Clinton is aquitted on both articles of Impeachment. No, I am not surprised but I must say that it turned my stomach every times a not guilty vote was said. IMHO, we are far long the path to destruction even if Y2k turns out better than expected. Now what?

-- Sharon in Texas (Sking@drought-ridden.com), February 12, 1999

Answers

Prepare and pray.

-- Mercy (Iamdisgusted@butnotsurprised.com), February 12, 1999.

Amen, Mercy...

-- Brett (savvydad@aol.com), February 12, 1999.

May GOD have mercy on us all.

Mike

-- flierdude (mkessler0101@sprynet.com), February 12, 1999.

It's why Rehnquist wore those absurd gold stripes on his robe, lifted from a Gilbert and Sullivan production. Because he knew he was presiding over a show, a theatre of the absurd. He knew that it was little more than a show trial. And know Bill Clinton has taken a huge step towards becoming a dictator. Weimar all over again, folks--if we don't learn from history we're condemned to repeat it.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), February 12, 1999.

He never would have been acquitted if the poll ratings weren't so high, and the poll ratings wouldn't be so high if the majority of the population were not now worshipping at the altar of material prosperity.

I'm a lot less worried about the big horny dummy from Arkansas than I am about 200-some-odd million citizens who have abandoned values and morality for a personal balance sheet.

When y2k rocks the foundations of our high-tech money-making machine, these sheeple are not gonna be in the mood to work together and play nice.

Weekend to do list: git more ammo

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), February 12, 1999.

Sorry Sharon - we hit the button at the same time :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 12, 1999.

Amen to all.

This nation will get just what it deserves.

They wanted a king - they'll get one.

To all our peril.

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), February 12, 1999.

Mercy,

Amen!

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 12, 1999.

To paraphrase a post of mine on another forum:

If the Senate votes to acquit Clinton then he has become our defacto King with all that that implies. What is the real difference between his Executive Orders and Royal Decrees?? As the Deutsche Volke adored their "savior" Adolph Schicklegruber, Joe and Jane Sixpack, Biff SUV and Jill Soccermom, and even Bob and Betty Bureaucrat worship at the feet of Clinton and his courtiers, Rubin, Greenspan, and Summers IMHO. The setup of certain groups for scapegoat status can now be completed speedily in case the crap does hit the fan. God help us all.

-- Jeremiah Jetson (laterthan@uthink.y2k), February 12, 1999.

Bread and circuses,...from an ancient quote of a Roman Senator,...the more things change the more they stay the same. Expecting anything else is pure silliness.

P.T.Barnum - The Patron Saint of The United States of America.

Phineas, ya gotta love him!

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), February 12, 1999.

So, I guess yall'd rather've had Gore ? Tree-huggers !

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 12, 1999.

"In time, truth arrives to everyone." - Peter de Jager Right now must not be the time.

-- Reporter (foo@foo.bar), February 12, 1999.

This is, indeed, a dark day. It's just been shown that someone is above the law after all. God, how would our founding fathers look upon this? What a precedent, what a lesson, what a shame.

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), February 12, 1999.

You know, Blue, you're a complete dumbass if you think this was a matter of Clinton or Gore. I would attempt to explain it to you, but I don't think you'd understand, if the quality of most of your posts is any indication.

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), February 12, 1999.

Gee, Vic, back off man. Don't you recognize a gadfly when you see one ? Jeez, you're almost as stiff as Gore...

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 12, 1999.

Ooops, sorry I forgot that when 'gadfly' is translated to Pashto and back to English using AltaVista's latest service, it comes out (hide face in shame): TROLL

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 12, 1999.

Sorry, BH, I just don't see much humor in the national travesty we just witnessed. It's a sad day, as far as I'm concerned, with not much to laugh about.

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), February 12, 1999.

Yeah, Vic, you're right, but the crime took place a long time ago, and we are all responsible for it.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 12, 1999.

I think Bill Clinton is a truly amazing human being. Almost superhuman in some respects. I mean this. (doesn't mean I like the guy, what he stands for, or his ultimate intentions)

He has just pulled off an act of political mastery, like none other. One of many, actually. A goofy southern bumpkin with a trick brain, and he seems to have done things that it would usually take a blood-thirsty dictator to accomplish.

The other side of this coin is the absolute incredibleness of the American people to put up with this crap wholesale. I mean, really, this is SUPPOSED to be a free country, and despite what we of the Globalist Conspiracy Believers Club, freedom of thought is still possible here. The utter lack of incredulity regarding the things this guy has done is truly shocking.

Frankly, at this point, I can't think of a better SHORT TERM way out of this mess than what's happened. In the long run, this nation is doomed. Hopefully, it'll be Balkanized, rather than gobbled up in one piece by the NWO. At least some folks in this country still have some fight left in 'em.

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), February 12, 1999.

But the polls are made up, man, they're just concocted. In a sample of 300 to 1500 people, it's so ludicrously easy to bias the sample to get exactly the result you want. Polls are for CREATING public opinion, not REFLECTING it. Everything relating to Clinton on tee vee is pure propaganda. Thank God for the internet (although Lord knows that's a minefield, too). Two quotes from Valerius Maximus, the 'Paul Harvey of his (AD 30) day: "The other gods were handed down to us, the Caesars we made gods ourselves." and "Divine anger is slow to mete out justice, but in its severity makes up for the delay in punishment." May God have mercy.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), February 12, 1999.

pshannon,

Couldn't agree with you more. However, as far as some fight left in the American people. Don't count on it. The people want to be led by their noses, fed and nurtured by a nanny state. I just saw Jesse Ventura get booed and heckled by a crowd that demanded more aid so they could go to school for free.

These are the politics of selfishness that the entire nation has given in to.

We as a nation are toast.

I just saw the king give a press conference where he was laughing his ass off to himself when asked if he could forgive those that pursued him. Truly frightening.

Be afraid my friends. Be very afraid.

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), February 12, 1999.

someone droned:

"If the Senate votes to acquit Clinton then he has become our defacto King with all that that implies."

This is a typical comment of this thread. You folks that dream up such things are juveniles. The constitutional process was carried out. There were not enough votes to convict President Clinton of high crimes and misdemeanors. What is it that you pea-brains cannot grasp concerning this concept?

I guess you'd rather have had a public stoning, huh? Yeah, I can image what this place would be like with some of you Draconian idiots ruling the land.

-- a (a@a.a), February 12, 1999.

So, a, what have we learned from this sorry episode in our country's history?

1. It is okay to commit perjury if you are President. 2. It is okay to lie to the people you serve if you are President. 3. It is okay to obstruct justice if you are the President. 4. It is okay to trash other peoples' reputations if you are President. 5. It is okay to misuse your office resources if you are President. 6. It is okay to commit adultery if you are President. 7. It is okay to suborn perjurious testimony if you are President. 8. It is okay to sexually harass women if you are President.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 12, 1999.

Spidey - have seen that exact comment from everyone who did not like the results of a poll. How come you don't voice complaints when the polls go the way you want them to?

Andy - nope, gotta disagree. Did not say anything about right or wrong, said this was not a matter where one branch of the govt. would remove another branch of govt. and replace it. A bit more serious, and a much higher burden of proof, than a criminal or civil trial - something a lot of people do not seem to understand.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), February 12, 1999.

Paul--I never saw a poll that agreed with me. Guess I'm out of touch. I DO remember the polls before the Reagan/Mondale election. They all said it was "too close to call." Turned out the next morning to be a landslide. My question would be: how do we independently verify poll results? Polls are part of the information managers bag of tricks, another way of 'keeping the rabble in line,' as Noam Chomsky put it. But I guess we're not supposed to read Chomsky, are we?

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), February 12, 1999.

"He has just pulled off an act of political mastery, like none other. One of many, actually. A goofy southern bumpkin with a trick brain, and he seems to have done things that it would usually take a blood-thirsty dictator to accomplish."--spshannon

He refers to God a lot, he goes to church every week, he acts pious, is soft-spoken, smiles a lot, he's well-mannered and polished, exumes charisma etc. etc. All the tricks of southern charm at its best. (I'm not putting down southern people! Simply saying he's "acting" southern.)

Irish people call that "blarney". Hipnotises people. In a religious country like the USA, all a leader needs to do is speak pious words and go through the motions, without expressing religious views.

Every other presidents have done the same, but Clinton is simply more adept an actor than even Reagan was, and he projects a "softer" personality. He is careful not to put anyone on the defensive with body language and his words. And he has a trump card not many leaders had, a genius greater than himself, Hilary.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 12, 1999.

I'm not going out to hug trees, just everyone I see. I am THRILLED that this charade is over. Now, just maybe, we can get to the business that is at hand -- y2k. Monicagate and the Senate Circus is over.

-- Sara Nealy (saran@ptd.net), February 12, 1999.

Hey Paul... what irony... I'm with you : )

"This is awful. This shows the President can lie to the people and get away with it". I heard that on T.V.

ROLFMAO.

Sometimes it just blows my mind how anyone could be so naive as to think that we haven't been lied to by presidents for decades about issues much larger than sex in the White House. Sheesh, do you actually believe that this was the frist time that sex has happened in the White House? Give me a break. We have whole agencies whose duties are to lie to the American people and the world. Sometimes, Presidents and politicians HAVE to lie. You should fear THOSE lies and that which we don't know more than this kind of lie. This is lightweight stuff.

Personally, I look back upon this whole process and view my civil liberties and freedoms being played with and violated on both sides of the political spectrum. If you can't see how everyone from the OIC to the House to the President has tortured this process over the last year then I have to wonder, why? Are you so entrenched in political ideology that you can't see the partisan nature in which all have acted? Look at this whole entire process and think about what you yourself might be up against if preparing for Y2k suddenly became relevant to an investigation and the OIC could use all resources at their disposal to go after you and everyone else you've come in contact with. If they can do this to the President, what can they do to you?

Honestly, I'm looking at this process and thinking to myself, AMEN! Thank God for the framers of our Constitution who, with much foresight, created a living document that would withstand the most intense kinds of party manipulation.

So, how do I feel?

First things first... the OIC law is a travesty. It should be revised or thrown out. No man should be above the law including and especially the "seeker" of justice.

Regarding the President...

1. Clinton should have resigned long ago. He was responsible for his actions and he should have saved this country from the ordeal of the last year. That is the true measure of a great leader. His legacy is sealed forever.

2. The House put forth a masterful effort of a very weak case of a sexual affair and a purely private matter. Furthermore, I would not wish to be prosecuted under the manipulation of the law put forth by the House or the OIC.

3. Upon the approval of the articles of impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee by a party line vote there was a call for the President to resign. From that point on I prayed this president would not resign. The precedent set by that kind of action would allow for any party in opposition to the President to manipulate a president to resign in any circumstance deemed questionable by the opposite party.

4. No president should be impeached and removed from office on a party line vote. That would set an incredible precedent much like what I mentioned above. The very saving grace of a trial and conviction in the Senate is that it requires a two thirds vote to pass. Under the wisdom of the framers no party can manipulate the system to that degree. The merits of the case must prevail and not the strength of the political climate.

5. People are angry and motivated and reading the Constitution. People are passionate and interested and reading the Constitution.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that person on T.V. This is a glorious day. People are pissed. People are overjoyed. People are paying attention.

Maybe now people will actually get out and vote instead of complaining about the system they only view from a distance. They should get off their complacent asses and vote, ralley and speak their minds. They should take responsibility and get involved and maybe we can get some shit done around here.

This is representitive democracy.

You want smaller government that actually does what YOU want. Speak up! Speak out! Get out and get others involved!

In the end... they couldn't kill the Constitution. They couldn't destroy the process.

Praise the Senate. Whether they voted your way or not, they deserve high praise. They fulfilled their duties with grace and statesmanship and true bipartisan will. Praise Trent Lott, who voted guilty, for his conviction and his fairness and his ability to rise above party to fulfill his duty as Majority Leader. Praise Tom Delay, who voted not guilty, for equally taking responsibility and fulfilling his duties as Minority Leader.

Oh, and regarding the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That IS his robe. He wears that robe during proceedings in the Supreme Court. He's the Chief Justice. Sheesh, didn't you know that?

Mike ==========

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 12, 1999.

"Every other presidents have done the same, but Clinton is simply more adept an actor than even Reagan was, and he projects a "softer" personality. He is careful not to put anyone on the defensive with body language and his words. And he has a trump card not many leaders had, a genius greater than himself, Hilary."

I totally agree, Chris!!!

Mike =============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 12, 1999.

Yep Sara, Now we can get down to some SERIOUS trashing of the constitution!!!

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 12, 1999.

Polls prove only one thing. You can prove anything with a poll! By the way I received an "A" in statistics in college! Big deal take a poll on that. Tman...

-- Tman (Tman@IBAgeek.com), February 12, 1999.

Mike: he added the stripes for the Senate 'trial.' He himself said he got the idea from a Gilbert and Sullivan play he'd seen recently. I think he was telegraphing something there...that it was all theater, nothing more.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), February 12, 1999.

FUCK THE REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Mr. Democrat (kissmy@ass.com), February 12, 1999.

DO YOU HEAR YOURSELVES???? Foolish children wake and shine! DO you not spank your monkey? Touch him, love him? The KING of perversion is set free to dance. WHY ARE YOU SHOCKED? YOU DID not see it coming? Do you foolishly put your faith in man? ARE THE WISHES OF THE MASSES EVER SERVED? WHY do youy waste time on this infidel??? TIME IS SHORT is it not???

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), February 12, 1999.

The sad day was when Linda Tripp decided to tape a very private conversation and turn it over to the corrupt political system. The saddest day was when we allowed Kenneth Starr to abuse his power and sink to the lowly depths of using our president's personal affairs for poitical gain. We sure as hell don't need that kind of big brother mentality operating within our government. Clinton is the best president we have ever had and I'm glad the republicans are finally being exposed for the scum that they are!

Farewell to the Grand Old Farties!!

-- (z@z.z), February 12, 1999.

I'd vote for him again. Who the hell wants a friggn' boy scout running the country? You think the other world leaders he's dealing with are choir boys. Dummy up meathead.

Hey innvaar, fuck you, you Nazi prick.

-- White Snake (mymymy@obts.com), February 12, 1999.

Dieter

Did you used to call yourself Jimmy Bagga? Jerry? Chittum?

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), February 12, 1999.

There are several extremely relevant points that have been ignored or inaccurately used on this thread.

The Framers did not mention in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution even the existence of political parties. The government would function according to the Constitution if there were a single such party or many. In the event that any party achieved a two thirds majority in the Senate, it could easily defeat the will of the Framers if such had been their intent. It seems unlikely that they would have overlooked that fact.

If there is a single man with the power to manipulate the Congress and the Executive and the Judiciary, it most certainly is not "Slick".

Impeachment happens to an individual. There was never any question of removing and replacing an entire branch of government. The Executive was not on trial, "Slick" was. Can any of you seriously suggest that much would have changed in the Executive if Gore had become president?

"Spidey" is correct. Polls are tools to manipulate opinion not tabulate it. I'm sure that Flint can explain exactly how they do that. Polls have no more validity when they support your position than when they oppose it. If you actually buy into the concept of polls, I'd like to talk with you about this bridge that's currently on the market. . . Barnum would have loved polls!

I ask that anyone who sincerely believes that we live in a representative democracy please relate an example of how their representative stood up for their interests. The "representative" part is supposed to refer to the electors, not the contributors.

Some of you must have a different definition of "statesmanship" and "grace" than I do. I have read of such things, but in spite of attending the Senate frequently (CSPAN), I have yet to see any, at any time.

Although it can be reasonably argued that both "Slick" and "Her Majesty" are genius level schemers, the only models to support such designation that I am aware of are Adolph Hitler and Lucretia Borgia.

The idea of political gain is ludicrous. Who gained by this circus?

Theater indeed! A foul mixture of tragedy and comedy. . .

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 12, 1999.

Hardliner,

you got that right...but look at the troll responses too - there is a significant faction in this country which simply does not care as long as someone keeps them comfortable *sigh*

sometimes I wonder if this is my country anymore...

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 12, 1999.

NIEN NIEN NIEN!!!

It vas never YOUR country. Ask any Navajo, Black Crow, Apache, hell man, ask the trees, frogs, timberwolves, ask the moon, sun and stars. ARE YOU NOT a shadow???? DO YOU not compute???? You are not of this WORLD, is that not written???? this WORLD IS NOT OF YOU!!! DO YOU not SEE!!??? WHY IS SUCH LAMENTING NOW???? Sands through the hourglass??

-- Dieter (questions @toask.com), February 12, 1999.

Are you all aware that this affair might have had a very different outcome if the founding fathers' ideas had been followed? The U. S. Senate was never meant to be an elected body but rather a group of senior statesmen appointed by the governors of their states and not subject to political pressures.

-- Bill S. (arlene@inreach.com), February 12, 1999.

I tried to warn you about a two party system.

-- George Washington (founding@father.com), February 12, 1999.

And I tried to warn YOU about Manassas. Both times.

-- Thomas Jefferson (founding@grand-daddy.com), February 13, 1999.

"Mike: he added the stripes for the Senate 'trial.' He himself said he got the idea from a Gilbert and Sullivan play he'd seen recently. I think he was telegraphing something there...that it was all theater, nothing more."

Spidey, my apologies if I am incorrect. I do also believe it was all theater and nothing more as well.

I don't think that many in the Senate are in love with the House right now.

Jefferson also wrote about the evils of incorporation as well. Amazing how much thought and foresight the framers had. Oh, and Jefferson wasn't close to being a saint. Where would we be if the founders were held to the kind of scrutiny we put these politicians under? Even so, I agree with Hardliner that "statesmanship" is no longer seen in today's leaders.

But, Hardliner, comparing Clinton to Adolph Hitler is extreme to the extreme, isn't it?

Mike ========================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 13, 1999.

