money and threw it in his lap and said, ‘Are you running drugs?’ Jerry said Vince had paid him $1000 cash for each trip. He didn’t know what they were doing, and he didn’t want to know either, and nor should I. He told me to forget what I’d seen.”
    They had a bitter quarrel and barely spoke to each other for two weeks. They made up on Jerry’s birthday on July 3. “The whole thing was becoming scary,” she said of that time. “He was in over his head.”
    He told her that he would leave his Lincoln at a hangar at the Mena airport, go off for a coke, and by the time he came back they would have loaded the money into the trunk with a forklift truck. He never touched it. When he got back to Little Rock he would deliver the money to Vince Foster in the K-Mart parking lot on Rodney Parham boulevard, a little at a time. They used a routine of switching briefcases, a “flip-flop mail carrier” made of leather.
    Foster and Parks had other operations running. The two of them had bugged the Clinton-Gore headquarters in Little Rock. “Vince knew that somebody was stealing money from the campaign, and he wanted to find out who was doing it,” she said. If her memory is correct, it suggests that Foster was far more deeply involved in the 1992 campaign than previously thought. It raises extra questions about the bundles of cash coming through Mena. Was it campaign money? If so, how was it laundered? How could so much cash have been spread around without flagging the Federal Election Commission?
    Contact with Foster was rare after he moved to the White House. But he telephoned in mid-July 1993, about a week before his death. He explained that Hillary had worked herself into a state about “the files,” worried that there might be something in them that could cause real damage to Bill or herself. The conversation was brief and inconclusive. Jerry told Vince Foster that there was indeed “plenty to hurt both of them. But you can’t give her those files, that was the agreement.” Jerry did not seem too perturbed at the time.
    A few days later Foster called again. Jane is sure that it was either Sunday, July 18, or Monday, July 19, the night before Foster’s death. Jerry was in the living room with his feet up, watching the History Channel on TV. Jane was puttering in and out of the kitchen. It was around 8:30PM, central time.
    “Vince was calling from a pay phone,” said Jane, who overheard one side of the conversation and then learned the rest from Jerry afterward. “He kept feeding coins into the box, and then he told Jerry to hold on. He must have been near a mini-mart or something because he said he had to get more coins. Then he called a second time, and they spoke for 30 minutes or more.”
    This time it was a heated exchange. Vince said that he had made up his mind. He was going to hand over the files and wanted to be sure that he had the complete set.
    “You’re not going to use those files!” said Jerry angrily. Foster tried to soothe him. He said he was going to meet Hillary at “the flat” and he was going to give her the files.
    “You can’t do that,” said Parks. “My name’s all over this stuff. You can’t give Hillary those files. You can’t! Remember what she did, what you told me she did. She’s capable of doing anything!”
    “We can trust Hil. Don’t worry,” said Foster.
    Jane does not know exactly what files Foster wanted, but assumes he meant everything that Parks had done for him over more than a decade. Nor did she know what Foster meant by “the flat.”
    If the telephone call was made on Monday, July 19, it must have occurred an hour or so after President Clinton had called Foster at home and chatted to him for fifteen minutes about “staff problems.” Clinton said that he called to invite Foster back to the White House to watch In the Line of Fire with Webb Hubbell and Bruce Lindsey. Foster had refused.
    But I suspect that Jane Parks has muddled the day. Foster was with his family that night. He was in a happy mood, chatting in the kitchen with his youngest son Brugh about buying a boat. It is more likely that the call was made on Sunday, July 18, after Vince and Lisa had returned from a weekend trip to the Eastern Shore.
    Vince was making calls late that night. Between 8:00 and 9:00PM Foster telephoned James Lyons, a Denver attorney who had handled personal business for the Clintons. This is an interesting call, too. Foster had spoken to Lyons earlier that week asking whether he would be able to come to Washington on short notice, if necessary. Lyons did in fact agree to come. The two men had arranged to meet for dinner on Wednesday, July 21.
    Whatever Foster said to Jerry Parks, he cannot possibly have met with Hillary Clinton at “the flat” or anywhere else. She was on the West Coast during the days preceding his death. On the afternoon of July 20 she was on an aircraft flying from Los Angeles to Little Rock. But that does not preclude the grim possibility that Foster thought he was going to a rendezvous with the First Lady on July 20, and met his death instead.
    The rambler-style home of the Parks family was swarming with federal agents on the day after Jerry’s assassination. Jane remembers men flashing credentials from the FBI, the Secret Service, the IRS, and, she thought, the CIA. Although the CIA made no sense. Nothing made any sense. The federal government had no jurisdiction over a homicide case, and to this day the FBI denies that it ever set foot in her house.
    But the FBI was there, she insisted, with portable X-ray machines and other fancy devices. An IRS computer expert was flown in from Miami to go through Jerry’s computers. Some of them stayed until 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning. The men never spoke to Jane or tried to comfort her. The only conversation was a peremptory request for coffee.
    The FBI agent in charge was a tall man of about fifty, with blue eyes. Tom somebody, she thought. He never left a card. Jane was under the impression that he was from the Hot Springs office, which didn’t make any sense either. When she told him that the murder might have a political dimension because of Jerry’s dealings with Vince Foster and Bill Clinton, the man cut her short. “He threw up his hands and said, ‘I don’t want to hear anything about that.'”
    With the help of the Little Rock Police Department the FBI ransacked the place, confiscating files, records, and 130 tapes of telephone conversations–without giving a receipt. “I’ve asked them to give it all back, but the police refuse to relinquish anything. They told me there’s nothing they can do about the case as long as Bill Clinton is in office.”
    Without access to the complete records, Jane has been unable to reconstruct her husband’s activities in the months before his death. She knows that he was calling the White House in early 1993 demanding full payment for work performed by American Contract Services during the campaign. The firm was owed $83,000, she believed.
    When Jerry complained to his client contact, Dee Dee Myers, she insisted that the money had already been paid. “I have the company’s signature on the back of the checks,” Myers told him. The checks were drawn on the Worthen National Bank in the name of the “Clinton-Gore Presidential Transition Planning Foundation.” Most of them were signed by David Watkins.
    “We don’t sign our checks, we stamp them,” Jerry replied.
    Somebody inside the campaign had been embezzling the money, he was told, but he was promised full payment anyway. The check never arrived. In the end, the campaign said that it was only going to pay him thirty cents on the dollar. Parks was seething. He had been contracting workers at $5.00 an hour and billing the campaign at a rate of $7.23 an hour, a relatively modest mark-up. A settlement on these terms would have been ruinous. That is when he began to play hardball with Betsy Wright and Webb Hubbell, calling them in Washington to express his wrath. Whatever he said, it seemed to work. On July 22, 1993, two days after Foster’s death, Jerry received his check for $83,000.
    Was it possible that he had begun to make some hints about his confidential files, starting with the Vantage Point material but then perhaps escalating to matters of campaign finance? Could he have triggered a nuclear alert by alluding to documentation that was not supposed to exist?
    “No, I don’t think so,” said Jane, loyally but without total conviction. “Jerry would never have been so stupid as to try to blackmail the President of the United States.”
    I do not pretend to understand why Jerry Parks was murdered. But the indications that the Parks case is somehow intertwined with the death of Vincent Foster is surely compelling enough to warrant a proper investigation. Instead, nobody cares to learn what Mrs. Parks has to say.
    Why is it that every utterance from the lips of one widow–Lisa Foster–is treated with reverence, while the other widow, brushed aside by an arrogant FBI, offers a conflicting version of events that is totally ignored by the American press?
    Is Lisa Foster an inherently more accurate witness of events than Jane Parks simply because she belongs to a higher social caste? Is that what American justice and journalism has come to?