Mike,

Some years ago, I would have thought so too, but that was before I knew much of anything about Hitler. A comparison is always valid, and I assume that what you think extreme is my assertion that the two are remarkably similar. I would suggest that you study Hitler's rise to power and then ask the question again.

To specifically answer your question Mike, no, I think it quite accurate to see them as so similar and I see both men as extreme.

"Slick" is just getting started. If you reference Hitler's rise to power, you will get an idea of what may be next.

The definitive text to reference is The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L Shirer. The author's foreword begins, "Though I lived and worked in the Third Reich during the first half of its brief life, watching at first hand Adolf Hitler consolidate his power as dictator of this great but baffling nation and then lead it off to war and conquest, this personal experience would not have led me to attempt to write this book had there not occurred at the end of World War II an event unique in history.

This was the capture of most of the confidential archives of the German government and all its branches, including those of the Foreign Office, the Army and Navy, the National Socialist Party and Heinrich Himmler's secret police. Never before, I believe, has such a vast treasure fallen into the hands of contemporary historians."

Later in that foreword he says, "I detest totalitarian dictatorships in principle and came to loathe this one the more I lived through it and watched its ugly assault upon the human spirit. Nevertheless, in this book I have tried to be severely objective, letting the facts speak for themselves and noting the source for each. No incidents, scenes or quotations stem from the imagination, all are based on documents, the testimony of eyewitnesses or my own personal observation."

If pattern recognition is any part of what allowed you to "get it" about Y2K, this history of Nazi Germany will make your hair stand on end as your mind flashes contemporary events in the US of A onto the screen of history as you read it.

This book is a comprehensive history and runs to 1486 pages, exclusive of the author's footnotes and index which bring the total to 1599 pages. It should not be a lightly undertaken read, but it will give you the background information to answer your question about the comparison of the two men.

After you have assimilated that information, check out the financials of the war effort, on both sides, and you will get a better perspective on the writings of one E. Coli, known hereabouts simply as, "E".

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 13, 1999.

Was watching a Charlie Rose interview on PBS yesterday.

Sally, a Washington Post reporter referred to Clinton as having the Elvis factor. Many people will forgive good bad boys almost anything, if popular.

Sorry, but I think the whole thing was mostly about sex, and lying about it. Definitely NOT a high crime nor misdemeanor. Really STUPID behavior though (from all sides of Washington). Bet he thought he was just doing what JFK got away with.

Actually, a higher lesson gleaned from this event, in combo with Y2K, was the realization that it has caused me to learn more about my governments actions, and inactions, than I ever would have paid attention to before! IMHO, the Democratic process worked, the Constitution worked (re-read it again), and it showed that a group of VERY conservative individuals could NOT hi-jack the government. That gives me a small comfort level. Not much, but some.

What I will now cross fingers over is that everyone, including the whole country, might recognize that its just a whole lot easier and less hassle, to tell the truth in the first place. Congress, Clinton, the Military, John Koskinen, our State government leaders, etc. need to get that one real soon about Y2K.

Y2K truth and honesty = prepared public, better community building, trust building, and less likelihood for panic.

Y2K lies and disinformation = major pain, hassle, panic and out-of- control annoyances brewing for .gov & .mil exposed backsides.

Interesting times.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 13, 1999.

>>The idea of political gain is ludicrous. Who gained by this circus?

http://www.china-embassy.org/

"Mein Kampf" by A. Hitler is good too. Also, "The Arms of Krupp."

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 13, 1999.

Diane,

It wasn't just "lying about sex". He should at least lose his job for something which if I did I would land in jail for, which was to subvert a federal trial.

Try to put yourself in this situation: your boss gropes you. He lies about it when you press charges. Then your BOSS calls his girlfriend at 2:30 a.m. to ensure that she files a fraudulent affidavit. All his buddies will lie too and say that YOU are Trailer Trash.

You, sacred woman, do not have justice for this sexual assault, because your BOSS is powerful and corrupt.

It was not about Monica. It was about Paula. If you believe that she was politically influenced, then you have been "spun" by the masters.

I worked in the legal system for a powerful political figure. Just try to stand up to the good old boys and see how far you get.

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), February 13, 1999.

Paula Jones is a crybaby gold-digging bitch! Clinton never touched her.

-- (@@@.@), February 13, 1999.

Sorry mabel,

But what ended up in impeachment and a senate trial was about Monica.

Do I "think" Clinton has sexual problems? Yes. Was it PROVEN without a doubt? No.

Does his personal life make him the worst President in United States history? It's not over yet.

I suspect there's a whole lot we don't know about past Presidents. Remember Pearl Harbor and who had advance warning? Lots of people DIED in that "withholding" of information. Would we have lost WWII as a result of NOT entering the war? Who knows?

Y2K may well be Clinton's "Waterloo." But is he most like Napoleon or Wellington? No one knows for sure.

Just be prepared, locally.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 13, 1999.

Now for the aftermath:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Feb1999/021299/payback021299.htm

-- Casual Observer (who@goes.there), February 14, 1999.

HELLO EVERYBODY I AM THE MAGIC MAN

WATCH ME DO A TRICK

I CAN PULL HATS OUT OF CATS AND RATS OUT OF BATS

I CAN ALSO THROW LIGHTNING WHEN I WANT TO

I HAVE ARRIVED AND NOW I AM HERE

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

-- Moooooo (dodo@gogo.pogo), February 14, 1999.

Diane, I swear we must have been separated at birth.

Hardliner, most respectfully, I just don't see it.

"Though I lived and worked in the Third Reich during the first half of its brief life, watching at first hand Adolf Hitler consolidate his power as dictator of this great but baffling nation and then lead it off to war and conquest."

This is a great example of why Clinton is NOT like Hitler and the U.S. is NOT like Germany just after WWI and prior to WWII.

You can't have it both ways. You're giving Cinton way too much credit.

I've heard a lot of Clinton opinions. They call Clinton a "Country Bumpkin" or a "Billy Joe" out of one side of their mouth and a "Slick Willie" out of the other. For many, Clinton is the evil future dictator in one sentence and then the sex starved idiot without the ability to reason in the next sentence. He was so stupid yet he's gonna be a great dictator.

Diane brings up a great point. I've always felt that Clinton wanted to emulate JFK too much and it caught up to him. Clinton IS much more like Elvis and much less like Hitler.

Germany was a country without vision or direction prior to Hitler. Germany was a country yearning for a leader in the wake of defeat and humiliation. Is this the U.S. today? No, Not even close.

The true irony regarding Hitler was that while he was killing without reason or remorse with one hand he was building a Germany that was truly far and away more advanced in science and technology compared to the rest of the world with the other hand. The first true "freeway, the Autobahn, was created under Hitler. Take a look at the advances in the theories of design during that period. The reason why Hitler became powerful was because his country wanted him to become powerful. They needed the boost in esteem and position. They needed to be able to hold their heads up again. They needed a direction. Hitler gave them that and much, much more unfortunately.

Our country can't decide on if Clinton is the Antichrist or just a human being. There is no great yearning here nor even close to a need or desire for world domination. It's quite the opposite.

You can't say Clinton lacks the moral authority to lead the armed forces of the U.S. and then say he will utilize those forces to dominate the will of not only the people of this country but also to manipulate that will to create a one world government by using the military forces of this country. You can't say that his actions have completely demoralized our military and then say he will use that demoralized military to further some covert political agenda.

We have a system that will not allow that. We fought a war with armchair generals once and politicians picking targets and it was a humiliating experience. Do you really thing that the military will stand for a President to dominate them in campaigns without reason against the citizens of the U.S. or abroad? No Way.

You can't have it both ways. I think you have a better chance of painting Clinton as a beast or the antichrist post y2k with the beginning of the apocalypse than to make him into a Hitler at this time. I can see how your position could work that way.

I have to say this. I love the opportunity to disagree in civil discussion of issues such as this. It's truly a great learning opportunity. It's a perfect example of what should be done on issues such as this.

I've come into contact with more people in the last few days who say, "I just don't care" and that really frightens me. How can someone not care? That is a perfect example of the complacency and the disconnect that will cause this country to fail. For me, I see the great power in the ability to voice an opinion and then listen to the opposing view while keeping an open mind. It isn't necessary to agree but it is necessary to pay attention enough to have an opinion.

I really do wonder what will happen now that this whole tragedy is over. Is it really? What about issues? Will any really be addressed? Will anything be done before it's too late? Nope. I don't see it happening any time soon.

Mike ===================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 14, 1999.

I must say that I am no fan of Bill Clinton, but he is an incredible performer, a really brainy guy, and has caused relatively little international destruction compared to the average for commanders-in-chief of Globo-cop Inc. (Oh, and apparently he's a rapist and a murderer, but you gotta break a few eggs, right?) I guess all I wanna say here is that by most any moral criterea you care to mention, Billy C is not as bad as the demon who was in office for the proceeding 12 years. I'm no Bubba-booster - he's corrupt and somewhat evil- but he got to be president of USA so of course he's corrupt and somewhat evil. I certainly don't mean that to be a comment about the soul of America or anything, just an observation about hierarchical power structures.....basically, evil fucks win and righteous people meet mysterious ends unless they get the picture. It's like the olympics, i.e. cheats win, and if you don't play the game and cheat you're no longer in the game. Power conglomerations attract nefarious types who utilize this power for their own ends. Occasionally good-hearted people obtain some sort of executive power, but they eventually are corrupted, or resign, or maybe they play the system for decades so that eventually they'll be able to direct the system in a positive direction...but usually they forget about it and keep comfortable.

Hierarchy breeds corruption breeds displeasure, inevitably.

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), February 14, 1999.

Mike,

You made it clear in your first post that you didn't see it. That's why I referred you to the information that would allow you to achieve a different viewpoint. I take it that you haven't read "The Rise and Fall" yet. . .

I would bet that I could find even more examples than you of how the US of today and the Germany of post WWI are different. I would make the same bet about Hitler and Clinton. That is not the point. The point is parallels not identities. Parallel means "going in the same direction", not "identical with".

I neither "want it both ways" nor have I tried to have it thus. While you may have heard a lot of opinions about Clinton, you've heard only one from me.

Aside from seriously demeaning the memory of Elvis, you ignore the possibility (and I view it as fact) that "Slick" is like both Elvis and Hitler. He's only like Elvis in that women find him attractive but he is more like Hitler intellectually. Now I'm no Elvis expert, I simply respected the man and enjoyed his voice and songs. Hitler is a different story. The facts about Hitler are history and available for your inspection. You will easily be able to find out more about Adolph than you will about "Slick". And, truth be told, I believe "Slick" wants more to be like FDR than JFK (at least outside the sexual arena).

As for the comparison between the US and Germany, both are (were) constitutional republics which were steadily eroded into totalitarianism (although the process is still underway in the US). The parallels are there, if you will simply look.

You simply are incorrect in your statements about Hitler. He became powerful not because his country wanted him to become so, but because he planned a methodical rise to power and executed that plan despite any and all opposition.

I say about Clinton simply that he has no moral authority, period.

He will never utilize the American armed forces for his own purposes without destroying them first and then rebuilding an ersatz military out of insecure misfits, just as Hitler did.

Our "system" unfortunately, is the same as post WWI Germany. Clinton has utilized the constitutional republic (such as it was) in order to consolidate power just as Hitler did. "Slick's" executive orders are different from royal decree only in name. He has already done so many of the same things that Hitler did that there is little doubt as to the intent. Find out what you are talking about before you do so, Mike. You're simply naive about much of what you've stated in your last post and incorrect about much else in that post.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 14, 1999.

Ok this is what slick is saying to us and our children.......

1. It is okay to commit perjury if you are President.

2. It is okay to lie to the people you serve if you are President.

3. It is okay to obstruct justice if you are the President.

4. It is okay to trash other peoples' reputations if you are President.

5. It is okay to misuse your office resources if you are President.

6. It is okay to commit adultery if you are President.

7. It is okay to suborn perjurious testimony if you are President.

8. It is okay to sexually harass women if you are President.

It's all a matter of principle. To those above who've defended him - HAVE YOU NO PRINCIPLES???

Are you happy with what he's sold to China???

Are you happy with the trail of bodies in his wake???

On Topic I suppose - are you happy with his (non) handling of the Y2K issue???

Get a grip people - some of you would have supported Hitler too.

-- incensed (cantbelieveyou lot@bummedout.org), February 14, 1999.

Oh good grief incensed ... PROVE IT IN A COURT OF LAW ... and not in a two separate cages, forming a wood-paneled political circus!

We base everything on innocent until proven guilty, last time I checked! A court is the appropriate next step. Perjury was not proven. Obstruction of Justice was not proven. End of discussion ... for now.

Everything youve listed is what I could ALSO say about most Big Business executives too, INCLUDING many Republicans AND Democrats.

Sheesh! Get a grip yourself. Wed support Hitler? Go wash your mouth out with soap, and minus 10 points.

Hardliner, sometimes we try to understand current events in the context of past events, when the truth is there are always similarities, but mostly differences. That was then. This is now. Sorry, but I do NOT think Clinton is another Hitler. Period. (George Bush came a bit closer than Clinton, IMHO).

The conditions and mindset in this country and the world are NOT the same.

So, does that mean I think Slick is all wet behind the ears? No. Hes probably one of the most intelligent Presidents ever, just personally derelict and morally bankrupt. I would bet easy money that hes got one h*lluva chess game going here. No doubt about it! He has that kind of mind. But, hes not Hitler.

Do I trust him, most of Congress or even Big Business to look out for We The Peoples best interests, especially concerning Y2K?

Not in a million.

Diane

(Michael ... bro ... is that you?)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 14, 1999.

Diane,

You have made my point.

Paula could not PROVE anything if her case was fraudulently subverted.

She could not obtain relevant evidence if someone was suppressing it.

That is what the impeachment was about.

Even if Clinon was innocent of harrassment, he was guilty of obstruction.

Senator Byrd admits that Clinton is guilty:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The senior Senate Democrat said in an interview broadcast Sunday he is convinced President Clinton is guilty of ``high crimes and misdemeanors,'' ...

Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, one of the most respected members of Congress, said ...

``I have no doubt that he'd given false testimony under oath and that he has misled the American people,'' Byrd told ABC's ''This Week'' in an interview taped Saturday. ``There are indications that he did indeed obstruct justice.'' ...

Byrd, 81, a 40-year Senate veteran, said: ``The question is does this rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. I say yes. No doubt about it in my mind.''

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), February 14, 1999.

Also,

It is irrelevant that other presidents were corrupt. Those bums should have been booted, too.

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), February 14, 1999.

How come Paul Milne hasn't shown up on this thread? Isn't he vocal about this issue? Anybody know what he's up to?

-- lacking (hellfire@brimstone.here), February 14, 1999.

mabel,

And Senator Byrd also voted "not guilty" on both impeachment counts Friday.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 14, 1999.

And this is the man who stood on the steps of the Capital and swore to uphold the constitution. I wonder if he used the bible on which he swore his oath to pray for aquital. The man not only breached the trust of the nation, but the law. He has reneged on his oath of office. The shame is on the people and the Congress for allowing him to remain in office. As a country, we are getting what we deserve.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), February 14, 1999.

Diane,

I'll begin by saying that you have every right to your opinions, regardless of facts or history. If your mind is made up and closed, save yourself the trouble of reading further.

If on the other hand, you've the ability to admit the possibility that there may be more to the Hitler/Clinton comparison than you now know, I'd suggest that you apply those same standards of proof and use those same methods of investigation that you've demonstrated so ably on this forum and either confirm your own opinion or discover that you've not been in possession of such facts of history and current events that allow you to see the two men clearly.

No one has suggested that Clinton is Hitler all over again. I personally think he is worse and it's easily demonstrated that "Slick" right now has the power at his fingertips to do far more damage than Hitler ever did. He has the potential to make Hitler look like an amateur.

The mindset of the population may be different (indifference rather than hopelessness) but the system that allows the takeover of government by a methodical attack is the same. I'm not making this up, Diane, it is a matter of history.

I'll have no more to say to you on the subject. I have conveyed to you the truth as I know it and my responsibility ends there. I am not an evangelist on the subject and it truly is of little import to me how you interpret "Slick's" actions. I only suggest that you may have some inaccurate ideas embedded in your mind and that you may be interested in locating and replacing them in your own intelligent self interest.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 15, 1999.

Hardliner,

I do look at it, thanks. I also respect your opinion.

Do I think there's a NWO game being played? Heck yes. Evidence has been there for a long time.

Do I think Clinton, and most past Presidents have "played" in the game? Yep. Bush is still "hip deep" in it. Are parts, not all, of the FBI, CIA, NSA, Black Ops, Trilateral, some "hidden" Bankers, some "out there forces," etc., etc. and et. al. involved? Without a doubt.

Can they "win?" Well, that IS the question. What does "win" mean? Probably not what looks obvious.

Personally, in some arenas, what they are trying to do on this planet, looks pretty small time. And childish. Its a matter of perspective.

Karma has a way of looping around to bite worst intentions in exposed backsides ... sort'a like bugs.

Diane, observing, for now

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 15, 1999.

Right on Humptydumpty!!!

Hardliner,

I am always open to broadening my understanding of history. If I am wrong I am the first person to admit it. If I am wrong I want to understand exactly where my error is so I can learn from it. However, I also understand that anyone can put a spin history.

You wrote "As for the comparison between the US and Germany, both are (were) constitutional republics which were steadily eroded into totalitarianism (although the process is still underway in the US). The parallels are there, if you will simply look."

I agree with you. I don't discount your assertion that this is the case. That was not the point I was trying to make with my earlier post. However, Germany WAS more different than the U.S. then. The U.S. is far different today from what Germany was then.

Making an argument that Hitler and Clinton share similarities in their extremism is extreme in itself. I think that kind of position makes your overall argument regarding the fall of this country less credible. One man is not responsible for the decline and fall of this country. This is an ongoing process which has taken shape over decades and not within the last 6 years.

You wrote, "You simply are incorrect in your statements about Hitler. He became powerful not because his country wanted him to become so, but because he planned a methodical rise to power and executed that plan despite any and all opposition."

You're only partly correct. I'll get to that later.

D you truly think that Clinton has planned a methodical rise to power and executed that plan despite any and all opposition? Clinton was elected not once, but twice. The last I heard, those elections were deemed fair and without manipulation.

Clinton has been investigated tirelessly by not only the far right wing but the FBI and the OIC. Do you think Monica was part of the master plan as well? Do you think the FBI and the OIC are working with him? The efforts of the OIC brought us to the first impeachment of an elected president. Was that opposition? I think so. If there were evidence that there was some hidden agenda don't you think that might have come out in the investigation? Isn't the investigation ongoing? The last I checked, Ken Star was still the head of the OIC. The best efforts of the OIC were put forth and the verdict was not the majority view. The system could have worked, one way or the other. Do you think Clinton manipulated the system? How?

You wrote, "I say about Clinton simply that he has no moral authority, period."

Great. I applaud your opinion and I agree that he lacks "moral" authority. However, and despite the position of those with deep religious conviction to the contrary, "moral" authority is not a prerequisite for the job. IMHO, Humptydumpty is right on in his/her post. In fact, I do believe that in order to rise to a high office principals must have been sacrificed over and over again along the way. I am not so naive as to believe that any President, past, future or present, is a saint. The job just doesn't allow for such a high level of integrity. You call me naive?

You wrote, "He will never utilize the American armed forces for his own purposes without destroying them first and then rebuilding an ersatz military out of insecure misfits, just as Hitler did."

Hardliner, can you really see Clinton as so intellectually superior that he could manipulate the masses, the military and the system to this end?

Furthermore, "insecure misfits"?

Is that what you would call the leadership of the German armed forces under Hitler? If there were no Hitler the outcome of WWII may well have been very different. Hitler had the great fortune of having some of the greatest military thinkers in history working under him. You can't rewrite history but you can spin it any way you want.

If Clinton and Hitler are similar it will be that they simply have no clue about how and when and why to use military force.

You wrote, "Our "system" unfortunately, is the same as post WWI Germany."

Sure it is. That wasn't my point Hardliner. The system is the same but the people are not. The circumstances are not. The overall political and socioeconomic climate is not. And Clinton is not Hitler.

You wrote, "Clinton has utilized the constitutional republic (such as it was) in order to consolidate power just as Hitler did. "Slick's" executive orders are different from royal decree only in name. He has already done so many of the same things that Hitler did that there is little doubt as to the intent."

And, unfortunately, you also wrote, "Find out what you are talking about before you do so, Mike. You're simply naive about much of what you've stated in your last post and incorrect about much else in that post."

Hardliner, you've said very little in all of your posts while using a whole lot of words. Be more specific, please. You keep saying Clinton and Hitler are so similar they parallel each other but saying something over and over again without facts or examples doesn't make it so.

I stick to my position that Hitler rose to power because the people of Germany wanted him to rise to power. No, I don't mean ALL of the people of Germany, but I do mean a lot of the people. Much like the position that a few can overwhelm the position of the many.

I see a lot of the people aligning themselves with the OIC and the far right wing of the Republican party today. They don't represent the view of the majority and Clinton is not their leader of choice, is he? Is that a parallel to Hitler and Germany? Nope.

You said I am wrong. Please be more specific and give me details regarding how my understanding of the political and socioeconomic climate of Germany just prior to and during the rise of Hitler is incorrect. Please give me specific examples of how Hitler and Clinton are not just similar but the same. Regardless of your backstepping now that was your argument earlier in this thread. The use of the word "parallel" is to say that these two are the same, alike, counterparts, a match.

If you can give me specific details regarding how this is true you can broaden my understanding. Again, your simply saying that this is the case over and over again isn't going to convince me.

Regarding my understanding of the history of design and the climate of science and technology during after WWI and before and even during WWII. Well, design is what I do for a living. Look for information on the Bauhaus. If my memory is correct it is the birthplace of "form follows function".

I want to give you these points. Clinton and Hitler share much of the same political rhetoric. Yet, this same political rhetoric is shared by the majority of politicians and leaders throughout history. Clinton and Hitler share a similar charismatic stage presence. I'm sure they share more than that. But, I think history shows that Hitler may have been a little more of a monster than Clinton. Oh, by the way, that was sarcasm.

You don't get to a high office unless you have the ability to captivate an audience and "sell" a message. It's my belief and understanding that you can take any two leaders from two different points in history and parallel their policies. Especially in a republic or working under democratic principals. The ideals behind the policies are the same regardless of the time they existed.

Regarding the NWO. I have some inside information I'd like to share with you. In all honesty, I do have an inside source in D.C. who works for the government and he has an understanding of the climate of the social pecking order there. You know, the "society" of upper crusty policy makers and power brokers.

The inside scoop is that Clinton is not THE man. In fact, Bill and Hillary have never been accepted into that black world of D.C. higher society. They were "outsiders" when they first got to Washington and they are still "outsiders" today. Do you think that they could ever be the "chosen"? You should follow the money if you want to find the true "chosen". Look to old political names and then look to where their children are now in the realm of politics and corporate America. Of course, that's all speculation, isn't it? I'm far from naive.

Regarding Executive Orders. Presidents have been putting forth Executive Orders for quite some time. How many of those have impacted your everyday life? Can you offer specifics on how and why it is that Clinton's E.O.'s are so very different? Can you offer specifics as to exactly how Clinton is consolidating power to further some hidden agenda?

Conspiracy theories surely run rampant.

If our civil liberties and basic, fundamental rights are being eroded then it is due to the system as a whole and it hasn't happened within the last 6 years but more along the lines of the last 200 or so years.

The House and the Senate write the legislation. The President signs that legislation into law. The Judiciary adjudicates the application of the law. Welcome to Civics 101. If the system is breaking it is being done within all those branches of government and not just with a President. You're giving him way too much power and credit and that is not what the framers had in mind. It isn't the system that is broken but more the people who are "working" the system. If the system is breaking it's due more to the apathy of "we, the people" and the fact that we are letting it happen.

My whole point on an earlier post in this thread is that WE have to take responsibility for what ever comes. I think it's dangerous for you to shift the blame or project your fears onto one man. Hitler didn't rise to power because he became from some powerful family or royal lineage. He rose to power because he had people who followed him, supported him and fought for him. Hitler came into power over years and, despite the revisionist view of your assertions, he did it with the support of the German people.

On a few other threads I asked a question to this effect...

Would any President (past, present or future) act differently to ensure the United States remain intact? Would any President (past, present or future) act differently to protect the continuance of this Constitutional system, no matter how flawed?

Can anyone answer that question?

And finally, Hardliner, you wrote this, "The Framers did not mention in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution even the existence of political parties. The government would function according to the Constitution if there were a single such party or many."

There have always been mulitple political factions in a democratic system. The framers didn't write it because it is irrelevant. Party names change. Political leanings change. Political climates change. There have always been multiple parties and interests. Remember the USSR? They had a single party system once upon a time.

"In the event that any party achieved a two thirds majority in the Senate, it could easily defeat the will of the Framers if such had been their intent."

What?

Doesn't history show that throughout democratic rule it's been difficult if not impossible for any single party to reach a two thirds majority?

It seems to me that the specific intent of the framers was that a two thirds majority would have to include more than one party view or leaning. It had nothing to do with defeating the "will of the Framers if such had been their intent" and everything to do with keeping the process in the Senate from undoing a fair election without due cause. The framers made the impeachment of a President very difficult to keep partisan politics from undermining the system. The system is intact.

Hardliner, I'm neither naive nor a Clinton supporter. I'm certainly open to alternative points of view. I just

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 15, 1999.

wow... guess I ran long...

Hardliner, I just want you to show me exactly and precisely where it is that I am wrong.

Mike ===================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 15, 1999.

Mike,

First, let me point you to my reply to Diane and repeat that I am not evangelistic on the subject of Hitler. If you care enough to research, in depth, Hitler's rise to power, you will find many surprises. (your finding those surprises is a prediction based on your words here). I have neither the inclination nor the resources here to provide you with a "memory dump" of the history of Adolph Hitler or the Third Reich. I will, in the spirit of honest and sincere response however, provide you of a few examples to support my statements and attempt to explain some of my comments, which apparently were not clearly enough written.

The most important explanation of those comments that I wish to clarify is the one regarding your naiveti. I said, "You're simply naive about much of what you've stated in your last post and incorrect about much else. . ." It was not my intent to portray you as, nor is it my belief that you are, a naive individual. I do hold that your beliefs about Hitler in specific are such. For example, you said, "This is a great example of why Clinton is NOT like Hitler. . ." and yet the quotation of the author's foreword made reference only to that author's observation of Hitler at first hand. The quote made no mention of what those observations were, yet you used that quote to support a conclusion that Hitler was not like Clinton and that post WWI Germany was not like the US of A. If you had read what the author observed, instead of a single sentence of his foreword, you would know how incorrect your statement was. Shirer's observations in that Germany DO support the contention that Hitler is like Clinton and that that Germany was like the US of A in many ways. Since you obviously haven't read the history ("The Rise and Fall. . .) you'll either have to take my word for it or look for yourself.

You said, "Making an argument that Hitler and Clinton share similarities in their extremism is extreme in itself." Let's forget for the moment that we have film and paper records of Hitler's death camps, and that we do not have much access to records about the sale of prison inmates' tainted blood resulting in the death of 7000 odd Canadians. Are these two situations both extreme? Do they both indicate a blatant disregard for the consequences of the actions taken in terms of human life and suffering? Was Hitler not the chief executive and was Clinton not the chief executive who sat in the "top chair" when these events took place? Now, history may someday show us more than the news accounts we have seen on this forum about the blood scandal, but do you doubt them? I do not. Yes, Michael, I truly think that Clinton has planned a methodical rise to power and executed that plan despite any and all opposition. I truly believe that Clinton is as evil as Hitler, and perhaps more so. Only history will tell.

As for the "investigations" of "Slick", do you accept that the FBI (under Reno) is impartial? And what about Ken Starr? Do you remember his announcement that he had accepted the position of Dean of Pepperdine Law School? Do you also remember how the next day (or maybe two) he announced that he had "reconsidered" and was going to continue his "investigation"? Anyone, not just you, but anyone who accepts either "investigation" as a law enforcement function rather than a political one is naive! Nearly everything in America is for sale, including justice.

I have never contended, nor do I believe that the sexual circus that we've all endured was anything but a sham. I could care less if "Slick" has sex with octupi! It is his sale of military hardware to China, his absolute flaunting of campaign laws, his use of government assets (and thus public moneys) for personal use and his blatant, in your face, "I'll damn well lie to you if I want to and you're either too stupid to know it or too oppressed to do anything about it" consistent behavior that mark him as having no moral authority. Sure, a chief executive must deceive others for good and honorable purpose on occasion. I do not believe that "Slick" has an honorable bone in his body but that he cares far more for his own image than for the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the American people.

What you've not understood of my remarks is that the "ersatz military" of Hitler's that I referred to was the German "alphabet agencies" (SS, RSHA, DNB, NSDAP, SA, SD, etc.) of which there were almost as many as we have, and most of whom wore military uniforms and held titles of military rank. Now, let me ask you if you recall ever seeing an American chief of police anywhere wearing general's stars? Have you ever seen the HUD SWAT team in their military garb? How about forest rangers with M16s? There is not a chief of police in America who carries the responsibility of a two star general or admiral in the true military, yet it has become commonplace to see such chiefs wearing their rank! Give me a break! These guys are trading on the image recognition of a general's insignia for the mental result in the citizenry's heads! At one point, the sheriff of Dallas County, Texas wore five stars in a circle as his insignia of rank! Nimitz, McArthur, Bradley, Eisenhower--such men wore five stars, but the sheriff of Dallas???

In terms of the real German military, they did have good leadership--and Hitler was despised by them, almost to a man. Over the course of the Third Reich, Hitler more than decimated his officer corps. Even Rommel, perhaps the most genius of them all, was "terminated" by Hitler. General after general was cast out by Hitler and his true military tried, several times, to assassinate him. Now, to the best of my knowledge, our military has not tried to do in "Slick", but I assure you, he is widely despised by the officer corps in this country's military and you can easily check the press reports of those general officers who have been "put out" (for lack of a more precise term) by "Slick".

Your comment that, "If Clinton and Hitler are similar it will be that they simply have no clue about how and when and why to use military force", is exactly 180 degrees out of phase with reality. Hitler was a decorated combat veteran and on more than a few major and significant occasions he overruled his generals to the military benefit of the Reich. This is a matter of history. The public in this country is taught of the times when Hitler didn't listen to his generals and lost. If you want to find out about the successes, you'll have to dig. For starters, try finding out how many general and staff officers Hitler had retired, imprisoned and/or executed during his reign as Fuhrer. He replaced military commanders nearly as often as Montgomery changed his socks!

You say, "I stick to my position that Hitler rose to power because the people of Germany wanted him to rise to power. No, I don't mean ALL of the people of Germany, but I do mean a lot of the people. Much like the position that a few can overwhelm the position of the many." You also note that "Slick" was elected twice. Did Clinton achieve a majority of the votes cast in either election? Did Clinton/Gore and/or the DNC spend LOTS of money in the states with LOTS of electoral votes and leave others go? Where did that money come from? Do you consider its source irrelevant? Is this not a manipulation of the system?

Thanks for the civics lesson. If you really believe that the legislature initiates lawmaking in this society or that they even write most of it, you ARE naive. That'll be news to a whole lot of highly paid lobbyists!

You asked, "Please be more specific and give me details regarding how my understanding of the political and socioeconomic climate of Germany just prior to and during the rise of Hitler is incorrect." To quote Shirer, "Parliamentary government had become a matter of what the Germans called Kuhhandel (cattle trading) with the parties bargaining for special advantages for the groups which elected them, and the national interests be damned." Sound familiar? I take no issue with the differences that you've pointed out about the two societies. I've not maintained that they were identical, only parallel.

I have no clue where you got the idea that I thought that "Slick" or Hitler "did their thing" by themselves. Both require(d) the same support from others and mostly, money to achieve their ends. Both were allowed a certain amount of "rope" by the financial PsTB and I believe that history will show that both "hanged" themselves with it in the end.

Finally, I think we're getting tangled up in misunderstanding about the "intent of the Framers". In the first place, neither you nor I know just what such intent was but can only guess. In the second place, my point was essentially the same as yours; that it is likely that the Framers made a two thirds majority necessary to make the impeachment process stand apart because of its importance. I only meant that their purpose was irrespective of political parties. They could only guess as to the future with regard to how many such parties might appear or disappear. They have never struck me as a group that left much to chance when they had a choice.

Mike, I've already spent far more effort answering your post than my interest in Hitler (or Clinton) warrants. I have said all that I care to on the subject. If you find citable, historical evidence that I have misled you, I shall sincerely apologize.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 15, 1999.

Actually, Hardliner, I wanted you to clarify your position. Although I don't agree with all of it I do respect your views. I may disagree with some of what you have put forth but I do see how you could come to your point of view.

Regarding this you wrote, "I have neither the inclination nor the resources here to provide you with a "memory dump" of the history of Adolph Hitler or the Third Reich."

Fine. I understand. However, it was you who put forth the line of rhetoric regarding Hitler and Clinton in the first place. If you don't have the inclination or the resources then perhaps I have to take that as your position. But, your lack of facts regarding your suppostion leaves your position without credible evidence. You've made the decision to not back your argument with facts.

You wrote, "I will, in the spirit of honest and sincere response however, provide you of a few examples to support my statements and attempt to explain some of my comments, which apparently were not clearly enough written."

You then go on to give no response what so ever and you provide no examples to back up your position.

"The most important explanation of those comments that I wish to clarify is the one regarding your naiveti. I said, "You're simply naive about much of what you've stated in your last post and incorrect about much else. . ." It was not my intent to portray you as, nor is it my belief that you are, a naive individual."

Thank you. I appreciate that.

You then write, "I do hold that your beliefs about Hitler in specific are such. For example, you said, "This is a great example of why Clinton is NOT like Hitler. . ." and yet the quotation of the author's foreword made reference only to that author's observation of Hitler at first hand. The quote made no mention of what those observations were."

Yes... my point exactly. You used the quote to say that Clinton was like Hitler and the best book to read was "The Rise and Fall..." The quote didn't support your contention at all.

You go on "...yet you used that quote to support a conclusion that Hitler was not like Clinton and that post WWI Germany was not like the US of A. If you had read what the author observed, instead of a single sentence of his foreword, you would know how incorrect your statement was. Shirer's observations in that Germany DO support the contention that Hitler is like Clinton and that that Germany was like the US of A in many ways."

That quote NEVER mentions any of what you wrote.

You keep making reference to this one author and this one position. I used the quote to demonstrate that what you had said was absolutely false and the author states that as the case.

Here is the quote you referenced in the first place;

"Though I lived and worked in the Third Reich during the first half of its brief life, watching at first hand Adolf Hitler consolidate his power as dictator of this great but baffling nation and then lead it off to war and conquest, this personal experience would not have led me to attempt to write this book had there not occurred at the end of World War II an event unique in history.

This was the capture of most of the confidential archives of the German government and all its branches, including those of the Foreign Office, the Army and Navy, the National Socialist Party and Heinrich Himmler's secret police. Never before, I believe, has such a vast treasure fallen into the hands of contemporary historians."

[...] "I detest totalitarian dictatorships in principle and came to loathe this one the more I lived through it and watched its ugly assault upon the human spirit. Nevertheless, in this book I have tried to be severely objective, letting the facts speak for themselves and noting the source for each. No incidents, scenes or quotations stem from the imagination, all are based on documents, the testimony of eyewitnesses or my own personal observation."