    Reply

  21. Winnipeger says:

    Consider yourselves warned and govern your actions accordingly. If you want a fight, get out your wallets because I’m coming after them.
    Judith Haney
    ROTFL!

    Reply

  22. Final Report of the Independent Counsel says:

    The Final Report of the Independent Counsel
    cites many instances of Hillary Clinton’s false testimony and obstruction of justice during the Department of Justice’s investigation of her.
    She lied to federal investigators and cooerced others to lie as well. She hid and secreted evidence material to the federal investigation and encouraged others to do the same.
    In the end, she skated prosecution for practicing fraud upon the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Congress.
    Now she wants to be President.
    Judith Haney

    Reply

  23. A SALUTE TO FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS says:

    Hillary Clinton has engaged in conduct sufficient to send her to prison and to cause her to loose her law license in the State of Arkansas. Her crimes have no statute of limitation.
    The facts surrounding Hillary Clinton’s crimes were established by dedicated state and federal investigators and career prosecutors who performed their jobs day in and day out during the eight year span of the Clinton Administration.
    Under the Clinton’s, these Department of Justice career employees were caused to suffer constant accusations of wrong doing by Hillary Clinton who constantly manipulates public opinion by lying to members of the media, and by lying under oath about her conduct and actions.
    I will continue to tell the truth about Hillary Clinton whenever the opportunity arises because I was there throughout both Whitewater trials, and I know the truth.
    And to those of you who are personally attacking me, here’s a warning: I fight back and don’t take your defamation of me lightly.
    You are annonymous and I am not and I will take whatever steps necessary to protect and preserve my good name.
    Consider yourselves warned and govern your actions accordingly. If you want a fight, get out your wallets because I’m coming after them.
    Judith Haney

    Reply

  24. Homer says:

    POA: Isn’t it about time that we spit these fakes right back where they came from
    I prefer to flush them down the toilet like the steamy turds that they are.
    Think about the following……
    On 9/11/2001, the US was attacked by Sunni extremists.
    From that day onward, countless thousands of people have been maimed and murdered physically, psychologically, and spiritually for the sake ofa burgeoning fundamentalist Shiite republic in Iraq which is pro-Hizbollah, pro-Hamas, pro-extremist-Iranian, etc.
    From that day onward, too, hundreds of billions of dollars have been lost, spent, and stolen for the sake of a burgeoning fundamentalist Shiite republic in Iraq which is pro-Hizbollah, pro-Hamas, pro-extremist-Iranian, etc.
    Bush bears the brunt of the responsibilty: For installing and weaponizing America’s next enemy, he probably deserves to be gagged, bound, and renditioned to The Hague.
    Politicians like HRC, Hagel, et al also bear a large part of the responsibilty for installing and weaponizing America’s next enemy since they goosestepped hand in hand all the way into Bagdhad.
    Flush the TURDS!!

    Reply

  25. aap says:

    A British parliamentary report criticising conditions at Guantanamo Bay adds further weight to the case for the immediate release of Australian terror suspect David Hicks, Labor says.
    The 31-year-old Adelaide father of two has been detained at the US military prison in Cuba since January 2002, a month after he was captured with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
    He pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy, aiding the enemy and attempted murder at a US military commission hearing in August 2004, but the charges were struck out by a US Supreme Court ruling last June declaring the military commissions unlawful.
    Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has said the US has promised to lay new charges against Hicks “within weeks” after guidelines for new commissions were released last week.
    The cross-party British Foreign Affairs Committee, in a new report based on a visit to the base last September, has condemned Guantanamo Bay as failing to meet even basic British standards for prisoners.
    The report warns the facility “fails to achieve minimum United Kingdom standards on access to exercise and recreation, to lawyers, and to the outside world through educational facilities and the media”.
    A spokesman for Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said: “We’ve been assured the facilities at Guantanamo Bay are modelled on maximum security prisons in the United States”.
    Opposition legal affairs spokesman Kelvin Thomson said evidence was mounting that Hicks could not be reasonably detained there any longer.
    “We think that David Hicks should not be detained in Guantanamo Bay but should be released in the United States or returned to Australia on the basis that he presents himself for any trial which may subsequently occur,” he told AAP.
    “The conclusions of the British parliamentary committee that you don’t have the most basic standards applying at Guantanamo Bay adds weight to our view about the fact that David Hicks has been there for too long and ought now to be released.”
    Labor says it also wants Hicks to be allowed an independent mental health assessment, given concerns expressed by his family, his lawyers and by mental health experts.
    Mr Downer said he had been assured there was “no suggestion” Hicks was mentally ill but it emerged on Friday his advice was based on a visit to Hicks by an Australian-based media official at the US embassy in Canberra.
    Labor urged the government to follow the example of Britain, which had demanded that British citizens be tried in accordance with international legal standards or returned to Britain.
    “They were returned to Britain,” Mr Thomson said.
    “Given the rules of the military commissions which were just released in the last couple of days, it is entirely foreseeable there will be further legal challenges to them,” he said.
    “The military commission rules which were released are a recipe for David Hicks to languish in Guantanamo Bay indefinitely – that is why the Australian government needs to step in and do something.”
    Under the new rules, Hicks could be convicted on hearsay evidence and statements gained by coercion.
    AAP

    Reply

  26. DonS says:

    POA, I am as angry Anyway, I really was just expressing concern for you. Glad to hear the BP is good.

    Reply

  27. Pissed Off American says:

    “Meanwhile I think POA needs to watch his blood pressure since outrage, no matter how legitimately spawned, seems to be of little use in this area.”
    Posted by DonS
    My blood pressure is dandy. Just where it should be. Now, if I held my outrage in, was less than honest in expressing the pure rage I feel at what is happening to my country, I suspect it would be a different story. Look Don, the time for expressing lukewarm angst has long since passed. It is my sincere hope that the majority of Americans get just as angry as I am. SOON.

    Reply

  28. DonS says:

    POA, over-energized, makes the correct point: there is no penalty to be paid, politically, for pumping the AIPAC line. Conversely, the mighty wurlitzer will crank out instant retribution, most potently in the threat of being named an “anti-semite”.
    This disgusting state of affairs is definitely relevant to a thread on political candidacy, with geopolitical ramifications.
    As I mentioned above, the likes of Kucinich are scoffed at.
    We are in a sad state of affairs. I wish those with common sense, perhaps Steve, would find a way to speak to the situation more directly. Perhaps I ask the impossible, and the stranglehold that AIPAC has is virtually complete.
    Meanwhile I think POA needs to watch his blood pressure since outrage, no matter how legitimately spawned, seems to be of little use in this area.

    Reply

  29. Pissed Off American says:

    Twenty one American servicemen died today in Iraq. And this fucker Bush remains unopposed, unaccountable, and unchecked in his desecration of everything this country once stood for.
    And now we are being handed these “no position frauds” like this bitch Hillary, or this “done nothing pretty package” Obama as instruments of change. Isn’t it about time that we spit these fakes right back where they came from and start supporting people like Conyers or Kucinich? People that HAVE made strong stands against these treasonous and corrupt mobsters in The Bush Adminstration? Screw Hillary, the bitch has done NOTHING to rein in Bush. And Obama? Hes done nothing, PERIOD.
    I for one am sick to death of these gift wrapped media pumped assholes and frauds. As long as we keep supporting these people just because the media tells us they are to be supported, we deserve what we get. Its time to to tell Washington, and the corporate media, that we are tired of being given the same kind of ass reaming with every election cycle that comes along. If Obama and Hillary are our choices, we might as well keep the Monkey Boy in power. At least with him on the throne we get to chuckle everytime he opens his lying maw.

    Reply

  30. Pissed Off American says:

    Heres a little ditty about a request from the Wespac Foundation that Hillary not meet with that rascist asshole Avigdor Lieberman. Of course, Hillary ignored them. The article has an interesting list of Lieberman’s comments and stances. It is ironic that these bastards are using “anti-semitism” as a slur by which to demonize their detracters, while at the same time they put rascist monsters like Lieberman in key positions. And Hillary is all for it.
    http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6148.shtml

    Reply

  31. Pissed Off American says:

    This guy gets it………
    The Democrat’s First 100 Deaths
    by Jay Esbe
    http://tinyurl.com/234r84
    An excerpt…….
    “Democrats who’ve placed their hopes onto –I do not use the word “in” for a reason soon to be evident- Barack Obama are treading a fool’s path; cynically playing upon white guilt, black hope, and undeniable personal charisma, the media have already succeeded in elevating the most non-substantive, evasive candidate in recent history, into a presumed front-runner; As a result, Obama will probably either be the nominee, or -just as likely- the Vice President to Hillary Clinton. What he would not be is a President who will bite the hand currently feeding him (AIPAC). As it now predictably stands, all presumed Democratic front runners, are taking the neoconservative hard-line on Iran, and are dedicated to a lock-step global agenda with AIPAC, the most formidable political power in American politics you can directly attach an acronym to. If the Democrats end up with both houses and the Presidency in 2008, what will you call “neoconservatism” when this war for oil continues? The label has not only ceased to be meaningful at this point, but if the truth is not recognized very quickly, the chance to tell it will be over with the kind of finality we’ve already witnessed when one party controls all three branches of government. Who then do the American people look to for help? Despite it’s utterly treasonous acts, the generational destruction of the Republican party is not something to be hoped for by anyone with an understanding of the degree of protection actually offered by partisenism. Barack Obama contrary to popular belief hasn’t offered America’s salvation with his targeting of partisen politics as the problem; he’s actually threatening one of the last vestiges of protection from a type of final tyranny from which there will be no further redress. That makes him nothing short of dangerous in my book, for the real problem hasn’t been division, but the unity of nefarious purpose between subversive factions in both political parties. God help us if we ever see all three branches controlled by one party again, and don’t you for one minute think the Democrats are incapable of leading this nation straight into hell should there be no meaningful opposition. The continued existence of the more overtly idiotic of the two parties (the GOP of course) is actually essential to prevent this all from happening again. Will you really be thankful gay marriage is legal as your Sons and Daughters are drafted to die in Iran? I didn’t think so.”
    “The progressives and paleo-conservatives also hold another common recognition of the problem, that being of course the Israeli lobby and our utterly obscene AIPAC directed Middle East policy. That anti-Semitism is the last card played in American politics when the status-quo is challenged does not preclude it’s also being the first card played, and also the most frequent card. Both the Progressives and the Paleos understand the problem, and if there is an ounce of courage to be found to counter the most dangerous and destructive power subverting the interests of the United States, it’s to be found across the isle in both parties between Republicans like Ron Paul, and Democrats like Dennis Kucinich. President Jimmy Carter put forth what could be, and what should be the seeds of a profound national debate which has never taken place in this country, in his new book. Having this debate in a meaningful way, is going to require the coalition I speak of, and if it’s not undertaken by people in both parties who care more about the United States Constitution than contributions, we are doomed as a nation destined to enter a conflict with more than a billion people. It goes without saying that “winning” will never be an option, but just as with Iraq, we will have entered a conflict without hope of victory. Unlike Iraq however, “redeployment” will not even be possible.”

    Reply

  32. Pissed Off American says:

    More on Hillary’s, Pelosi’s, and Obama’s hawkish stance towards Iran, based on the same line of shit Bush and Israel are feeding us.
    Stop the Next War
    Before it starts.
    Support H. J. Resolution 14.
    by Justin Raimondo
    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10353