Can you please explain to me what this quote has to do with your position? How does this quote support your conclusions that Clinton parallels Hitler or that, "Slick" is just getting started. "

You wrote, "You said, "Making an argument that Hitler and Clinton share similarities in their extremism is extreme in itself." Let's forget for the moment that we have film and paper records of Hitler's death camps, and that we do not have much access to records about the sale of prison inmates' tainted blood resulting in the death of 7000 odd Canadians."

Let's not forget that for a moment. Why don't you support your argument with facts and not rumor or inuendo or writing with obvious political leanings. No obscure website references or Drudge Report references. Where are the facts?

Yes, the film and paper records regarding Hitler ARE well documented.

What does that have to do with the sale of "prison inmates' tainted blood"?

You never actually answer anything, you just rant on without substance. Are we doomed to visit a whole new conspiracy theory as yet unproven? Where is the evidence that this tragedy, if true, took place by some preconceived and evil plan brought forth by Clinton aka Hitler? What would Clinton aka Hitler have to gain by such action? This whole entire argument is ridiculous.

You go on some more, "Now, history may someday show us more than the news accounts we have seen on this forum about the blood scandal, but do you doubt them?"

Doubt them? What them? The so-called "blood scandal" is not even proven. I doubt anything until it's proven. That means ANYTHING with the exception of two things. My faith in God and my love for my family. Everything else is left open.

You go on some more, "Yes, Michael, I truly think that Clinton has planned a methodical rise to power and executed that plan despite any and all opposition. I truly believe that Clinton is as evil as Hitler, and perhaps more so. Only history will tell."

I respect your opinion. However, until I see facts supporting your opinion I cannot make a judgement that your opinion is credible.

You write, "As for the "investigations" of "Slick", do you accept that the FBI (under Reno) is impartial?"

Do you know anything about the position of Attorney General? The position is not an impartial position by it's very nature. However, regarding the FBI, I accept that the FBI is a microcasm of the United States with all the diversity and politcal splintering that is seen within this thread and elsewhere. No President can manipulate those who hold opposite to his personal views or agenda. The very nature of our system does not allow for one man to manipulate the will of the very people who must uphold the law. Bottom line, if there is wrongdoing or manipulation there will be backlash.

"And what about Ken Starr?"

What do you know about Ken Starr? Do you know about the three judge panel that appointed him and their personal agenda?

"Do you remember his announcement that he had accepted the position of Dean of Pepperdine Law School? Do you also remember how the next day (or maybe two) he announced that he had "reconsidered" and was going to continue his "investigation"? Anyone, not just you, but anyone who accepts either "investigation" as a law enforcement function rather than a political one is naive! Nearly everything in America is for sale, including justice.

Yes, I agree with this to an extent. However, do you believe that this is all a conspiracy brought forth by likeminded, power hungry players that are pushing a New World Order plan? Even Hollywood screenwriters can't write such a detailed script and then give it to a director to shoot without having to worry about problems with continuity and changes in the original vision of the script. And that is just for a movie that lasts about two hours and is shot over a couple of months. Do you think this system within a system can manipulate so masterfully? You're really reaching for straws here.

You go on, "I have never contended, nor do I believe that the sexual circus that we've all endured was anything but a sham [...] It is his sale of military hardware to China,

[Yes, the issue with China is an interesting one. It dates all the way back at least as far as Nixon and China. However hard this issue is being pushed right now it isn't new. The sale of technology to China along with Most Favored Nation status is actually an old playgroung that Ford, Carter, Regan and Bush all played in long before Clinton]

"his absolute flaunting of campaign laws,"

[ahhh, the old "flaunting of the campaign laws" straw man. Every politician has manipulated the campaign laws including those that are raising this issue. It will die a natural death and was only brought up to weaken Gore. No politician wants this investigated really. This is a red herring.]

"his use of government assets (and thus public moneys) for personal use"

[What would they be? Do you have specific examples? If you want to really get an "eyefull" check out the pork that goes to home states of high ranking committe chairman in Congress.]

You go on to write, "and his blatant, in your face, "I'll damn well lie to you if I want to and you're either too stupid to know it or too oppressed to do anything about it" consistent behavior that mark him as having no moral authority." and

"Sure, a chief executive must deceive others for good and honorable purpose on occasion. I do not believe that "Slick" has an honorable bone in his body but that he cares far more for his own image than for the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the American people."

Well, does this make Clinton like Hitler?

You continue with, "What you've not understood of my remarks is that the "ersatz military" of Hitler's that I referred to was the German "alphabet agencies" (SS, RSHA, DNB, NSDAP, SA, SD, etc.) of which there were almost as many as we have, and most of whom wore military uniforms and held titles of military rank. Now, let me ask you if you recall ever seeing an American chief of police anywhere wearing general's stars? Have you ever seen the HUD SWAT team in their military garb? How about forest rangers with M16s? There is not a chief of police in America who carries the responsibility of a two star general or admiral in the true military, yet it has become commonplace to see such chiefs wearing their rank! Give me a break! These guys are trading on the image recognition of a general's insignia for the mental result in the citizenry's heads! At one point, the sheriff of Dallas County, Texas wore five stars in a circle as his insignia of rank! Nimitz, McArthur, Bradley, Eisenhower--such men wore five stars, but the sheriff of Dallas??? "

Have you ever known a peace officer Hardliner? Have you ever talked with them? Lived with them? Had them as family members. I actually have one family member on the LAPD who has been seen across the country during a high level crime that occured here in Brentwood, L.A. with a very famous ex-football star.

Although the Police are not part of the Military they do have a command structure that is based upon military rank. That is just fact. The fact also remains that they strap on guns everyday and leave their spouse and children at the front door wondering if they'll return. It's a very tough job and unless you strap on a gun and go to work or you love someone that does you simply cannot understand the broader issues.

They wear rank because they have earned rank. That is part of their pay structure, their command criteria and their overall organization.

You go on, "In terms of the real German military, they did have good leadership--and Hitler was despised by them, almost to a man. Over the course of the Third Reich, Hitler more than decimated his officer corps. Even Rommel, perhaps the most genius of them all, was "terminated" by Hitler. General after general was cast out by Hitler and his true military tried, several times, to assassinate him. Now, to the best of my knowledge, our military has not tried to do in "Slick", but I assure you, he is widely despised by the officer corps in this country's military and you can easily check the press reports of those general officers who have been "put out" (for lack of a more precise term) by "Slick". Your comment that, "If Clinton and Hitler are similar it will be that they simply have no clue about how and when and why to use military force", is exactly 180 degrees out of phase with reality."

Oh really? Well, you just went through a whole list of how bad Hitler was at utilizing his military. You even mention how bad Clinton is. You've made my argument Hardliner. That was my point.

You even go on to point out how bad a leader Hitler was with his military...

"Hitler was a decorated combat veteran and on more than a few major and significant occasions he overruled his generals to the military benefit of the Reich. This is a matter of history. The public in this country is taught of the times when Hitler didn't listen to his generals and lost. If you want to find out about the successes, you'll have to dig. For starters, try finding out how many general and staff officers Hitler had retired, imprisoned and/or executed during his reign as Fuhrer. He replaced military commanders nearly as often as Montgomery changed his socks!"

Exactly. So, how does this make Clinton and Hitler the great military men that you need them to be in order for Clinton to rise and take over the United States military? To the contrary, it only furthers my point that Clinton has neither the understanding nor the support to make this so.

Regarding my position that Clinton was elected twice you wrote, "Did Clinton achieve a majority of the votes cast in either election? Did Clinton/Gore and/or the DNC spend LOTS of money in the states with LOTS of electoral votes and leave others go? Where did that money come from? Do you consider its source irrelevant? Is this not a manipulation of the system?"

Welcome to the Electoral College. Does that mean that the election was bogus? No. That is the system. Did Clinton and Gore receive the majority of votes, absolutely. Did the recieve an overall majority? No. That is not necessary under the system.

You go on some more, "If you really believe that the legislature initiates lawmaking in this society or that they even write most of it, you ARE naive. That'll be news to a whole lot of highly paid lobbyists! "

That wasn't the point behind what I wrote. In fact, it supports my postion that the system is fine it is those who "work" the system that are corrupt.

You go on regarding my asking you to please be more specific and give me details regarding how my understanding of the political and socioeconomic climate of Germany just prior to and during the rise of Hitler is incorrect.

You write, "To quote Shirer, "Parliamentary government had become a matter of what the Germans called Kuhhandel (cattle trading) with the parties bargaining for special advantages for the groups which elected them, and the national interests be damned." Sound familiar? I take no issue with the differences that you've pointed out about the two societies. I've not maintained that they were identical, only parallel."

Fine. Again, if you take any system based on democratic principles in history and parallel it with another you are bound to find parallels. Perhaps we are in disagreement over symantics. To parallel is to say that they are the same. I believe I mentioned that in my prior post.

You write, "...I think we're getting tangled up in misunderstanding about the "intent of the Framers". In the first place, neither you nor I know just what such intent was but can only guess."

You're wrong. There is plenty of documentation in various writings by all those who were involved in the Constitutional Congress to show what they had intended.

You go on, "In the second place, my point was essentially the same as yours; that it is likely that the Framers made a two thirds majority necessary to make the impeachment process stand apart because of its importance. I only meant that their purpose was irrespective of political parties. They could only guess as to the future with regard to how many such parties might appear or disappear. They have never struck me as a group that left much to chance when they had a choice."

Well, perhaps. But the Framers did believe that the process of an impeachment was not at all legal and purely political. It has the feel of a court but it isn't a court, really. Andrew Johnson was aquitted by a single vote and remember, there weren't as many states at that time so not nearly as many Senators. Clinton was aquitted not only by a majority of Senators on one count but that neither count was able to get a simple majority.

"Mike, I've already spent far more effort answering your post than my interest in Hitler (or Clinton) warrants.I have said all that I care to on the subject. If you find citable, historical evidence that I have misled you, I shall sincerely apologize. "

Hardliner, your apologies aren't in order. They aren't what I am seeking. I am seeking to further my understanding regarding your position. I would think that because it was you who made the original contention that Clinton was Hitler you would have the stamina and sources to back up your position.

I would love for you to put forth "citable, historical evidence" simply to make credible your argument. The fact that I still haven't seen any such evidence to support your contention that Clinton is like Hitler still leaves me wondering why you decided to make that contention in the first place. I'm only asking you to cite such evidence to suppo

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 15, 1999.

I can NO longer tell my other psychopathic friends to come here, they would GET VERY UPSET BY THIS!!!! AND jealous tOO!! HITLER WAS HITLER, NOT CLINTON. HITLER IS DEAD NOW!! CLINTON IS NOT!!! I KNEW HITLER, HITLER WAS A FRIEND OF MINE, CLINTON IS NO HITLER!!! He dosentt even have a MUSTACHE FOR EXAMPLE. AND hilter was shorter toO!!!PLUS Idont think cLINTON IS AVERY GOOD Artist, or EVEN KNOWS HOW TO WALL PAPER!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), February 15, 1999.

rofl Dieter...

Thank you for the clarification. Nothing like going right to the source.

Mike ==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 16, 1999.

Michael,

William Shirer is one of the most respected reporters and historians of Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler in the field. I have repeatedly referred you to only one of his many works (not all of which, BTW, concern Germany). Your response is to say that I have not provided any evidence. You haven't seen the evidence because you haven't looked. It is there and it will, as I said, make your hair stand on end. Read it, or find your own sources of historical fact regarding Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler. I quoted his foreword to give you an idea of why the man had valid information, not to tell you what any of that information was. If you can read "The Rise and Fall. . ." without coming to the conclusions that I have, I will be astonished. Until you have at least referenced the evidence that I have cited, the least that you can do is stop arguing as if you had.

I did not ever say that Clinton is, or was, Hitler. I have said that they are similar and that Clinton is worse. I have indeed backed my arguments regarding Hitler with facts. Almost 1600 pages of facts, which you apparently have yet to acknowledge. Believe me, I had similar views about Hitler to what you write here, before I found out some of the real story about him.

I reiterate, your perception of Adolf Hitler is naive and inaccurate. Your perception of the similarities between post WWI Germany and present day America is incomplete in the most vital aspects as they relate to the vulnerabilities of constitutional republics. To come off as if your ignorance of who Shirer is or that what actually is contained in his histories justifies your arguments is simply not supportable.

I have outlined a position and cited references. Your response has been to say, "No, you're wrong", and to ignore the reference. I'm done with this.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 16, 1999.

Hardliner - you can lead a horse to water etc....

Michael - you are extremely naieve and ill-informed on both Clinton AND Hitler.

Dianne - I'm surprised, especially as you are a female (in view of the sexual molestation, rape and general degrading of a host of women over the years), that you seem to support Clinton. Incensed on an earlier post copied out my 7 or 8 snippits about Clinton - he's damn right - it's all about principle. This country does not have any principles any more - it's a shame but it is true. The sheeple are lazy and fat and greedy - hardly anyone took any notice of the conclusion of the impeachment trial. They are all too busy chasing the almighty greenback. They will get what they deserve - they've already got it actually, and it's called Clinton. You are saying that nothing was PROVEN!!! in a court of law??? - this really ticks me off, I don't want a star-chamber here but anyone with an ounce of integrity and common sense who has been following the Clinton saga and done a little research should know that his antics, though seemingly not proven in YOUR MIND, are nevertheless real, true, and incidentally, just the tip of the iceberg with Clinton. Minus 10 points Dianne - where the hell are YOUR principles???

That's it - enough - wake up you lemmings!!!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 16, 1999.

One more thing Michael as you've annoyed me so much with your defense of the vile entity called Clinton.......

" Let's forget for the moment that we have film and paper records of Hitler's death camps, and that we do not have much access to records about the sale of prison inmates' tainted blood resulting in the death of 7000 odd Canadians. Are these two situations both extreme? Do they both indicate a blatant disregard for the consequences of the actions taken in terms of human life and suffering?"

BLOOD

Clinton KNEW ALL ABOUT IT YOU BLITHERING IDIOT!

From this thread http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=000V5Z

Mike - sorry - do a little more research before pontificating, especially with Klinton you seem to be pretty ill-informed - Klinton was WELL AWARE of the blood scam perpetrated in Arkansas prisons. "Even the residents of Grady, Ark., call it "godforsaken." It's an enclave of poverty where rampant drug dealing contributes at least as much to the bleak economy as the main legitimate business -- farming -- does.

But looming among the rows of cotton outside this dismal Arkansas River Delta town, there used to be a more profitable form of agriculture: human plasma farming. At the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas penal system during the 1980s, while President Clinton was still governor, inmates would regularly cross the prison hospital's threshold to give blood, lured by the prospect of receiving $7 a pint. The ritual was creepy to behold: platoons of prisoners lying supine on rows of cots, waiting for the needle-wielding prison orderly to puncture a vein and watch the clear bags fill with blood. Administrators then sold the blood to brokers, who in turn shipped it to other states, and to Japan, Italy, Spain and Canada. Despite repeated warnings from the Food and Drug Administration, Arkansas kept its prison plasma program running until 1994, when it became the very last state to cease selling its prisoners' plasma.

In a year when Arkansas scandals dating back to his governorship have returned to haunt Clinton, this one nearly toppled the government -- of Canada. Arkansas' prison-blood business created a health crisis in Canada that nearly brought down the Liberal Party government last spring. At least 42,000 Canadians have been infected with hepatitis C, and thousands more with the HIV virus, thanks to poorly screened plasma. Some of it has been traced back to the Cummins prison in Arkansas. More than 7,000 Canadians are expected to die as a result of the blood scandal.

The Canadian Krever Commission, established in 1993 to investigate the tainted-blood epidemic, concluded the government did not adequately supervise the Red Cross of Canada, the agency responsible for making sure that blood suppliers maintained adequate screening standards. As a result of the scandal, the Red Cross has been stripped of responsibility for the blood system. Compensation was offered to 1,000 people with AIDS, but the Toronto Star estimates nearly 2,000 are suffering. More than 20,000 tainted-blood victims with hepatitis C filed a class-action suit against the Canadian government, alleging that sloppy screening protocols allowed tainted blood products from Arkansas prisons and elsewhere to make their way into Canada. Last week the Canadian government established a $1.1 billion (Canadian) fund to compensate some hepatitis C victims, but advocates say the fund won't be enough.

Former Arkansas inmates who claim they contracted hepatitis C and AIDS as a result of improper procedures are also planning to bring a lawsuit against the Arkansas Department of Corrections, Health Management Associates Inc. (HMA), Pine Bluff Biologicals -- the two companies that held the prison's plasma contracts -- the state of Arkansas, Clinton and his administration at the time. The White House did not return calls seeking comment on the lawsuits.

The scandals have received little media attention here, but they tainted Clinton's years as governor. Some newspaper columnists at the time said it could jeopardize his reelection. Two longtime friends of Clinton's were embroiled in the mess: Leonard Dunn, a former Pine Bluff banker and now chief of staff for Lt. Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller, served as HMA's president; and Richard Mays, a Little Rock lawyer, judge and Clinton ally, was hired in 1985 as an "ombudsman," an ill-defined position that was supposedly created to help bring the prison medical system into compliance with state standards. The exact payment Mays received, or what his duties were, was never established, and became the subject of a state police investigation because of allegations that it was actually a "bribe" paid to a Clinton supporter to allow the program to continue.

Problems with the prison plasma program were well known to Clinton throughout the 1980s. The FDA cited HMA for safety deficiencies and shut it down for over a year in 1983, following a recall of hepatitis B-tainted products that had been shipped to Canada and distributed to hemophiliacs. In 1984, the FDA revoked the center's license to operate, and in 1985, an inmate filed a lawsuit against HMA for inadequate medical care. In 1986, Clinton's state police investigated problems at the prison and found little cause for concern, while an outside investigator looked at the same allegations and found dozens of safety violations.