    Reply

  33. Pissed Off American says:

    Entrenched Hypocrisy
    Hillary Clinton, AIPAC and Iran
    By JOSHUA FRANK
    President Bush’s position on Iran is “disturbing” and “dangerous”, reads a recent screed written by AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). Not long ago the Bush administration accepted a Russian proposal to allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear energy under Russian supervision and AIPAC is downright pissed.
    In a letter to congressional allies, mostly Democrats, the pro-Israel organization admitted is was “concerned that the decision not to go to the Security Council, combined with the U.S. decision to support the ‘Russian proposal,’ indicates a disturbing shift in the Administration’s policy on Iran and poses a danger to the U.S. and our allies.”
    Israel, however, continues to develop a substantial nuclear arsenal, and in 2000 the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) reported that Israel has most likely produced enough plutonium to make up to 200 nuclear weapons. So, it is safe to say that Israel’s bomb building techniques are light years ahead of Iran’s dismal nuclear program. Yet the major U.S. ally in the Middle East still won’t admit they have capacity to produce such deadly weapons.
    And while AIPAC and Israel pressure the U.S. government to force the Iran issue to the U.N. Security Council, Israel itself stands in violation of numerous U.N. Resolutions dealing with the occupied territories of Palestine, including U.N. Resolution 1402, which demands that Israel withdraw its military from all Palestinian cities at once.
    AIPAC’s hypocrisy is stomach-turning, to say the least. The goliath lobbying organization wants Iran to be slapped across the knuckles while the crimes of Israel continue to be ignored. And who is propping up AIPAC’s hypocritical position? Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.
    As the top Democratic recipient of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle thus far, pocketing over $58,000 as of October 31 last year, Senator Clinton now has Iran in her cross-hairs.
    During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered on December 11, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, “I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israeli Defense Force] to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel’s right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day … It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel …”
    As Sen. Clinton embraces Israel’s violence, as well as AIPAC’s duplicitous Iran position, she simultaneously ignores the hostilities inflicted upon Palestine, as numerous Palestinians have been killed during the recent shelling of the Gaza Strip. Over the past weeks Israel continues to mark the occupied territories (they call ‘buffer zones’) like a frothing-mouth K9 on the loose.
    Hillary Clinton’s silence toward Israel’s brutality implies the senator will continue to support AIPAC’s mission to occupy the whole of the occupied territories, as well as a war on Iran in the future. AIPAC’s right — even President Bush appears to be a little sheepish when up against Hillary “warmonger” Clinton.
    Joshua Frank is the author of Left Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, which has just been published by Common Courage Press. You can order a copy at a discounted rate at http://www.brickburner.org. Joshua can be reached at Joshua@brickburner.org.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01032006.html

    Reply

  34. wesawthat... says:

    who in the world cares what snot nosed, pissy panties, sissy boy lindsey graham thinks or has to say about anything? hes already proven himself to be a bush crime family boot licker. and as far as a hillary clinton presidency — not no but hell no.

    Reply

  35. marky says:

    *yawn*
    Really, if it weren’t for her name, would she make such a big splash? She doesn’t hold any extreme positions, and while she’s proven herself a very competent Senator, she doesn’t stand out as the best.
    I wish her well, but I would prefer her continued good fortune take place as a Senator.
    Now is not the time to choose a woman President just because it’s possible—we can do better than Hillary

    Reply

  36. Winnipeger says:

    It’s appropriate she announces on the Jewish sabbath. Calculating all the way; competes with Rove.
    Posted by: Frank at January 20, 2007 11:36 AM
    what do you mean, frank? what’s the calculation? i don’t get it.

    Reply

  37. keith says:

    In the good old days of war they’d cut your head off and then smash it around the polo field. With David Hicks, the US military is kicking his living body from one legal nonsense to the next.
    Whatever else John Howard is remembered for, his gamesmanship over this matter will leave a stink of weakness and moral ambiguity unequalled in our little history.
    Keith Russell Mayfield West

    Reply

  38. MP says:

    Me neither, POA, but the polls I read showed pretty strong support for the war until things started sliding pretty bad and obviously. It was a different story, I think, abroad.
    (Maybe I’m wrong on this point–and I would be GLAD to be.)
    Anyway, speaking of polls, it would be interesting to know how many folks are now against the war because it is going so badly… and how many are against it because it was the wrong thing to do and obviously a bad move from the get go…and how many are against it because Congress was never consulted nor gave its approval for war.

    Reply

  39. Pissed Off American says:

    There were millions upon millions that opposed going into Iraq. The media gave them short shrift, and the Bush Administration gave them despicable labels. To state that “Sure, most of the people are now against the war in Iraq. But they were FOR it before” only serves to continue to advance a great lie. I knew very few people that were for the invasion, on both the right and the left. And those that did support the invasion did so on the basis of the lies that we were fed by the Bush Administration and the mainstream media.

    Reply

  40. rich says:

    Damn, MP, you’ve got the blues bad.
    >>”Sure, most of the people are now against the war in Iraq. But they were FOR it before. And they were inclined to believe and follow the B&B. Where was all that wisdom hiding? Where was it hiding during them 100 years of Jim Crow?”<<
    It’s not in ANY way just to blame “The People” for democracy’s messy process.
    Majorities get it wrong. Open debate, in society at large, and in the Congress specifically, about say . . . a Congressional Declaration of War, hypothetically of course, would allow the bad ideas to be weeded out by the most thoughtful Citizens and Congressfolk.
    That’s the whole point. IF done in good faith, that can work.
    What bugs me is the WILLINGNESS to apply polls where they DON’T belong–but then turn around and IGNORE them when The People really DO have it right.
    Give time, real debate, and real facts, The People DO get it right. Lied to, misled, they’ll react w/the info they have. Further: being WRONG before the war DOES NOT mean we should ignore the People now that they’re RIGHT About Iraq. (Fareed Zakaria’s delusional outrage)
    So, instead of REAL functional debate, we get this:
    “but Reagan is really popular, isn’t he? People seem to like him!” (So, we can ignore his illegal activity)
    OR “75% of Americans would be WILLING to give up some of their civil rights in exchange for more security” — forgetting that NO ONE had the ability to “give up” any of their inherent, Creator-endowed liberities.
    Oy. NOBODY needs “the best and the brightest” when it leads to Vietnam and the evisceration of the Constitution. Our Glorious Leaders damn WELL need The People to guide them to sane and safe national security policy. They’ve gotten it wrong for 62 years.

    Reply

  41. Pissed Off American says:

    http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=WNY99268
    SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY
    RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE 2006
    NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST WHEN ASKED TO DO SO BY
    Key national leaders of both major parties including:
    John McCain, Republican Senator
    Geraldine Ferraro, Former Democratic Congresswoman
    Michael Dukakis, Former Democratic Governor
    Bill Frenzel, Former Republican Congressman
    Richard Kimball, Project Vote Smart President

    Reply

  42. Just Say No to Mayberry Borgias says:

    Sure I’ll consider Hillary.
    If Hillary considers a full confession of all efforts large and small undertaken by “Clintonistas” on her behalf to undermine other Democratic hopefuls, including eventual nominess, as Amercia’s small sacrifice for the House of Clinton.
    I mean, so what if America “had” to endure 8 years of Bush. Hillary wasn’t ready. Yet, Hillary wasn’t about to waitout 8 years of Gore or Kerry without tempting the unknown realm of female expiration dates among candidates for our highest public office, e.g. risking gender bias or antipathy toward females held to higher standards of superficiality (telegenics and q-ratings).

    Reply

  43. MP says:

    Rich–
    It works in tandem, doesn’t it?
    The crowd is always led by the best and the brightest. And the B&B need the crowd to throw their weight around.
    I don’t think our Founders envisioned a government run by polls (no pun intended) or anything like a true Athenian democracy.
    And what is “enough people?” 400-some odd? A few thousand?
    And besides, as soon as one goes looking for “the people,” they are no where to be found. Or rather, they are all over the place, depending on when you ask them, what you ask them, how you ask them, how often you ask them, who asks them.
    Sure, most of the people are now against the war in Iraq. But they were FOR it before. And they were inclined to believe and follow the B&B. Where was all that wisdom hiding? Where was it hiding during them 100 years of Jim Crow?
    I think our romance with “the people” is largely based on our conviction that “the people”–deep down–and when they have all the facts–agree with us. How could they not when our position is so clear, so right, so just, so clearly based on the facts, so Solomon-like in its wisdom and fairness for all?
    Sorry–I’m feeling a bit jaded and disillusioned.