Now, more than a decade later, those old Arkansas scandals are getting new attention, thanks to lawsuits and agitation in Canada. To date, the scandal has gotten almost no media attention in the United States. While reporters are riveted by the Monica Lewinsky mess, they've ignored a real Clinton scandal, maybe because it involves two groups no one cares much about -- people who aren't Americans, and prisoners.

http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/1998/12/cov_23news.html

Andy

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 16, 1999.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- "Did an Arkansas Governor en route to the White House knowingly profit from the sale of tainted blood to Canada, where as many as 80,000 people today suffer from deadly Hepatitis C and HIV? At a time when legal and moral issues enmesh the White House, there are strong indications of improprieties dating back to Arkansas governorship days--did Governor Clinton's administration knowingly profit from the sale of tainted blood which led to today's hepatitis and HIV epidemic in Canada? Top investigative reporters in the United States and Canada are saying the fictional search for contaminated blood in "Blood Trail" has "intriguing" implications that are "worth looking into." Right now, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are doing just that.

In Blood Trail, a first novel by Michael Sullivan (Jameson Books/LPC Group, $19.95), Bob Prescott, the governor of Arkansas, and some of his political cronies have set up a blood collection scheme through the state prison. Narcotics--purchased with state money--are used to pay off inmates who donate blood. Those who become regular donors are drug addicts and often victims of homosexual rape--among the highest risk donor groups. They are the last people anyone would want for a donor program--unless it brings a lot of money into Governor Prescott's political coffers.

In a parallel story line, former Arkansan David Farr, now living in Canada, is determined to find who's morally responsible for his son having been stricken with AIDS following a transfusion of tainted blood. Tracing the route from blood sources in Canada to donor programs in the U.S.. Farr ultimately finds himself back in Little Rock.

Drawing on actual events reported in Arkansas newspapers in the 1980s and wrapping them into a thriller-investigation story. Sullivan has his fictional hero Farr uncover disturbing information. Farr learns that the healthcare provider for the Arkansas prisons devised a system for procuring blood products from prisoners, guaranteeing volunteers without any cash outlay and keeping the enterprise "low key" with no paper trail--all in return for the governor's reappointment of the prison contract and "a little leeway" for the operation. Since then, Prescott, who was aware of, approved, and benefited from the prison blood donor program, has become President of the United States. Learning of the blood crisis in Canada and wary of being implicated, he takes steps to ensure that the trail to him is erased.

Meanwhile, in another example of fiction drawing on current events, the president's chief legal counselor, Eric Grant, who was in on the prison blood program in Arkansas, is filled with remorse over the pain and suffering of thousands in Canada. He is also concerned that if the truth comes out about the origin of the blood, it will take down the presidency. His apparent suicide brings more questions and draws the net tighter around the president.

As Farr continues to uncover the political machinations that have kept the blood trail buried, his quest for truth and accountability turns to vengeance. Deceit and self-interest may be buried under the political power of public office, but people pay the price--and Farr, father-turned-sleuth, is determined that the persons responsible will pay as well.

This first novel by Michael Sullivan blends intrigue with adventure. With its interlacing of today's tragic Canadian headlines with local news stories from the 1980s and a "dash" of imaginative deductive speculation, this fictional thriller raises questions which actually may extend the search for the origin of Canada's contaminated blood. To date, the real-life trail has led to the Canadian Red Cross; where they got the blood has not yet been fully uncovered. If a new search takes its leads from Blood Trail, where will that trial end?"

Check out these two links Michael...

http://www.bloodtrail.com/

http://www.bloodtrail.com/news/recent.html

Michael - stick to something you know about will you please? A lot of people have DIED because of this whole sordid money making scam by Clinton and his cronies.

Comprende? Got it?. DEAD!!! Innocent folks who went into hospital for an operation. NOW DEAD!!!

I'm outta here...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 16, 1999.

ahhh, Hardliner and Andy... let's get personal time, huh? Why the playground tactics? I thought we were having a civil debate.

Me thinks you protest too much...

so...

No... don't point me to links with that spew unproven rumor without facts or evidence... with the exception of Hardliner's reference to the book by William Shirer that is all that has been cited as "evidence".

That is exactly the kind of activitity that has skewed the threads on this bulletin board away from the basic issues of y2k to now having y2k ecompass strange and wonderous new conspiracy theories with absolutely no credible evidence that they exist. That kind of activity lessons the real credibility of the true issues for the uninformed and the uninitiated.

Andy... thanks for the "idiot" comment. It's very productive. Andy, do you understand anything the history of AIDS or HIV or Hepatitis C? I've had friends DIE from AIDS. I know the pain that it does cause first hand. It's truly a tragedy that this situation has occured. How is using this tragedy to further a political witch hunt productive? Where specifically IS the scandal? To lower this human tragedy to the level of supermarket tabloid scandal is a tragedy in itself.

Hardliner and Andy, I don't like Clinton. Maybe if I put it in all caps you'll get it?

I DON'T LIKE NOR DO I SUPPORT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON.

Is that better?

Perhaps you simply didn't read my posts? I am NOT a Clinton supporter. Maybe you're having problems with me because, unlike you, I have no political agenda to further. I'm only interested in the truth. I don't fall into nor am I easily put into a specific political category.

If it is true that "you are what you read" then maybe you've been reading a little too many websites and living in cyberspace and not really listening to or living in the real world.

You say I'm naive about Hitler and Clinton yet I am still waiting for you to show me where it is that I am naive or wrong. Your simply saying it over and over and over and over again doesn't make it so.

The truth is...

To not only compare Clinton to Hitler but to actually say Clinton is WORSE that Hitler is to diminish the monster that Hitler was. For me, that is a crime.

If you want to really understand what the world was like at that time why don't you ask a survivor of the Hitler atrocities? Why don't you ask the opinion of those that fought against Hitler's armies? Why don't you ask what this country was like at that time from someone who lived through that time? I've had the good fortune of doing all of these along viewing everything from newsreel footage to visiting the Holocost Museum in Washington D.C. to reading about the issues.

You say I'm naive and Andy goes so far as to say I'm an "idiot" while you, Hardiner, choose to say I'm .

THAT is why I am pushing this issue. I couldn't give a flying "f" what your personal feelings are regarding me. However, I do give a flying "f" about how you people can diminish the legacy of Hitler. If you can't see how your bullshit political rhetoric can achieve this end then it is YOU who are truly naive. Hitler was an absolute monster of a man, if he was a man, who is responsible for some of the most intense and vile human crimes imaginable.

Is that how you see Clinton? Fine. No problem.

My opinion is it is you who are naive regarding the ability of Hitler to destroy both basic human dignity and civil rights. You're placing this kind of power and evil in the hands of Clinton simply strikes me as naive, in and of itself.

You're choice to simply dismiss me doesn't make your original statement more credible Hardliner. So, you don't have the stamina nor the inclination to put forth a better argument.

Fine. No problem.

If, at some later point, you have the time I will still be waiting for you, Hardliner, to actually put forth any credible evidence regarding the position HE brought up.

Simply making reference to a book is NOT making valid an argument. For all I know you simply read the portions of the foreward that you quoted.

However, and regardless of the fact that you simply cannot seem to grasp this point, YOU put forth the argument. The burden of proof is on you to support your original contention. YOU started this debate with YOUR original comments, no matter how much you now say you never made those comments. Maybe some day you can give me specific examples to back up your absolutely sophmoronic position or maybe you'll just let it die the death it deserves.

Regardess, Andy and Hardliner, maybe you should study more than websites with obvious political leanings and simply quote outlines or reviews of books that you have said you have read, without evidence, before you post such crap.

I'll be waiting for your response with open eyes and open ears.

Oh, and Andy, you're very right. You can lead a horse to water, should we change your name to Silver or Bullet : )

Mike ====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 16, 1999.

High fives, Andy.

Diane,

I have seen your posts all throughout this forum, with your considerable wisdom and kindness evident. No doubt you are a de facto y2k expert and more prepared than I. But could this be why you are relatively uninformed about Slick? The trial transcipts are awe-inspiring and incredibly profound (prosecution and defense) in comparison to what the masses received as information on the evening news. If you could read only one document to summarize the legal case, it should be the House Brief.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/ housetext011199.htm

If any regular person (not a politician) would read that, I would be very surprised if they were to continue to defend The Fraudulent One.

The senators know what he did, but chose to leave him there. We have a criminal as our leader.

-- mabel (mabel-louise@yahoo.com), February 16, 1999.

"We have a criminal as our leader"

And "Slick" is the first, right?

Our government is filled with criminals including others who have committed perjury on far more serious issues relevant specifically to the nature and details of their respective cases.

You want to throw out the baby with the bathwater?

Fine, Y2k may well offer you the perfect opportunity.

So... when will Civil War II start?

Will I get a memo?

Mike ======================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 16, 1999.

oh, by the way Mabel, I think he lied too.

The scary truth is, politicians lie. It's part of the stuff that makes them politicians.

There are NO leaders in government anymore. Only talking heads. Some heads are bigger than others.

Unfortunately, Clinton couldn't keep the his little head in his pants from doing the thinking.

Maybe size does matter?

Mike ======================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 16, 1999.

ahhh, Hardliner and Andy... let's get personal time, huh? Why the playground tactics? I thought we were having a civil debate. Me thinks you protest too much...

####### I thought we were having a debate, but Mike you were given references which you refused to either read or acknowledge so it's hard to debate/argue with someone who is not armed with the facts. When the person continues to pontificate based on falsehoods, to my mind that person IS an idiot. #######

No... don't point me to links with that spew unproven rumor without facts or evidence... with the exception of Hardliner's reference to the book by William Shirer that is all that has been cited as "evidence".

####### Mike - you obviously haven't even bothered to look at the links. I'll post them again for you since from your comment above you couldn't be bothered to read them. Notice where the links come from, AP, the Canadian and Arkansas press etc. Of course they are ALL "spewing unproven rumours...." (your words not mine...)

U.S OFFICIAL DEFENDS EXPORT TO CANADA OF HIGH-RISK PRISON BLOOD Prisoners donated blood as part of rehabilitation The Canadian Press February 12, 1999 By DENNIS BUECKERT

FDA DEFENDS EXPORT OF HIGH-RISK BLOOD The Associated Press February 12, 1999

VICTIMS KEEP CLOSE WATCH ON FRENCH BLOOD TRAIL Canada's Hepatitis C and HIV Plantiffs want similar reckoning here The Globe & Mail February 11, 1999 By MURRAY CAMPBELL

FRANCE BEGINS TRAIL OF EX-OFFICIALS OVER H.I.V. - TAINTED BLOOD The New York Times February 10, 1999 By CRAIG R. WHITNEY

BLOOD PRESSURE Arkansas Scandal Tied to Clinton Spreads The Village Voice February 10 - 16, 1999 By JAMES RIDGEWAY

BUBBA'S BAD BLOOD Canadian Suit Revives Arkansas Scandal The Village Voice February 3 - 9, 1999 By JAMES RIDGEWAY

U.S. VICTIMS OF AIDS-TAINTED HEMOPHILIA MEDICINE STILL FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE The Associated Press February 1, 1999 By LINDA A. JOHNSON

CANADA SUED OVER BAD BLOOD Canadian government sued over Arkansas prison plasma scandal The Mining Company February 01, 1999 By KIM FONG, CANADIAN NEWS

LINDA TRIPP CONNECTED TO CANADA'S BLOOD SCANDAL Clinton accuser sought answers but was denied access, she says The Ottawa Citizen January 31, 1999 By MARK KENNEDY

SUIT SAYS CANADA IMPORTED TAINTED BLOOD FROM U.S. INMATES The New York Times January 29, 1999 By ANTHONY DePALMA

CANADIANS LAUNCH LAWSUIT OVER TAINTED U.S PRISON BLOOD Reuters Wire Service January 28,1999 JASON HOPPS

HAEMOPHILIACS SUE OVER TAINTED BLOOD The Ottawa Citizen January 28, 1999 By MARK KENNEDY

BLOOD MONEY: TAINTED PLASMA FROM ARKANSAS PRISONERS STILL REVERBERATES IN CANADA Arkansas Times (Salon reprint - see original below) January 15, 1999 By SUZI PARKER

BLOOD PROBE GOING FAR AFIELD The London Free Press January 7, 1999 By ANNE DAWSON

THE 5TH ESTATE AIRS 'BAD BLOOD' TONIGHT ON CBC Southam Newspapers January 5, 1999 By MARK KENNEDY

THE ARKANSAS BLOOD SCANDAL The Progressive Review December 29, 1998

CLINTON ALLIES TIED TO ARKANSAS INMATE SCANDAL Investor's Business Daily December 29, 1998

BLOOD MONEY The Real Clinton Arkansas Scandal SALON December 24, 1998 By SUZI PARKER

HEPATITIS C ISSUE EXPLODED IN 1998, FALLOUT STILL TO COME The Canadian Press December 23, 1998 By DENNIS BUECKERT

CLINTON LINKED TO BLOOD SCAM The Washington Times December 11, 1998 By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

MOUNTIES PLEAD FOR HELP IN BLOOD PROBE Southam Newspapers December 1, 1998 By JIM BRONSKILL and MARK KENNEDY

'I'M NO VILLAIN,' BLOOD SALESMAN SAYS The Ottawa Citizen November 30, 1998 By MARK KENNEDY

CONVICTS INFECTED CANADIAN'S BLOOD Donations from an Arkansas prison brought death across the border The Ottawa Citizen November 29,1998 By MARK KENNEDY

DOLLARS DROVE BLOOD PROGRAM Tainted plasma collected from U.S. prisoners ended up in Canada The Ottawa Citizen November 29,1998 By MARK KENNEDY

BLOOD ON FILM Arkansas Business Weekly November 23--29

MONDO WASHINGTON: CLINTON AIDE LINKED TO PRISON BLOOD SCANDAL The Village Voice November 17, 1998 By JAMES RIDGEWAY

A BLOODY BUSINESS AND OUR HAND IN IT Arkansas Times Nov. 13, 1998 By MARA LEVERITT

HEP C SUFFERER CONTINUES HIS QUEST Peninsula News Review, Sidney, B.C. Canada October 21, 1998 By LEE TORGALSON

BLOOD TEST WASN'T NEW Peninsula News Review October 21, 1998 By LEE TORGALSON

WRITTEN IN BLOOD : An Interview with Michael Sullivan Janurary Magazine October, 1998 By LINDA RICHARDS

PRISON DONORS INELIGIBLE: DID BLOOD SPREAD ILLS? The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette October 18, 1998 By JOE STUMPE

CLINTON HAD BLOOD CONNECTIONS, SOME CLAIM The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette October 18, 1998 By JOE STUMPE

HEPATITIS WARNINGS FOR THOUSANDS WHO HAD TRANSFUSIONS The Associated Press October 16, 1998 By LAURAN NEERGAARD

BAD BLOOD: A NEW NOVEL PROBES BILL CLINTON'S POSSIBLE ROLE IN CANADA'S RED CROSS SCANDAL The Toronto Sun October 4, 1998 By MICHELE MANDEL

CLINTON PAL TIED TO BLOOD SCANDAL The Ottawa Citizen October 4, 1998 By MARK KENNEDY

DUE DILIGENCE Strategic Weekly Breifings October 3, 1998 By CRAIG S. KARPEL

CLINTON'S ARKANSAS BLOOD SCANDAL WorldNetDaily September 29, 1998 By JOSEPH FARAH

CANADA'S BLOOD PROGRAM UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT The Associated Press September 28, 1998

NEW AGENCY TAKES OVER THE BLOOD SYSTEM: MORE ON BLOOD TAINTING SCANDAL Yahoo! /Canadian News Sep 28, 1998 07:00 AM

WHY IS CANADA A DUMPING GROUND FOR BAD BLOOD? Canada NewsWire September 25, 1998 By: MICHAEL MCBANE

THE TAINTED BLOOD MYSTERY New York Post September 25, 1998 By: MAGGIE GALLAGHER

CONGRESS CONSIDERS AIDS COMPENSATION FOR TRANSFUSION VICTIMS The Associated Press September 23, 1998 By LAURA MECKLER

ON TRAIL OF BAD BLOOD AUTHOR LINKS EVIDENCE OF TAINTED BLOOD SHIPPED TO CANADA WITH ARKANSAS CONVICTS The Calgary Sun September 18, 1998 By DAVE RUTHERFORD

CLINTON LINKED TO TAINTED CANADA BLOOD The Ottawa Citizen September 12, 1998 By MARK KENNEDY

HIV BLOOD CAME FROM ARKANSAS JAIL U.S. firm linked to Clinton bought from prisoners and sold to Montreal blood broker in '80s The Ottawa Citizen September 11, 1998 By MARK KENNEDY

More news articles will be posted soon....

All above stories can be read at

http://www.bloodtrail.com/news/recent.html

####### So Mike is that enough reading for ya? Enough to get you started eh??? #######

That is exactly the kind of activitity that has skewed the threads on this bulletin board away from the basic issues of y2k to now having y2k ecompass strange and wonderous new conspiracy theories with absolutely no credible evidence that they exist. That kind of activity lessons the real credibility of the true issues for the uninformed and the uninitiated.

####### See me comments above.

Andy... thanks for the "idiot" comment. It's very productive. Andy, do you understand anything the history of AIDS or HIV or Hepatitis C? I've had friends DIE from AIDS. I know the pain that it does cause first hand. It's truly a tragedy that this situation has occured. How is using this tragedy to further a political witch hunt productive? Where specifically IS the scandal? To lower this human tragedy to the level of supermarket tabloid scandal is a tragedy in itself.

####### Last year I cycled from San Francisco to LA in 6 days on the AIDS ride. I've had two good friends die from it - please don't preach to me about AIDS - this is jus one reaon why I'm sickened at the antics of Clinton in this regard. #######

Hardliner and Andy, I don't like Clinton. Maybe if I put it in all caps you'll get it?

I DON'T LIKE NOR DO I SUPPORT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON.