    Reply

  44. DonS says:

    The idea of a “progressive” being taken seriously is not even talked about, only scoffed at. So we see what we have come to. To be considered serious, you have to be a realist, that is, you have to stand for nothing. Only the platitudes remain the same.

    Reply

  45. rich says:

    MP:
    “The roar of the masses could be farts.” –The Minutemen
    Granting your point, I gotta say that the drawbacks of populism don’t negate the essential advantages of functional democracy. Baby, meet bathwater.
    Further, “the best and the brightest” have even greater capacity to be badly wrong and create horrendous problems that carry great cost to the US. See Vietnam, Iraq. Then get back to me with your criticism of “the People.” The whole point of democracy is to give adequate voice to enough people that you can sort through the crap from the right and the garbage from the left. But, that requires the People. Inconvenient.
    Polls are always used to support bad policy and execrable decisions; now suddenly, we can’t use public opinion for doing what’s right, what’s Constitutional, or what’s in the best national security interest of the country? Fareed Zakaria tried to abet this same lie last week.
    Compromising on policy details is a far cry from compromising core principles defined in the Constitution. Or the principles of one’s own character and political philosphy.

    Reply

  46. MP says:

    “That’s precisely their mistake, wasn’t it?? It was Gore’s mistake. It was John Kerry’s mistake. And it’s Hillary Clinton’s mistake.”
    I’m not sure it was Gore’s mistake. He took a strong populist route. His “mistake” was in not knowing how to follow Clinton–take credit for the good and distance himself from the bad–or protect himself against the mau-mauers in the press and other party.
    Right now, Gore is the most attractive potential candidate with the goods to get elected, the experience, and hopefully the lessons learned. He takes public service seriously, even when out of office. A good sign to me.

    Reply

  47. rich says:

    susan wrote:
    >>>”Perhaps Hillary and Bill Clinton aren’t actually blind to how grassroots activists view them. . . .their calculation that activists in the Democratic base have no alternative but to support their opportunist leadership.”<<<
    That’s precisely their mistake, wasn’t it?? It was Gore’s mistake. It was John Kerry’s mistake. And it’s Hillary Clinton’s mistake.
    I have every alternative to Hillary available.
    If the Constitution is the price to be paid regardless of Dem or Repub winning–then by definition, voting for Hillary really IS the SAME thing, by the only measure that matters, as voting for Bush, Cheney, or their doppelgangers.
    Few of Bill Clinton’s attributes are transferable.

    Reply

  48. MP says:

    “As blogger Jeff Cohen said, “Perhaps Hillary and Bill Clinton aren’t actually blind to how grassroots activists view them. More likely, it’s simply of little concern. Their political careers have been based on unholy deals with the right and the corporate, and their calculation that activists in the Democratic base have no alternative but to support their opportunist leadership.”
    Yes and…OTOH.
    Bill Clinton was the last Democratic president to win re-election since FDR. Okay, Kennedy was shot. But still, think about that. You can’t DO anything unless you’re in office.

    Reply

  49. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “I dream of the day when an elected president gives his first public speech and thanks everyone who made it possible and then tells them he is cancelling all his IOU’s to them for the good of the country. Personally I think 90% of the population would dance in the streets if that ever happened and it would reawaken the public to their own civic responsibility.”
    I dream of that day too.
    But I just can’t lionize “the people.” Who are “THE people?” THE people almost always break down into lots of different people with lots of different interests that they think have lots of merit.
    In addition to all the good things THE people are supposed to stand for…they also stand for all the bad things. Look at all the people who stood for segregation and McCarthyism? THE people are often ignorant and easily swayed by demagogues who SEEM to “talk sense,” but really just speak to our passions.
    Sure, THE people can rise to the occasion, and sometimes do. But they often go the other direction and eagerly.
    As soon as our ideal politician canceled all his IOUs and started acting, he or she would start pissing off a large number of Americans who disagreed.
    Except in situations when HUGE numbers of people are experiencing the same reality–e.g., the Depression, or WWII– you seldom get massive, overwhelming alignments of voter opinion. (Even FDR had to make nice with the Dixiecrats to get through the New Deal.) And even then you need a super salespersson like FDR or Reagan or Kennedy to get folks to move together.
    EVERY politician is ALWAYS compromising. And when the margins are as close as they are today, NO ONE goes very far out on a limb. It’s just the way it is. And the folks who don’t compromise, nor feel the need to, are the ones who realize they have very little chance of winning and thus have very little to lose.

    Reply

  50. rich says:

    At minimum, you’d think Hillary would have the good sense to wait at least 1 or 2 election cycles to build a track record true to her convictions and let the venom die a natural death.
    With Bush’s back against the wall, the Hate Machine will wind back up, plus, memories are fresh, and Repub losers are scared. Not a good situation.
    Any unwillingness to speak to Bush’s anti-Constitutionalist stance only reinforces Democrat cooperation and capitulation on that issue. A bad vibe, only able to contribute worse precedents.

    Reply

  51. susan says:

    We can inveigh against Hillary all we want. The simple truth is that she has the support of much of corporate Americ…and Rupert Murdoch. In addition, the AIPAC crowd loves her, and she is betting that African Americans transfer their affection for her husband to her.
    As blogger Jeff Cohen said, “Perhaps Hillary and Bill Clinton aren’t actually blind to how grassroots activists view them. More likely, it’s simply of little concern. Their political careers have been based on unholy deals with the right and the corporate, and their calculation that activists in the Democratic base have no alternative but to support their opportunist leadership.”

    Reply

  52. Linda says:

    Not one really enthusiastic post for Hillary in the 25 before this one. She can’t win as President as she has high negatives for a variety of reasons, many of them stated above, some valid, some salacious, etc. And all these will be used against her if she is the Democrat’s nominee.

    Reply

  53. rich says:

    Susan Faludi wrote a great book, very incisive on the political dynamics of that time.
    The Hillary thing is a horse of a different color.
    It doesn’t cross Faludi’s mind that a woman can be assessed on her job performance and on the policies she advocates?
    Between that fatal flaw and the hate-politics of the right-wing, Hillary’s prospects have very little to do with Faludi’s cultural interpretation of the feminine pearls-n-mascara symbolism displayed or not.