Is that better?

Perhaps you simply didn't read my posts? I am NOT a Clinton supporter. Maybe you're having problems with me because, unlike you, I have no political agenda to further. I'm only interested in the truth. I don't fall into nor am I easily put into a specific political category.

####### "Maybe you're having problems with me because, unlike you, I have no political agenda to further" I do not know what you are talking about - I have NO POLITICAL AGENDA, I don't even vote yet in this country - I DO have principles and I know a scumbag when I see one... #######

If it is true that "you are what you read" then maybe you've been reading a little too many websites and living in cyberspace and not really listening to or living in the real world.

####### If you mean that I am informed on Clinton generally, and know all about his involvement in the plasma scandal, then I plead guilty. Your problem Mike is that you are ill-informed, you obviously don't know the basics never mind the details, so you are now flopping around like a fish out of water. Do your HOMEWORK Mike. #######

You say I'm naive about Hitler and Clinton yet I am still waiting for you to show me where it is that I am naive or wrong. Your simply saying it over and over and over and over again doesn't make it so.

####### Hey, based on what I've read from you I stand by what I've said. You didn't read Hardliner's book did you? You didn't check all the links I gave you did you? #######

The truth is...

To not only compare Clinton to Hitler but to actually say Clinton is WORSE that Hitler is to diminish the monster that Hitler was. For me, that is a crime.

If you want to really understand what the world was like at that time why don't you ask a survivor of the Hitler atrocities? Why don't you ask the opinion of those that fought against Hitler's armies? Why don't you ask what this country was like at that time from someone who lived through that time? I've had the good fortune of doing all of these along viewing everything from newsreel footage to visiting the Holocost Museum in Washington D.C. to reading about the issues.

####### Hey Pal, I've lived and worked in Germany with Germans, Lived and worked in Israel with Jews and Arabs, lived and worked in France at Paschendale, lived and worked in Saudi Arabia - been to Auschwitz, please don't preach to me. I've studied the history of WW II, and not just the crap that is fed to us all, the real history, the involvement of Jews in the holocaust, the involvement of American industry in arming the German war machine, the duplicity, the sacrifice of the young and old. Again, I doubt if you've done your homework on this subject - and no, I don't mean watching "The World At War" on Video, or reading the Time Life books....... Mike, they really have programmed you quite well I see. Wake up and find out what REALLY happened, and WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW. #######

You say I'm naive and Andy goes so far as to say I'm an "idiot" while you, Hardiner, choose to say I'm .

THAT is why I am pushing this issue. I couldn't give a flying "f" what your personal feelings are regarding me. However, I do give a flying "f" about how you people can diminish the legacy of Hitler. If you can't see how your bullshit political rhetoric can achieve this end then it is YOU who are truly naive. Hitler was an absolute monster of a man, if he was a man, who is responsible for some of the most intense and vile human crimes imaginable.

Is that how you see Clinton? Fine. No problem.

####### Clinton has already trashed the Prsidency, he is involved in scandal after scandal, he sold out the USA to China, he is deeply corrupt, drugs at Mena airport, the AIDS plasma atrocity, the list of "Arkanside" murders and mysterious deaths, his time spent in Russia as a student, the way he was picked to be a Rhodes scholar etc. etc. the whole thing stinks. So yes, rape, murder by default, Clinton is well on his way to emulating and perhaps even surpassing Adolf, time is on his side. #######

My opinion is it is you who are naive regarding the ability of Hitler to destroy both basic human dignity and civil rights. You're placing this kind of power and evil in the hands of Clinton simply strikes me as naive, in and of itself.

####### I think you think that 50 years later history cannot repeat itself. It already has. #######

[snip]

So, you don't have the stamina nor the inclination to put forth a better argument.

Fine. No problem.

If, at some later point, you have the time I will still be waiting for you, Hardliner, to actually put forth any credible evidence regarding the position HE brought up.

Simply making reference to a book is NOT making valid an argument. For all I know you simply read the portions of the foreward that you quoted.

However, and regardless of the fact that you simply cannot seem to grasp this point, YOU put forth the argument. The burden of proof is on you to support your original contention. YOU started this debate with YOUR original comments, no matter how much you now say you never made those comments. Maybe some day you can give me specific examples to back up your absolutely sophmoronic position or maybe you'll just let it die the death it deserves.

Regardess, Andy and Hardliner, maybe you should study more than websites with obvious political leanings and simply quote outlines or reviews of books that you have said you have read, without evidence, before you post such crap.

####### Again you've admitted that you've done absolutely no reading or research, and you tell me that the dozen + or so articles I've posted above are "crap". Mike, THIS IS WHY I REPEAT THAT YOU ARE AN IDIOT. Only an idiot would say what you've just said. A reasobable person would say something like "Gee, I didn't realise that all this may have happened, let me do a little checking and I'll get back to you - thanks for the heads-up..." #######

I'll be waiting for your response with open eyes and open ears.

Oh, and Andy, you're very right. You can lead a horse to water, should we change your name to Silver or Bullet : )

####### Laugh, I nearly did.

Mike - it's difficult to argue with a fool as one will inevitably sink to their level. This is no insult to you. You've said repeatedly above that you haven't done your reading, you haven't done your homewok, you think the AIDS plasma issue is all spurious "crap", you continue to pontificate as if you are knowledgeable.... To me this is the behaviour of a fool and/or an idiot. I take the blood scandal extremely seriously, I didn't (literally) bust my ass last year for nothing, I am sickend at Clinton's behaviour generally, the blood issue is quite fitting for his legacy as he quite literally now has blood on his hands. #######

Andy

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 16, 1999.

Michael,

One more time.

First, I don't have any personal feelings regarding you. My evaluation of your naiveti regarding Hitler is an intellectual one, based on knowledge that you apparently do not possess and choose not to access even though the source has been provided to you.

For your edification, I lived a significant portion of my life in an American town where they spoke two languages, for the most part, HEBREW and YIDDISH. They closed the public school system most of the Thursdays and Fridays in September and October and death camp serial number tattoos were commonplace on the arms of many adults who lived there. I HAVE spoken with MANY, MANY of them. I have spoken with a large number of servicemen who fought in WWII against Hitler and my closest friend's father was a medical corpsman who was one of the first allied soldiers into Auschwitz. I drink whisky and "sit around" with this man several times a month and he has thoroughly but reluctantly and more often than not, drunkenly, related to me exactly what he saw. I doubt that you can tell me anything about Hitler that I don't already know (but I do admit the possibility that you could). I know EXACTLY what sort of man Hitler was and EXACTLY how much of a monster he was. But since you've brought up the monster label, let's not forget that Hitler's 6 million odd Jews, Gypsies and other assorted "undesirables" seem paltry compared to Josef Stalin's 20 MILLION of his own countrymen. I am not in any way, shape or form trying to minimize the evil that was of Adolf Hitler. I AM telling you that I believe that Clinton is MORE evil and that he has the potential to make Hitler's deeds look even more paltry than Stalin did.

What I have been saying over and over and over and over and over again is that the evidence that you seemingly don't want to look at is contained in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, chapter and verse, footnotes, bibliography, names, dates, actual German documents, transcriptions of Nazi meetings and far more than it would take to convince any intelligent reader of the truth of what I've said about Hitler. If you will reference some scholarly, historical works of the period (of which TRAFOTTR is the most pre-eminent in many opinions) you will find far more than horrid photos of death camps and personal accounts of the pitiful souls who were sent there. You will find detailed information of exactly how, why, where and when Adolf Hitler came to power. I have not dismissed you Michael, I have simply given up on the idea of having a debate with someone who refuses to refer to the historical facts that I have provided for your inspection. I have summarized what Hitler did. The argument that I present is that Hitler and Clinton are going about acquiring power in much the same way and have done many of the same things. If you want the details, READ THE HISTORY!

Now if you think that I've lied to you about whether or not I've read Shirer myself, there's no point to continuing. You've rejected anything by way of evidence that's been presented. I think that your mind is made up and that you are in denial of the fact that something that you believe could be wrong. All you have to do to prove it (to yourself) one way or the other is check out some real history.

Michael, I haven't gotten personal, nor do I care to. As I said, I have no personal feelings for you. I have not cited any websites regarding Hitler, but have pointed you to a source that the New York Times called, "One of the most important works of history of our time" and that the New York Times Book Review said was, "A splendid work of scholarship, objective in method, sound in judgment, inescapable in its conclusions."

To repeat myself, I have presented my argument and referred you to information that substantiates it. I have assumed that you are aware enough of Clinton's activities to make the connections yourself if you will avail yourself of that information. Don't just tell me that you don't think I've read the book--I HAVE--look at it yourself and THEN tell me it doesn't back up what I've said, if you still think so.

As for "Slick", you will not find anywhere that I've said that you were a supporter of his. There's a good reason for that. I heard you the first time when you said that you weren't.

I guess the only reason that I'm bothering to respond to you anymore is that you've always come across to me as a reasonable and open minded person. I am more than a little baffled by your stubborn refusal to examine the best evidence available on the subject outside of a time machine. Is it simply that it's not on the web and would take too much effort? Why don't you want to see what Shirer has to say? I insist that you read it for yourself, so that there can be no question of my twisting meaning or "spinning" the facts. Do yourself a favor Michael, if you wish to truly broaden your understanding of Hitler. Get the book. Read it.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 16, 1999.

Hey, Andy:

I've been kicking around that Clinton's Club Dead Roster (excellent term ripped from another poster here) and the part about the intern whose first name started with M being nailed........... then L. Tripp's saying stuff like this:

Tripp said she feels she acted properly in secretly taping Lewinsky. "If it had only been about Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp, I believe it was the right thing to do."

She said she watched Clinton forcefully deny his relationship with Lewinsky on television, and found that moment "chilling."

Do you think Linda was trying to keep Monica alive? That is, make her a household name that COULDN'T be nailed without the media getting suspicious? Ridiculous, I know, but I can't stop gnawing it, anyway.

That excerpt was from http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/16/tripp.01/

-- Lisa (lisa@.lkjh.kjhk), February 16, 1999.

Mike,

As to the argument that "all politicians are liars" so we may as well accept it:

I know. I worked for politicians. However, crimes are unacceptable. To remove the criminals when you discover them does not equate to civil war. We change presidents all the time, no trauma. (I, also have no specific political party loyalty, but I used to be a Democrat until all this.)

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), February 16, 1999.

Lisa,

An interesting theory:)

By default, if what you said was a possibility (and I'm sure it was), Tripp did M a favour.

Remember the "other" intern bumped off in a hit at the Washington Starbucks, Mary Mahoney, - now that IS chilling.

For anyone interested (Mike, are you out there???), details at

http://www.sightings.com/political/clintonbodycount.htm

"ALL CLINTON INTERNS WITH THE INITIAL "M" in their NAME PLEASE sign up to get on the "GET-MURDERED-SEX-to-Die-For" LIST! 13. CHRISTINE M. MIRZAYAN - Clinton Intern, died August 1st, l998. Her death went unnoticed by the world. She was beaten to death with a heavy object near Georgetown University. What makes us think BILL's thugs did it? In the pre-trial publicity surrounding Paula Jones lawsuit, Newsweek's Mike Isikoff dropped hints that a "former White House staffer" with the initial "M" was about to go public with her story of sexual harassment at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. They were LOOKING for the DIVINE MISS M, and sure enough, shortly afterwards, gunmen entered the Georgetown Washington D.C. Starbuck's and shot --- 14. MARY MAHONEY - This former White House intern was murdered July 1997 just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House. An attractive 25 year old woman, Mary was a former White House Intern for Bill Clinton working as the Assistant Manager at Starbuck's. Sadly, Mary's two associate coffee clerks, Aaron Goodrich, 18 and Emory Evans, 25, were taken to a room and shot. Mary herself had five bullets in her, from at least two different guns, most likely with silencers. A total of ten shots were fired; none of them heard by neighbors in the densely populated Georgetown section. Mary was shot in the chest, her face, and in the back of the head. Someone wanted her very dead. Or to send a message. Even though more than $4000 remained in the store, the police have categorized the triple murder as a robber, even as they acknowledge the "execution style" killings. There was no sign of forced entry, which means that the killers were let in (at least one hour after closing) by either Mary of one of the employees. That means that the killers included at least one person known to the victims or were very upper class types. One report is that the Starbuck's was still locked when the bodies were found the next morning. Now, ROBBERS don't bother locking doors! Of course, As of this writing, Mike Isikoff's "former White House staffer" has finally surfaced and its NOT Mary Mahoney, or Christine Mirzayan but Monica Lewinsky. If the killing of Mary Mahoney was to Silence a "bimbo eruption", imagine how tragically wacky that the hitmen actually got the wrong two women! (Also, just how many of the interns was Clinton getting oral service from anyway??)"

Truth is REALLY stranger than fiction - Andy.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 16, 1999.

I'd like to preface this post by saying I am naive.

Can you please help me understand the issues you have raised by answering the following?

First and foremost, Hardliner, I defer to your indepth understanding of Hitler. I never held myself out to be an expert on the subject of Hitler. I only offered my opinions to clarify my own personal understanding.

In fact, I have been asking you to answer questions to clarify my understanding much more than trying to hold up my own personal views as a way to back up my position. I didn't make reference to the book or the quote you posted. I didn't make the claim you made. You are the expert here, Hardliner. You've said you've had a vast amount of experience living with those who's ancestors suffered grately at the hands of Hitler. I defer to your knowlege and experience.

Can you just answer these questions?

Are you discounting the fact that by making such an extreme comparison of Clinton to Hitler you have NOT diminished the evil of Hitler?

How would those you know feel about such a comparison?

Andy,

I defer to your personal experience regarding AIDS, HIV and Hepatitis C. Furthermore, I defer to your knowledge regarding "bloodgate" and all Clinton conspiracies and scandals.

I don't know anything about this stuff. I want to know more.

Let me first state that I only have a limited understanding of the political implications regarding backroom deals, the HMA, the individuals and their little secret dealings. I don't like them either. I think Clinton is guilty of quite a bit more than cutting backroom deals.

Can you please answer these questions?

How can there be a scandal regarding tainted blood when at that time, in the early 80's, none of these diseases had even been discovered yet? How can anyone at that time know about this blood being tainted when no screening procedure existed at that time because this was undiscovered territory?

I'll search your website for such proof that he knew at the time this happened that the blood was tainted. However, you're reference is to a website named "Bloodgate". Just the name of the site alone suggests a political agenda.

If you don't mind I have one last question for either or both Hardliner and Andy.

Does Clinton parallel Hitler so much that the very meaning of evil must be rewritten with Clinton's picture put there in Webster's?

You both seem so eager to post that you skip over my questions to you over and over again without ever answering them. I hope you can answer these.

Mike

P.S. I'm getting a great lesson here in how a Pollyanna might feel : ) ========================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 16, 1999.

Mabel,

My position is exactly the opposite of acceptance regarding liars and politics. I agree with you.

Perhaps Civil War isn't necessary but I have heard that a little revolution every once in a while is a good thing.

My position is that the only way things will change is if people get involved and complaining about something over and over again doesn't put things right. We need action at the grassroots level on upward.

Throw all the bums out at the next election.

Wouldn't it be great if the next president was neither a democrat or a republican? Now, THAT is a revolution.

Mike ===============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 16, 1999.

How about if the President was a Libertarian?

Wouldn't that be great? A Libertarian in the White House, 2000 or 2004!!

--Leo

-- Leo (lchampion@ozemail.com.au), February 16, 1999.

wow Andy, interesting web site.

I guess I'm gonna live a long life while others may well be dead within...

hey... who's knockin at your door?

Just kiddin'.

Mike ====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 16, 1999.

Leo, I'm beginning to like your John Wilkes Booth idea more and more!!!

A bullet is much less expensive than another Starr investigation. Any volunteers? Let's just get it over with!

But, then, what excuse will we have when nothing actually gets done?

Mike =================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 16, 1999.

Sheesh Andy,

So, Clinton is a jerk where women are concerned. So are some other men, some politicians AND even some women, and definitely not all.

Kick him in the shins, or higher, and take em to court if they try harassment. Anita Hill did that. Paula Jones did that, and settled out of court. Monica L. did NOT do that, Ken Starr did. The great, and highly biased, investigator. It landed, pushed by the far right crowd, in House impeachment, went through a Senate trial and ended. It was not proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, hence no removal from office. Facts, Andy. Next step, take him to court when he leaves office. Assuming, there is one. Actually, I assume there will be.

And, yes, there is no doubt he lied about his extra-marital affair. Most of them do, when confronted, Ive noticed. Even under oath. Does that make him Darth Vader? No. Just really, really stupid. Once again, he lied, but perjury and obstruction of justice was NOT proven. Wrong venue, IMHO.

Ask me if Id vote for Clinton again. No way. I did when he first got elected and didnt the second time around.

Ask me if there is anyone in D.C. Id WANT to vote for in 2000. Not yet. Senator Bennett, maybe. But not if he wimps out on Y2K.

I could honestly care less if someone is a Democrat or a Republican or a Libertarian (-1 sp?). Usually, we dont know how full of principal or unprincipled a candidate is until theyve had hands-on- job-training. Clinton has now PROVEN to me, that he is someone I would not vote for again. The Republican House Managers have PROVEN something about themselves to me, and I would never vote for any of them either. Or Ken Starr for that matter. Or Monica, et. al.

Does all this make Clinton a Hitler clone, or worse? Sorry, not yet. Could be parallels, certainly. Prove them. Could also be parallels with O.J. too. Prove them.

Does that mean good investigative reporters who can PROVE tainted blood stories, get my vote? Go team. IF Clinton actually did it, and they can prove it, great! (Ex-President Bush could stand some of that same investigative treatment too). Y2K needs more of it as well.

Better yet, find the proof to back the assertion that Clintons planning to boot the whole United States governmental system, come 2000 at the Y2K rollover. Sorry, but I dont buy that one -- yet. Doesnt mean Im not looking.