    Reply

  54. rich says:

    Hillary’s candidacy reeks of Me-Firstism.
    What’s she done?
    What’s special about her resume?
    Her political acumen leaves a lot to be desired.
    Where is that lengthy list of accomplishments?
    In the middle of the greatest Constitutional Crisis since the Civil War, what sense of responsiblity or service to country has Hillary displayed?
    Can she appeal to middle-of-the-road independents?
    Does ANYone think Hillary-hating has waned ONE iota since Bill’s term? Uh-uh. She’s the Kerry-Lieberman equivalent for 2008, whether you consider them shills, triangulators, the boxer that “takes the fall,” or Safe-for-the-Establishment-Alternatives, this is an extremely poor idea.
    There’s such a thing as paying your dues, and picking your moment. Hillary and Obama are both incapable or unconscious of either. We need a real leader, not the false “statesmanship” of an Obama or the unready, unsteady, black-hole non-leadership of Hillary Clinton.
    Yet somehow, they perceive themselves as entitled.
    What solutions have they offered thus far?
    None.

    Reply

  55. susan says:

    Susan Faludi, the author of “Backlash,” thinks that the rusting social order has its shorts in a knot over Hillary not because she’s an independent woman but because she is unapologetic about it.
    I think Faludi has a point. In addition, because Hillary is not able to convey much warmth, people have a hard time relating to her. (Perhaps the lack of demonstrable warmth is connected to her unapologetic independence.)
    While I have no problem with smart, independent women who aren’t “touchy-feely” (actually, I tend to like them a lot), the fact that Hillary has fequently abandoned progressive values to ingratiate herself with the “Robert Morrow” voters(who will NEVER support her), has completely alienated me.
    If she wins the nomination, I will vote for her. However, I hope she gets eliminated in the primaries.

    Reply

  56. Pissed Off American says:

    “Dennis Kucinich is more responsible than Hillary.”
    How dare you mention Kucinich here. Whats next, a comment about Conyers? Don’t you know that honest politicians that have consistently opposed the Bush Administration are persona non gratus at TWN?
    Shhhh, don’t rock the boat.

    Reply

  57. rich says:

    Not gonna be voting for Hillary–even if she’s the Democratic nominee.
    Because I’m a more conservative (Constitutionalist) Democrat than she is, that’s why. Dennis Kucinich is more responsible than Hillary. She’ll eventually go the way of the Lieberman candidacy. There’ll be a tussle first, but that’ll be the outcome. What’s more, she’s easily more “unelectable” than Howard Dean.

    Reply

  58. Marcia says:

    We do not need any more dynasties. No more Bushes, no more Clintons, no more Kennedeys.
    With a population of three hundred million it is impossible that because of name recognition we have to be on a merry-go-round.
    We desperately need statemen or stateswomen but how would they ever get elected?

    Reply

  59. Den Valdron says:

    Unlike many, I’m not terribly concerned about the right wing’s antipathy to Clinton. Let’s face it, these people will never vote for any Democratic candidate ever. It’s a waste of time to try to cater to them.
    They figure that Clinton on the ticket would galvanize the right wing Hate Base. Maybe so, but these people have never lacked for an excuse to fire up the old HATE MACHINE. Look at the nasty treatment that both Al Gore and John Kerry got.
    So screw them and screw their Klan-base.
    But having said that, who does Hillary Clinton speak to and what does she speak for. Is there a constituency she animates? Why did she bother, and why does she continue to bother to try and placate a right wing base that hates her passionately – why the hawkish support for the Iraq War, why her Liebermanesque refusal to challenge the Bush administration on anything, why her support for red meat righty (but meaningless) issues like video game violence and flag burning amendments.
    Where is the principled stand of Clinton on police shootings in New York? Or on any issue of note? Where are the principles?
    Clinton can be criticized for failing to accomplish anything in the Senate, but that sets aside the real issue that a Republican dominated Senate excluded Democrats in every possible way. So I can’t hold that against her.
    But now she’s got two years to distinguish herself in the Senate, to show principles that have been absent, to take a stand for anything.
    Well, let’s wait and see. But so far, I mark myself as unimpressed.

    Reply

  60. Den Valdron says:

    Good point, KarenK. But at the same time, even if these are universal qualities for politicians, a politician still needs to bring more than that to the table.
    It might be par for the course that Hillary is self-serving, calculating, moivated by power, prone to doing the opposite of what she says, pandering, making deals. Every politician may do this.
    But what exactly does Hillary stand for beyond this? What does she mean? Where does she go? Is there a specific reason for elevating her above other politicians to the Presidency … apart from the fact that she simply wants it?
    Is wanting the office a good enough reason to vote for her?
    Was it a good enough reason to vote for Bush?

    Reply

  61. karenk(OK call me a feminista) says:

    Most people who despise Hillary do so because she does the same slimy things the male politicians have been getting away with for years, and she does it just as well, if not better. Usually happens that when a woman competes with a man and does better, he stops playing.
    One small all American example:
    “Although not an AAGPBL player, 17 year old female minor-league pitching sensation, Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gerhig back to back in an exhibition game between the New York Yankees and the Chattanooga lookouts on May 11, 1931. The following day Baseball commissioner Kenesaw M. Landis cancelled her minor-league contract citing that baseball was too demanding for women.”
    http://www.jeanpatrick.com/jackiemitchell.htm

    Reply

  62. Carroll says:

    Huummm….I have been torn on Hillary since she became a senator. I use to admire her charge ahead out front attitude on social issues but then she started looking like she had drunk the koolaide.
    The question for me is does she still have any beliefs in making us a fairer society? Maybe she thinks she can play the game to get in the WH and then change the things she use to talk about. ..but then there is always that 2nd term to pander for and she would have to keep her money people happy to get that 2nd term. That is the problem with all of them.
    Her hawkish stand Iran is not good and she overplays her toughness on defense into agressiveness I think.
    I think we need new blood. I think we need a “reformer” first and foremost. I dream of the day when an elected president gives his first public speech and thanks everyone who made it possible and then tells them he is cancelling all his IOU’s to them for the good of the country.
    Personally I think 90% of the population would dance in the streets if that ever happened and it would reawaken the public to their own civic responsibility.
    Anyway it is going to be interesting..Hillary is nothing now if not “careful” in her positions…that may mean we won’t even be able to figure out where she stands.

    Reply

  63. karenk says:

    OK-find me the candidate who is NOT self serving, calculating and motivated by power. Those seem to be the pre-requisites to the highest office in the land. After all, these people are POLITICIANS. Saying what sounds good then doing the opposite, pandering, lying, making deals, seems all part of the deal by it’s very nature….

    Reply

  64. Den Valdron says:

    damn! double post! sorry people.