Frankly, it looks like their inaction to prepare the nation will boot them out quite nicely.

Also, I now have more faith in our Constitutional system, AFTER the Senate trial, than I used to have. In addition, I also have faith that many, not all, of the military, alphabet agency types and the local police types WOULD honor their oaths to the Constitution, IF a takeover was attempted. Count on it.

Plus, I have the greatest amount of faith in the human spirit of the slowly awakening sleeping giant called We The People, all around the planet. Y2K is that sleeping catalyst, IMHO.

Diane

BTW, Hardliner, I will read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich but probably not in the next few weeks.

Same with Andys bloody trail, but not today.

Mike, time for a Starbucks caffe latte -- youve earned it!

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 16, 1999.

Michael,

First let me assure you that I am not only not "eager to post" I am really, really tired of this subject. It's all old stuff to me and I promise, the only reason I'm still here is that you seem to sincerely want to get it right. My "agenda" is quite simple. I have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, unqualifiedly for as long as I have life. I perceive "Slick" as a mortal enemy of that document. Of necessity, anyone that I perceive thus must be evil in my value system. Rules and formal orders that I view as within the bounds of my oath preclude my being any more "political" than that. FWIW, I will state again that I view Democrats and Republicans as simply two horns on the head of the same beast.

To specifically answer your questions:

"Are you discounting the fact that by making such an extreme comparison of Clinton to Hitler you have NOT diminished the evil of Hitler?"

Your question actually accepts that such a comparison does not make such a diminution and asks if I am disregarding that fact. This makes no sense to me. I suspect that what you are asking is whether or not I'm sure that making the comparison between the two does not makes Hitler's evil somehow less.

I am quite sure that nothing can diminish the evil that Hitler visited on this earth. It is carved in stone, so to speak, and will be remembered as the vile, inhuman, purely evil treatment of human beings that it was. This, of course includes any comparison, not only to "Slick", but to anyone (yes, even Stalin). To say that Stalin was more evil than Hitler simply because he killed more people somehow doesn't seem right. The quality of evil must surely be the same. Yet, it is undeniable that the 20 million Russian deaths represented more evil on this earth than the 6 million caused by Hitler. Would Hitler have gone to 20 million if he'd had the opportunity? Probably. Would Stalin have been any less evil if he'd stopped at 6 million? Probably not. "Slick" has already demonstrated what he's made of. What remains to be seen is whether or not he'll surpass others of his ilk. As someone else here said, time is on his side.

I think that I'll back off of my definition of "Slick" as more evil, and refine it by contending that "Slick" is every bit as evil as Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot, and that he has thus far not exceeded the quantity of evil perpetrated by any of those men, but that I believe that he will, given the opportunity.

Then you ask, "How would those you know feel about such a comparison?"

As to the townsfolk who survived the Reich and their descendants, I can only guess as I no longer live there and cannot readily contact any of those people. My guess would be, however, that they would consider Hitler as the arch fiend of all time and all men. After all, he was responsible for the holocaust in which their families perished horribly. Such a judgment would, of course, be entirely subjective. If the question were put to the comparable survivors of Pol Pot's regime, I suggest that the answer would be something to the effect that Hitler was a really bad guy, but that Pol Pot was the arch fiend, etc. and if put to Russian survivors, that Stalin was the arch fiend and if put to Japanese survivors of Hiroshima or Nagasaki that Truman was.

None of those would likely pick "Slick" for the first place slot, but if, and or when the blood scandal is proven, I'll bet that those Canadian survivors will pick him despite the disparity in numbers. I'm not a big believer in coincidence Mike, and all those dead people with only "Slick" in common smell like Hitler's Germany did. Only these dead people are Americans and they're here and now. If we allow him to, I believe that "Slick" will make all those other guys look like amateurs.

My friend's father? He has stated categorically that Clinton is no better than Hitler and that he hopes he doesn't live long enough to see the things he saw in Germany repeated here but that he's afraid that he will.

So, there's my opinion and "Mr. WWIICorpsman's" opinion and my guess as to the opinions of several other groups of people.

Finally, you ask, "Does Clinton parallel Hitler so much that the very meaning of evil must be rewritten with Clinton's picture put there in Webster's?"

I think not. Hitler's picture is not there, nor is Stalin's. The essence of evil is defined by the culture that writes the dictionary. The Arabs think Hitler was a great guy for killing so many Jews. Ethnic hatreds abound in humanity and each casts a different shadow and calls it evil. If Y2K worst case (Infomagic-extreme) comes to pass, I suggest that there'll be a lot of people who vote "Slick" into that first slot. If any of the various conspiracy theories about "Slick" becoming a dictator come to pass, I'll make the same bet.

Time will tell.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 16, 1999.

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUTUP ALreaDY!!!!BRAINLESS ONES, LEt me ask you, Why DO YOU persist with this FOOLISH Ness???HITLER IS Different, is HE NOT??? HITLER WAS STRONG, And he was strong enough to INFLUENCE THE WINDS OF CHANGE!!!! CLinton is not stong, AND so IS BLOWN ABOUT BY THE WINDS OF THE POLLS!!!! HOW IS THIS EQUAL??? Dos it compute to you??? HITLER MADE Aplan and followed it. CLINTON Follows the PLANS OF others who ANSWER THE PHONE WHEN POLLSTERS CALL. WHY DO YOU persist in HURTING MY EARS???? STOP!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), February 16, 1999.

Thank you Hardliner. Your points are well taken. Again, I may not agree with everything you've stated but I can see how you've reached your position and I agree with some of your points.

I don't know how Clinton will play out in history. I do believe that eventually and unfortunately there will rise another evil leader that will parallel Hitler. History is constantly repeating itself. I pray that this country will not be where that leader will rise.

Today in that tiny Texas town the trial of those that killed a black man by dragging him through the streets began. The "Jasper Hate Trial". I have no doubt that this country has the capacity to produce another "Hitler". I think we show that there is a breeding ground for new Hitler Youth every day.

Anyway, thank you very much for the clarification, the patience and the edification. It's much appreciated.

Mike =====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 16, 1999.

Clinton worse than Hitler? Hitler?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA............ ...(choke!)...(gasp!)....(wheeze!).....

woo. Boy that was funny. Andy, you and Hardliner are two PARANOID dudes. And Full Of Shit also.

-- a (a@a.a), February 16, 1999.

You, on the other hand, have demonstrated your ability to engage in meaningful discourse and your understanding of history and current events quite well.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 16, 1999.

One could point out that by now (mid Feb 1999) Clinton has been "associated with" far more murders than Hitler at the same point in their national political careers. (1999 vs 1936-37)

The Democrats, in their blatant abject haterd of the conservatives (and Christians), simply lied also and voted as a party to support their party - with malice and dishonesty - regardless of what was right, wrong, or moral.

There has been no administration EVER as corrupt, immoral, and self-serving as Clinton's. The opportunity of massive corruption and power coming from Y2K disruptions - aided by his political propagandists in the mass national media - are the most serious threats ever to the nation's freedoms.

You mentioned above: "what were the threats of previous executive orders?" Frankly, none - because they were administered with honest intentions to manage the internal affairs of the executive department. With Clinton's executive orders, each is a deliberate. specific attempt to take command and power - not previously available legistlatively or constitutionally - and grant it to the executive department, without law or restrictions.

Those he has already signed give him the same power Hitler had - and the laatest polls are the same manipulated "force" Hitler had at Nuremburg, Berlin, etc. And, like in Germany, with the full support of the national press.

Why was he aquitted? Because he was not a Republican.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 16, 1999.

Well Hardliner,

IF Bill Clinton does NOT openly work virtually 100% now to get this whole country prepared for Y2K (elderly too) and heavily impact preparedness and contingency planning around the planet, and IF millions upon millions die as a result, Ill vote him for the top slot too.

Ten and a half months and watching. And getting ready.

Diane

*Create Community, Prepare 2 Share, Be Y2K Aware*

(P.S. Out of the mouths of reporters. Watching Dan Rather this evening commenting on will Hillary Clinton run for Senator in New York, in 2000, or is she planning to run as Al Gores Vice President? Interesting).

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 16, 1999.

Michael,

All your answers are answered in the articles that I cited - the RCMP are now involved so it'll be interesting to see if they can make any headway in the investigation. This story is not going to go away. I'm sorry if I went a little off the deep end with you, but I explained my reasons. The vast majority of the American public have no clue what Clinton and his "Boss" are up to, and that's the way TPTB want it - the sexual sideshow is just that, a sideshow, a diversion.

As for being paranoid, a, far from it. I just happen to take an interest in what is REALLY going on and I've researched the subject exhaustively. I'm constantly amazed at what is out there concerning Clinton. As for you saying that I and Hardliner are "full of shit" - each to his own. I am a man of principle and I don't take kindly to being lied to constantly, having a bald-faced liar wagging his finger at me on television... Do you get the picture? Perhaps you are happy in your own cozy cloistered world and this is all a little too much for your brain to handle - either that or you and Clinton are of the same cloth as you seem to have no problem with the corruption, lies and deceit. It seems that you have no principles. Again, you have also been programmed very very well. You can't handle the truth, a, sad to say.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 17, 1999.

"So, Clinton is a jerk where women are concerned. So are some other men, some politicians AND even some women, and definitely not all."

Diane, I don't know if you've ever been raped, but if you had been I'm sure you would not describe your assailant as a "jerk". Clinton has a known history in this area. Why not ask Tipper Gore what she thinks about rapists? Or Juanita Broaddrick, or the 19 year old girl in Oxford - there are plenty more to pick from Dianne.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 17, 1999.

Corruption, lies, negligence, finger wagging on the TV, this makes many shake with rage and repulsion, OK. But to conclude that Clinton, given the opportunity, will create death camps and exterminate 20+ million, or worse?

There's such a thing as reading too many history books.

-- Debbie Spence (dbspence@usa.net), February 17, 1999.

No, no Miss Spence.

Hitler was directly responsible (murdered) 6 million of his own innocent citizens (and those of France, Holland, Poland, Russia, Greece, etc.) through the intolerable death camps. Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1970-80) murdered deliberately only slightly less (approximately 3 million, all his own countrymen) DURING THE CURRENT GENERATION of our mass hypnotic media - and they ignored it completely, covered it up by issuing 1-2 stories per year. Earlier, the Stalinist regime murdered some 36 million Russian and Ukrainian citizens - most by simply confiscating their crops and starving them to death in the 20's and mid 30's. These are largely ignored by the media now, and only lightly covered if Russian/USSR documents are reviewed. Red China - murdered (we think) some 6-15 million during the 50-78 time frame. Again, no substantial news coverage, nor "historical" coverage when the modern (liberal, politically correct) "historians" discuss the fifties. Desite their avowed sensitivity and compassion - it didn't matter, these were all people murdered behind the walls of a socialistic dictatorship. (I've heard more hatred from the socialistic democrats the past year over the republican's effort to maintain equal treatment under the law than any EVER from these socialists about Cambodia.) So, you still think the mass media will cover the loss of life equally?

No, not if they are killed by a socialist. Those deaths have been ignored.

Back to Hitler. By starting the war, he indirectly murdered many millions others, of all races and countries in Europe. Russia too deliberately murdered several million German and Polish prisoners - most by freezing marches overland to Siberia, others by starving or simple "orders to bayonet the wounded" on the battlefield.

So where does this legacy of malice leave us with Clinton? Like these men, he has no morals, no compassion,no thought of ANYTHING but himself and his political career (and self-pleasure.) I did not politcal agenda - he doesn't have one. (Hillary does, but that is separate.) He will do - has done - criminal acts to maintain his power, destroy his enemies, and expand his power.

Given this, what can limit him? He has already distained the Constitution - several ways, including ignoring the appointment powers, the campaign laws, and his duty to his country. He has politicized the IRS and FBI and used them to attack his enemies through tax audits, arrests, adn harrassment. There is indirect (circumstantial) evidence he has already been associated with over 100 murderes and suspicious violent deaths - of people who had intimate personal reasons to know of his personal corruption - each death subsequentially ruled a suicide or "not resolved" by police, health and criminal agencies under his direct control.

More recently, he is directly linked to selling tainted (deadly) blood from Arkansas prisoners for a profit to innocents in Canada. Again, no remorse, no aknowledgement, and nothing but cover-up from his propagandists in the national media. He is linked to potential rape case - and the national media hushes it up, refuses to cover it.

Like they have everything else.

So - if millions die worldwide from "natural causes" (cold, starvation, fires, assaults, rape, murders, thirst, disease, etc.) during potential y2K troubles - and many here believe those are possible, if not probable - who is to blaim?

Isn't the one responsible the one person who could have alerted the world, focused (by example and funding) the federal government's efforts early and correctly AND FIXED EVERYTHING by maintaining appropriate national and worldwide attention the past 6 years?

The entire Y2K troubles could have been prevented with timely action at the national level - (that would have focused resolution at the state, county, and utilities level). We should not even be here worried about it - and the direct responsibility lies with Bill Clinton.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 17, 1999.

There is no proof that Clinton comitted rape, unless you feel he is guilty just because the Right makes a particular claim (remember the illigitimate son from the black prostitute claim? It was disproven by a DNA test - or was that a conspiracy too?).

This is America, Andy, people are still innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers, regardless of what E Coli may think. I have said before that I think Clinton a lying whoremonger, but that just puts him at par with most politicians. What I'm not going to do is twist my mind into believing every conspiracy put forth by Clinton's detrators, no matter how ludicrous.

Sometimes you guys remind me of OJ's jury, falling for Cochran's bull concerning the "massive conspiracy" by LAPD. Or do you folks believe that yarn too?

-- a (a@a.a), February 17, 1999.

Good post Mr. Cook - Debbie - read and digest.

a, Clinton has a superb network out there to cover up his antics through the aplphabet agencies or threats or intimidation or - yes - murder as a last resort. Clinton has raped women - who knows how many? I cannot prove it, people are too afraid to come forward now, or don't want their lives ruined by this sort of muck raking. Just do a little research and come to your own conclusions.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 17, 1999.

Pol Pot's 3 million was actually quite a lot MORE than Hitler or Stalin, considering the respective populations of their countries. Hitler's 6 million was about a tenth of the country. Stalin's 35 million was something like an eighth.

Cambodia, on the other hand, had a population of about 6-7 million when Pol Pot came to power. By the time he was kicked out, that was down to three or four million. In other words, Pol Pot killed almost half the people in his country.

Also- don't forget Mao. He outshines both Hitler AND Stalin. Through purging, death camps, starvation, he killed far more than twice as many as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot put together.

One hundred million people.

Of course, that was only about a tenth of China's population. But a hundred million people is still a PHENOMENAL amount.

--Leo

-- Leo (lchampion@ozemail.com.au), February 17, 1999.

"Clinton has raped women - who knows how many? I cannot prove it,"

Andy, that is exactly why what you write isn't credible, regardless of how you call someone a name or suggest they are morons or idiots.

Once in a while, Andy, you should consider that just as you have a right to your opinion others have a right to there own.

Regarding "research" Andy. I think you've been spending way too much time on the Web. Just because it's written Andy doesn't make it fact.

Mike =====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 17, 1999.

Robert, I respect your position no matter how I may disagree with it.

However, this kinda stood out for me, "So - if millions die worldwide from "natural causes" (cold, starvation, fires, assaults, rape, murders, thirst, disease, etc.) during potential y2K troubles - and many here believe those are possible, if not probable - who is to blaim? "

Now, I agree that you have a very valid point here but can I quibble with you a little?

I think that if Clinton AND the rest of our political "leaders" allow this to happen they are ALL guilty of criminal acts.

However, you used the word "worldwide". Clinton and our corrupt "leadership" are not responsible for the rest of the world, only our little corner. If there are millions of deaths "worldwide" then each and every respective leader and government of each country is equally responsible. You can't put that solely on Clinton's shoulders.

Mike ======================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 17, 1999.

The most recent theatrical political crisis is over. Y2K is yet to be but an aside in the mouths of the players (aka) politicians. Why continue to chew on this?

Duas tantum res anxius optat, Panem et circenses.

The people long eagerly for two things-- bread and circuses. (Juvenal, c.60-140 A.D., Roman rhetorician, satirical poet.)

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), February 17, 1999.

I thought I closed that tag....(grumble, grumble)

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), February 17, 1999.

Robert: Your claim that Clinton could have avoided the Y2k crisis if only he had spearheaded a movement to snuff the bug a few years ago reeks of partisanship. Did you conveniently forget we have had a REPUBLICAN Congress during that time? Hindsight is 20/20 Robert, and essentially no one in management (Clinton is a manager) took y2k seriously until it was too late. The danger was underestimated. Now that its obviously out of hand, the govt is very carefully trying to avoid panic, which I don't agree with, but that's the way they've decided to handle it.

Y2k is a human nature problem: greed and stupidity strike again. To single out Clinton as the culprit proves to me and other sensible readers of this thread that you are either severely biased or senile, or both.

But then again, now that Monicagate is over and Clinton has again been acquitted, I guess the vast right wing conspiracy has to find some new bullets for their gun. But all they seem to be shooting is blanks.

Andy: You have become a raving lunatic with regard to this topic. You remind me of Milne--sensible when it comes to y2k, but out to lunch on other issues (in Paul's case its oral sex). Mike Taylor is a voice of reason amongst you paranoid Clinton-haters. Where is the smoking gun for all the crap you allege?

Take Bloodgate, did you know there is a case in France being tried right now that involves the same issues? Shit happens. AIDS sucks when it goes undetected in the blood supply. But blood is a valuable commodity and subject to the greed&stupidity influence. Stop blaming Clinton for the world's problems. He's not perfect and neither are you.

As for Clinton's plans to become dictator, why are you so concerned with his feeble attempts at writing "Executive Orders"? Your man Reagan was the one who was plotting to round up dissidents and supplant the US govt with the North/Poindexter atrocity. That was a fact, Andy, just so you know the difference.

And as for Vince Foster, as I said in an earlier thread, I work with an ex-SS agent that testified in the Starr investigation regarding Foster. He hates Clinton, but says it was a suicide. Why do people continue to believe these tales when there is no factual evidence to corroborate them? Do you think that Ken Starr would have missed that one? HUH? DO YOU???????? Now go take your Xanax before the bugs start crawling under your skin.

-- a (a@a.a), February 17, 1999.

Yep - had a republican Congress, but Clinton was responsible for running the government. There were meetings and reviews - but were ignored in Clinton's zeal to get money and get re-elected. Like the Burton committe hearings on bribery and foreign money, he stonewalled and lied, hid winessess (over 100 plead the 5th, or fled the country!), hid the truth behind the willing hides of the media, and "I don't recall's" - something over 700 times his cronies couldn't remember things.

Clinton is responsible for the executive department - legally Congress can't ell him what to do except by writing laws. And the lwas and amounts requrested were fully funded - no arguement. the requirement for correcting the problem already exists in the agency source rules.

Could they have publicized more? Maybe. But like the Burton hearings, if Clinton didn't like the message, it wouldn't matter. The press would not have reported it.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 17, 1999.

Just a friendly reminder brought on by Mr. Taylor's screeds:

"The Josef Hasslberger page of Economy, Physics and New Energy (some fresh air for a dying planet)

Awareness> Truth Suppression Techniques

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

by H. Michael Sweeney sweenfam@teleport.com copyright (c) 1997 All rights reserved

Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact. For more Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Light vs. Shadow home page: http://www.teleport.com/~sweenfam/lightshadow.html

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the conspiracy.

There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive.

Understand that when the those seeking resolution of such crimes proceed in attempting to uncover truth, they try their best to present factual information constructed as an argument for a particular chain of evidence towards a particular solution to the crime. This can be a largely experimental process via trial and error, with a theory developed over time to perfection or defeated by the process. This is their most vulnerable time, the time when a good disinfo artist can do the greatest harm to the process.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the basis is lost, but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed chain if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalise and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek to prevent new links from being forged by a kind of intimidation.

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull his strings who stand to suffer should the crime be solved, and therefore, who stand to benefit should it be the opposite outcome. In ANY such case, they MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics.

The overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make the links seem weaker than they are, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter.

Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known "liar's" testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular problem, position, or idea -- usually ideas, postulations, or theories which are in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to successes in seeking a final truth. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid.

So, as you read here in the NGs the various discussions on various matters, decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal). Here are the twenty-five methods and six traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual paraphrases form NG comments or commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational side-tracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

Example: Media was present in the courtroom when in Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby when CIA agent Marita Lorenz "confession" testimony regarding CIA direct participation in the planning and assassination of John Kennedy was revealed. All media reported is that E. Howard Hunt lost his liable case against Liberty Lobby (Spotlight had reported he was in Dallas that day and were sued for the story). See Mark Lane's Plausible Denial for the full confessional transcript.

Proper response: There is no possible response unless you are aware of the material and can make it public yourself. In any such attempt, be certain to target any known silent party as likely complicit in a cover up.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

Example: "How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint."

Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 - become incredulous and indignant)?

3. Create rumour mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumours and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumours". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumour" which can have no basis in fact.

"You can't prove his material was legitimately from French Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his 'proof' that flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn't. All he really had was the same old baseless rumour that's been floating around the Internet for months."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a single FBI interview statement to media and a supportive statement by a Congressman who has not actually seen Pierre's document. As the FBI is being accused in participating in a cover up of this matter and Pierre claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is natural that FBI would have reason to paint his material in a negative light. For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger's credentials and unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best you can say the matter is in question. Further, to imply that material found on Internet is worthless is not founded. At best you may say it must be considered carefully before accepting it, which will require addressing the actual issues. Why do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation tactics (rule 3 - create rumour mongers)?

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking flight 800, a straw man is used. "If these exist, the public has not seen them."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You imply deceit and deliberately establish an impossible and unwarranted test. It is perfectly natural that the public has not seen them, nor will they for some considerable time, if ever. To produce them would violate national security with respect to intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such disinformation tactics (rule 4 - use a straw man)?

5. Side-track opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left- wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Example: "You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics -- does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - side-track opponents with name calling and ridicule)?

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint. Example: "This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters." Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won't seem curious if the author is never heard from again.

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialogue or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - hit and run)?

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

Example: "With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks like you can make a pretty good living spreading lies."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt as a means of attacking the messenger or his credentials, but cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence that this is so. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - question motives)?

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutia" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

"You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of souped up big-block V-8's (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual 450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams -- for 850 combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals have ever been trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I'm not authorised to discuss if there have been over flights by American pilots."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 8 - invoke authority)?

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Example: "Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts non-existent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play dumb)?

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

Example: "Flight 553's crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won't revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 - associate charges with old news)?

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candour that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

Example: "Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time to question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness of CS- 4 and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so concerned about the children that she elected, in what she now believes was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be used."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the true issue by focusing on a side issue in an attempt to evoke sympathy. Perhaps you did not know that CIA Public Relations expert Mark Richards was called in to help Janet Reno with the Waco aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy feeling it makes us, so much so that we are to ignore more important matters? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 11 - establish and rely upon fall-back positions)?

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

Example: "I don't see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can't prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and on, and on, and on. It's hopeless. Give it up."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 - enigmas have no solution)?

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

Example: "The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story -- often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing, they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven't reported it, so there can't have been any prior knowledge. Put up or shut up."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your backwards logic does not work here. Has media reported CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it? No, despite their presence at a courtroom testimony "confession" by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only told us the trial verdict. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 13 - Alice in Wonderland logic)?

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.

Example: "Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?"

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)?

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

Example: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet from the Warren Report.

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the magic bullet was invented. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 - invoke authority)?

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

Example: "You can't say Paisley is still alive... that his death was faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately placed there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can't you accept the Police reports?" True, since the dental records and autopsy report showing his body was two inches two long and the teeth weren't his were lost right after his wife demanded inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could view it -- all that remains are the Police Reports. Handy.

Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished materials or persons, unless you can shed light on the matter, particularly if you can tie the event to a cover up or other criminality. However, with respect to dialogue where it is used against the discussion, you can respond... You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the matter is in contention based on highly suspicious matters which themselves tend to support the primary allegation. Why do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 16 - vanish evidence and witnesses)?

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarise the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Example: "There were no CIA drugs and was no drug money laundering through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton knowledge of it because it simply didn't happen. This is merely an attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a disadvantage in the election because Dole is such a weak candidate with nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with something to swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform." Response. "You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what's wrong with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his hands on..." One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of choice, to jump in defensively on that one...

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by attempting to side- track us with an emotional response -- a trap which we will not fall into willingly. If you truly believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion, as it is not germane unless you can provide concrete facts to support your contentions of relevance. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 17- change the subject)?

18. Emotionalise, Antagonise, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

Example: "You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel." After a drawing an emotional response: "Ohhh... I do seemed to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help..."

Proper response: "You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let's hear it -- preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 18 - emotionalise, antagonise, and goad opponents)?

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Example: "All he's done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren't qualified. Where's his proof? Show me wreckage from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!"

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You presume for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for the Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta Jr., reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire reporter for the Associated Press -- as being able to tell us anything useful about the facts in this matter. Neither would you allow us to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In Charge of the New York Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County Medical Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers, crash investigators, or other cited officials, including Boeing Aircraft representatives a part of the crash investigative team -- as a qualified party in this matter, and thus, dismisses this material out of hand. Good logic, -- about as good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren't qualified. Only YOU are qualified to tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned? Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 19 - ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs)?

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralise sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in the assassination. This was a handy "confession", since Jack and Earl were both on the same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is now known that Jack worked directly with CIA in the assassination.

Proper response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless you see it clearly, such as in the following example, where more is known today than earlier in time... You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your information is known to have been designed to side track this issue. As revealed by CIA operative Marita Lorenz under oath offered in court in E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, CIA operatives met with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night before the assassination of JFK to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was a co-conspirator whose "Solidarist confession" was meant to side-track any serious investigation of the murder. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 - false evidence)?

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralise all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favourable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

Example: According to one OK bombing Grand Juror who violated the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law, denied the power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied the power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated to hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint conclusions other than facts actually suggested.

Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this tactic except to complain loudly at any sign of its application, particularly with respect to any possible cover up.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favourably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organisations focus on, by means of their own "research findings", that there is no such thing as Mind Control.

Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in the topic and know of the background and relationships involved in the opponent organisation, you are well equipped to fight this tactic.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing government involvements, come up with something else (any day now) to talk about -- keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and players during a game and the whole gun control thing?

Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate and interest in the true issues alive and point out that the "news flap" or other evasive tactic serves the interests of your opponents.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire theories with respect to flight 800 -- send in FBI agents to intimidate and threaten that if they persisted further they would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of failing to register as foreign agents, or any other trumped up charges. If this doesn't work, you can always plant drugs and bust them.

Proper response: You have three defensive alternatives if you think yourself potential victim of this ploy. One is to stand and fight regardless. Another is to create for yourself an insurance policy which will point to your opponents in the event of any unpleasantness, a matter which requires superior intelligence information on your opponents and great care in execution to avoid dangerous pitfalls (see The Professional Paranoid by this author for suggestions on how this might be done). The last alternative is to cave in or run (same thing).

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don't, somebody in your organisation may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.

Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul play as part of a deliberate cover up.

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven distinct traits:

1) They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) They tend to pick and choose their opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussion in the particular public arena. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Their disdain for "conspiracy theorists" and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and non-acceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to- face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth.

7) There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralises itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my book, Fatal Rebirth:

Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world."

-- Jeremiah Jetson (laterthan@uthink.y2k), February 17, 1999.

a, Vince Foster was murdered, your SS pal not withstanding. What are you doing consorting with ex-Nazis anyway? What do you think he would say??? Why don't you do some investigating on the subject - my guess is that you've done diddly squat on anything to do with Clinton. Your mind is closed. And worse, you're a freakin' Clinton apologist. You must be one of the 74% who gave their approval to our wonderous leader...

Something to get you started on your quest to become non-mushrooms a and Michael.......

THIS is the transcript of an interview broadcast on Radio Station KIEV, Los Angeles, on March 3, 1997. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the Washington Correspondent of The Sunday Telegraph, was interviewed by Ray Briem, a radio talk show host.

George Putnam: The internationally-famed Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, one of the top reporters in the world. He writes for the London Sunday Telegraph (sic). He has covered this overall story - of Clinton, the fiasco in the White House - he has concentrated on the Vince Foster story. I asked Ray Briem to come into the studio early to engage in this conversation with Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, for whom we have the greatest respect.

It's fascinating, a week ago Sunday that there was a scurrilous attack on the so-called 'Clinton crazies' and at the top of the list were people like Ambrose and [Hugh] Sprunt. Ray and I are a bit embarrassed because we weren't mentioned in this story. But Ambrose is on the line at this time.

"We cannot believe what we've read in your story, sir, but you've always been on top of it. Welcome again to KIEV in Los Angeles. Honest to God, this is unbelievable! A crime scene photograph from the investigation appears to prove that the Federal authorities have lied about the case and perpetrated and perpetuated a cover-up that continues to deceive the Foster family, the U.S. Congress and the American people.

How did you come by this picture, sir?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Well, I'm afraid I can't reveal that. I can assure your listeners that it is authentic and I know enough about the genesis of that photograph and the story behind it to be pretty sure of my facts. It's important because it's a unique testimony, if you like, of the crime scene as it was when the paramedics first arrived to deal with the body. Almost all the other crime scene photos of importance have disappeared. The original set of Polaroids taken by the first Park Police officer on the scene have all disappeared. All the 35mm official crime scene photos taken by the Park Police technician were underexposed and deemed useless, and many other Polaroids taken by three other PP's have also disappeared. All that was left was just a small group, 18 of them, which have been circulating among investigators.

Only one of them was important and that was this one. And, it turned out that they dummied-up this one to mislead investigators and the Congress. They made it look as if it wasn't a wound on the neck; they made it look as if it was just a blood stain. All you could see in the dummied-up version was a smear of blood. In fact, they were claiming that that smear of blood was a 'contact stain' from the head bouncing against the shoulder, but, in fact, that wound on the neck is the origin and source of the blood that comes down the neck and trickles down the collar.

George Putnam: And the exact location of the wound, sir?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: From the right-hand side about halfway along the jaw and about an inch below the jaw.

George Putnam: Is there an exit wound, because in identifying a body or person who had committed suicide, the entry wound was very small that I found in this identification, but it blew out the back of the head if it entered the mouth.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: According to the official story, Vince Foster put a .38 caliber Colt - fairly powerful - into his mouth and blew out the back of his head and there was an exit wound of 1" by 1.25" in the autopsy report; but, all of the paramedics who handled the body said the same thing, that they did not see any exit wound. One of them, Corey Ashford, who actually picked up the body from the shoulders and cradled the head in his hands - the back of the head where the wound was supposed to be - got no blood on his hands and no blood on his clothes at all and did not see an exit wound.

Furthermore, the doctor who certified death, Julian Orenstein, at the Fairfax County Hospital told me that he didn't see an exit wound either. He kind of gave a rather bizarre answer, he said: "Well, I didn't look around there. My suspicions weren't aroused so I just didn't look." Which made me think.... but, anyway, he was not prepared to commit himself to the position that there was an exit wound either. So basically, we've got all the original people who handled the body who do not have a vested interest in distorting the case, saying they didn't see an exit wound.

Ray Briem: This is a blockbuster story! It's has to be the story that maybe 'undoes' this whole thing.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Oh no. It will be ignored.

Ray Briem: You really think so?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Oh, they always are. It doesn't make any difference.

George Putnam: How can they? The national press has to pick it up ... Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report has to pick up this one, will they not?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: No. They'll just go on their merry way. Nothing will happen.

Ray Briem: You talk about the size of the wound being that of an old 'sixpence'. If I recall, that's about the size of an American penny, right?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: A dime, I think. About a dime. Possibly a penny, yes.

Ray Briem: And marks by a black 'stippled' ring. Now that's suggestive of a gunpowder...?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Yeah - it's sort of a dotted look. It looks like engraving dots going around in a circle and they're black. That's typical of a gunpowder burn. It would suggest that a gun had been pressed into the neck or fired at very, very short range.

Ray Briem: You talk about Brian Blackbourne, the San Diego medical examiner and you quote him saying that he told the Telegraph that he had not seen anything that would indicated trauma on Vince Foster's neck.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: When I'd spoke to him last year, he was just finishing up his report. He said he'd not seen anything of that kind.

Ray Briem: Then there's Henry Lee, who testified in the O.J. trial. Tell us about him.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: He was brought in by the Starr investigation to review the case and in my opinion to basically try and find something that would justify a conclusion of suicide.

Ray Briem: We've seen the latest report on Vince Foster which is a piece that appeared in the Los Angeles Times and they announced that the final report was ready and sources close to the investigation said that it would be deemed a suicide.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Well, Don knocked the ball across the net so we knocked it back!

[Laughter] You certainly did!

George Putnam: It's interesting to me that so many people would have to be involved in this cover-up....

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Not really. The paramedics are not, they've all told the truth. Some of the doctors have told the truth.

George Putnam: FBI laboratories?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Well, there's a problem there. But in fact, many people have told the truth and they've just been ignored. You have the prosecutor in charge of the case - Rodriguez - who tried to do his job. Who refused to be in on a cover-up... He's been ignored.

George Putnam: It's so amazing that each and every one of these turns, Ambrose, almost defies imagination. If you took this story to a producer in Hollywood, they'd throw you out of the office saying that these things can't happen at this level. Will they exhume the body and do you think there's anything left of it at this point?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Well, it takes an investigation to exhume the body and I don't see any investigation.

Ray Briem: Dr Cyril Wecht has now come around and said that the body should be exhumed.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Yes. In fact he said it at the time that he was brought in by the Senate Banking Committee by Senator D'Amato. He told Sen D'Amato that the body should be exhumed and nothing was done about it. You know, nobody wants to deal with this issue. Everybody who is involved is just turning away. They don't want to confront it.

Ray Briem: Do you have a thought as to why?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Well, one obvious reason is that the authorities are too deeply committed to change course. You had, first of all the Park Police and then members of the FBI, then you had the Justice Department through the Fiske investigation and a number of people from the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington - which is an 'old boys' network out of a club - all committed to this. And then Starr takes over and he doesn't clean up the team. He keeps on many of the same people who were responsible for this in the first place. So his office is contaminated in Washington.

Ray Briem: I've said this many times in the past and I'll say it again... Is it not sad... is it not a sad commentary that we in this country have to read a foreign newspaper - The London Sunday Telegraph - to get the story???

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: I suppose it is and what it shows is that American journalists are under a tremendous amount of pressure... they have to conduct their careers in this country or this city if they're in the Washington press corps, and if you step too far out of line, life gets very unpleasant for you. So, in fact, it's logical that a foreign or an alternative source kind of newspaper would be the ones investigating this. It'd be too hazardous for somebody from a major paper to commit themselves to a position that's inconsistent with the consensus.

Ray Briem: The White House's 331-page report quoted you verbatim on many things... that you were one of the 'crazies', etc, etc. That you were part of the pipeline of the conspiracy journalists, but they called the London Sunday Telegraph a tabloid. It's not a tabloid, it's a full-fledged newspaper and I understand that it has a huge circulation all throughout Europe.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: We're about 900,000. The Daily Telegraph is 1.1 million. The Daily Telegraph is the biggest circulation broadsheet in Europe.

George Putnam: What is the reaction there to your story?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Too early to tell. I think people just don't know what to make of it at this point.

George Putnam: You say a prosecutor on the staff of Starr's staff has shown the photo to