    Reply

  65. Den Valdron says:

    Oh let’s get serious, Rob Morrow, or as you’re calling yourself, Judith Haney.
    I’m not offended, I’m amused. The ‘information’ you provide is half baked right wing pap, and it’s not even the fresh stuff. Check the ‘sell by’ date. It’s so old it’s got mold. Seriously, was that the best you could do?
    There were no findings of fact worthy of the name connected to Whitewater. It was a bum real estate deal in which the Clinton’s participated and lost money. After years of investigation and fifty million dollars down the drain, a series of Federal prosecutors including Ken Starr found absolutely nothing, all it came down to was a torrent of very well funded innuendo. Seriously, Judith/Rob, that’s pathetic. It’s worse than pathetic, its trite, its old, its empty and tired and worn out.
    I did like all the conspiracy theory alluded to about Vince Foster’s death. Not that this angle was any more empty, pathetic and worn out than the rest. But it was a nice touch that you didn’t claim outright that the Clinton’s murdered Vince Foster, but merely pointed all the arrows that way.
    The travelgate reference, yet another non-issue more then a decade old and completely and decisively discredited.
    Destroying legal records, you’re referring to allegations almost twenty years old? Geez. And for the record, legal records get destroyed all the time for all sorts of reasons.
    And nice touch dragging Ward Hubbell into it. Yes, obviously Hillary Clinton is responsible for the actions of third parties *after* she is no longer associated with them. ROTFL. Give me a break.
    Can you get up a new witch hunt, puhhh-leazze?
    As for Juanita Broderick, give me a break. We’re now into thirty year old allegations from mentally unstable nutcases?
    Honestly Rob/Judith, if you want to make a case against Hillary Clinton, there’s a lot to be said about her vacillating career as a Senator. Her continued triangulation, her endorsement of right wing causes like flag burning, her lack of clear conviction, her dishonest play with respect to the Iraq War.
    But this stuff? This tired and worn out litany of discredited rumours, witch hunt platitudes, unfounded allegations, some of them decades old… this is just sad, sad, sad.
    And funny.
    I’d almost believe that you weren’t part of an organized movement, Judith/Rob. This stuff is so pathetic its hard to imagine anyone worth their gum touting it. But frankly, the real story is that you’re likely merely a half-witting dupe, promoting and passing on the same old moldy chain letters of lies and half truths.
    Honestly, where’s your self-respect. I mean, if you’re being asked or inspired to circulate crap like this, you should at least be getting paid for it. It’s hilarious to me that you’re doing it for free.

    Reply

  66. Den Valdron says:

    Oh let’s get serious, Rob Morrow, or as you’re calling yourself, Judith Haney.
    I’m not offended, I’m amused. The ‘information’ you provide is half baked right wing pap, and it’s not even the fresh stuff. Check the ‘sell by’ date. It’s so old it’s got mold. Seriously, was that the best you could do?
    There were no findings of fact worthy of the name connected to Whitewater. It was a bum real estate deal in which the Clinton’s participated and lost money. After years of investigation and fifty million dollars down the drain, a series of Federal prosecutors including Ken Starr found absolutely nothing, all it came down to was a torrent of very well funded innuendo. Seriously, Judith/Rob, that’s pathetic. It’s worse than pathetic, its trite, its old, its empty and tired and worn out.
    I did like all the conspiracy theory alluded to about Vince Foster’s death. Not that this angle was any more empty, pathetic and worn out than the rest. But it was a nice touch that you didn’t claim outright that the Clinton’s murdered Vince Foster, but merely pointed all the arrows that way.
    The travelgate reference, yet another non-issue more then a decade old and completely and decisively discredited.
    Destroying legal records, you’re referring to allegations almost twenty years old? Geez. And for the record, legal records get destroyed all the time for all sorts of reasons.
    And nice touch dragging Ward Hubbell into it. Yes, obviously Hillary Clinton is responsible for the actions of third parties *after* she is no longer associated with them. ROTFL. Give me a break.
    Can you get up a new witch hunt, puhhh-leazze?
    As for Juanita Broderick, give me a break. We’re now into thirty year old allegations from mentally unstable nutcases?
    Honestly Rob/Judith, if you want to make a case against Hillary Clinton, there’s a lot to be said about her vacillating career as a Senator. Her continued triangulation, her endorsement of right wing causes like flag burning, her lack of clear conviction, her dishonest play with respect to the Iraq War.
    But this stuff? This tired and worn out litany of discredited rumours, witch hunt platitudes, unfounded allegations, some of them decades old… this is just sad, sad, sad.
    And funny.
    I’d almost believe that you weren’t part of an organized movement, Judith/Rob. This stuff is so pathetic its hard to imagine anyone worth their gum touting it. But frankly, the real story is that you’re likely merely a half-witting dupe, promoting and passing on the same old moldy chain letters of lies and half truths.
    Honestly, where’s your self-respect. I mean, if you’re being asked or inspired to circulate crap like this, you should at least be getting paid for it. It’s hilarious to me that you’re doing it for free.

    Reply

  67. DonS says:

    If the only way Hillary could get elected in”liberal” NY was to take right wing/neocon positions that would be one thing. Rather she sought to be all things to all people,cynically calculating she had the minority and left wing vote covered already. At this point I have little idea what she believes, and it doesn’t matter because her actions speak loud and clear.
    For me, she caries too much baggage of ambition to be the first woman president, utilizing her legacy and star momentum. She seems malleable beyond belief — albeit she expresses herself in a well modulated, well coached, focus group kind of way. She epitiomizes much of what is wrong with the American political system. (for the record, Dubya epitomizes ALL that is wrong with the system)

    Reply

  68. Pissed Off American says:

    Haney. I don’t relish seeing Hillary in the White House any more than you do. But your tactics are despicable, and dishonest. And the way you present them is every bit as “slimey” as the worst of the “organized” swiftboaters.
    There is plenty of reason to oppose Hillary, not the least of which is her complete absence from any meaningful attempts to rein in the Bush Administration these last six years.
    But if you are the kind of “compatriot” that I feel I must align myself with to oppose her nomination, no thanks, I’ll do it my own way. I have to look in the mirror in the mornings. I find your horseshit every bit as slimey as the worst of the Rovian crap.
    This country has enough PRESENT problems, without you and your ilk dredging up old slanders and unproven accusations. Personally, at this point, I don’t care if Bill screwed his way through an orphanage, or Hillary had every lawyer that ever opposed her dumped somewhere in the Bermuda Traingle. Such events pale in the face of the carnage we see unfolding in Iraq, and the treasonous crimes of the Bush Administration. If you truly want to do this country some good, than lets get these lying bastards out of the White House. After that, there will be plenty of time for you to fixate on Bill’s crotch and Hillary’s duplicities.

    Reply

  69. JUDITH HANEY says:

    In addition to the above, be advised that I am not “organized”.
    I am a party of one very informed voter with a voice and a means of expressing my opinions.
    Calling me slime and a swift boater demeans you as much as it does me.
    I’m going to continue to express my opinions and provide information (not conjecture) about Hillary Clinton.
    I am truly sorry if I have offended anyone with my posts, but I am not going to stop waging my campaign of one to stop Hillary from progressing to the White House.
    Judith Haney

    Reply

  70. JUDITH HANEY says:

    I posted the above comments about Hillary Clinton’s voting record and some of the findings of fact of the Whitewater investigation and the Juanita Broaddrick open letter concerning her rape.
    I’m not slime and I’m not a swift boater.
    Judith Haney

    Reply

  71. ... says:

    poa- it is amazing how organized the slime is.

    Reply

  72. Den Valdron says:

    I’m surprised Robert Morrow hasn’t weighed in with his goofball conspiracy theories. Or perhaps he’s renamed himself as Juanita Broderick and Hilary Clinton’s record. Cyber-crossdressing, I always knew there was something wrong with that boy.
    The Swift-boat attacks are worse than pathetic. Juanita Broderick is a discredited liar. Whitewater was a non-issue, the rest of the stuff, like Foster’s death and McDougal and filegate is just wall to wall nonsense by a bunch of pathetic slobs.
    But I have reservations about Clinton. Seriously, what’s she going to run on? The Flag Burning Amendment?

    Reply

  73. Frank says:

    It’s appropriate she announces on the Jewish sabbath. Calculating all the way; competes with Rove.

    Reply

  74. Pissed Off American says:

    I don’t like Hillary. But I like these fucking organized swiftboaters, such as we see posting above, even less. If anyone doubts how God damned slimey the Republican party has become, all they need do is read this kinda shit they offer above.

    Reply

  75. JUANITA BROADDRICK REMEMBERS says:

    AN OPEN LETTER TO HILLARY CLINTON,
    BY JUANITA BROADDRICK
    ‘DO YOU REMEMBER?’
    SUNDAY OCT 15, 2000
    As I watched Rick Lazio’s interview on Fox News this morning, I felt compelled to write this open letter to you, Mrs. Clinton. Brit Hume asked Mr. Lazio’s views regarding you as a person and how he perceived you as a candidate. Rick Lazio did not answer the question, but I know that I can. You know it, too.
    I have no doubt that you are the same conniving, self-serving person you were twenty-two years ago when I had the misfortune to meet you. When I see you on television, campaigning for the New York senate race, I can see the same hypocrisy in your face that you displayed to me one evening in 1978. You have not changed.
    I remember it as though it was yesterday. I only wish that it were yesterday and maybe there would still be time to do something about what your husband, Bill Clinton, did to me. There was a political rally for Mr. Clinton’s bid for governor of Arkansas. I had obligated myself to be at this rally prior to my being assaulted by your husband in April, 1978. I had made up my mind to make an appearance and then leave as soon as the two of you arrived. This was a big mistake, but I was still in a state of shock and denial. You had questioned the gentleman who drove you and Mr. Clinton from the airport. You asked him about me and if I would be at the gathering.
    Do you remember? You told the driver, “Bill has talked so much about Juanita”, and that you were so anxious to meet me. Well, you wasted no time. As soon as you entered the room, you came directly to me and grabbed my hand.
    Do you remember how you thanked me, saying “we want to thank you for everything that you do for Bill”. At that point, I was pretty shaken and started to walk off. Remember how you kept a tight grip on my hand and drew closer to me? You repeated your statement, but this time with a coldness and look that I have seen many times on television in the last eight years. You said, “Everything you do for Bill”. You then released your grip and I said nothing and left the gathering.
    What did you mean, Hillary? Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to continue to keep quiet? We both know the answer to that question. Yes, I can answer Brit Hume’s question. You are the same Hillary that you were twenty years ago. You are cold, calculating and self-serving. You cannot tolerate the thought that you will soon be without the power you have wielded for the last eight years. Your effort to stay in power will be at the expense of the state of New York. I only hope the voters of New York will wake up in time and realize that Hillary Clinton is not an honorable or an honest person.
    I will end by asking if you believe the statements I made on NBC Dateline when Lisa Myers asked if I had been assaulted and raped by your husband? Or perhaps, you are like Vice-President Gore and did not see the interview.
    Juanita Broaddrick
    Arkansas

    Reply

  76. Dennis says:

    At the present, the democrats do not have a viable candidate. But neither do the republicans.
    Most likely, we’ll have to settle for a second rate (if we’re lucky) or a third rate candidate (most likely).
    The problem in our nation is that we have a congress that isn’t worth a damn.
    A congress that just does not understand (ork more truthfully, refuses to accept because they have the legal power to do so), that the will of the american government and the will of the american people are not one and the same.
    The will of the american people does not matter until the next election.
    You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

    Reply

  77. Hillary's Voting Record says:

    Hillary’s voting record tells it all. She has sided with Republicans since first taking office and her vote was pivotal in funding the Iraq war and keeping it going with additional funding votes.
    Read it and weep.
    http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

    Reply

  78. FINDINGS OF FACT says:

    Findings of fact about Hillary Clinton:
    *The actions of senior White House officials and other Clinton associates in the days after Mr. Foster’s death were part of a broader pattern that began in 1988 — concealing and destroying damaging information about the Whitewater land venture and the Clintons’ association with the McDougals.
    *Before he died, Mr. Foster had been working on a number of politically sensitive matters for the Clintons, including the Whitewater venture and the dismissal of seven officials in the White House travel office. The report said that White House officials were concerned after Mr. Foster’s death that investigators might find documents about these two affairs in his office.
    *Mrs. Clinton’s decision in 1988 to destroy her legal records of work she had done for Madison, then under investigation, was hardly routine, and may have violated ethics rules if the destruction was intended to impede investigation into Madison.
    *The committee found it “especially troubling” that Mrs. Clinton’s former law partner, Mr. Hubbell, removed files about the savings association from the law firm when he left Arkansas in early 1993 to join the Clinton Administration as the Associate Attorney General. Later, he was convicted of embezzling nearly $500,000 from his clients and partners in the Madison Guaranty Savngs and Loan.
    The report also singles out four top advisers to the Clintons, saying that their testimony was “not candid” in order to protect the First Lady: Margaret A. Williams, chief of staff to Mrs. Clinton; Susan Thomases, a New York lawyer and close friend of the Clintons; Bernard W. Nussbaum, the former White House counsel, and Mr. Hubbell.
    The committee said that officials deliberately sought to impede inquiries into the affairs of the McDougals and the Clintons.
    “Viewed in the aggregate, then, these numerous instances of White House interference with several ongoing law-enforcement investigations amounted to far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” the report said.
    “Rather, the Special Committee concludes that the actions of these senior White House officials constitute a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”

    Reply

  79. HelenaMontana says:

    Hillary Clinton is just a female Mitt Romney–I’ll vote for her when hell freezes over. Although I am a left-leaning Democrat, if it came down to a contest between, say, the dishonest, disingenuous Senator Clinton and Chuck Hagel, who at least has the courage of his convictions, I’d vote for Senator Hagel.
    She can announce until she’s blue in the face, but she’ll never be president.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *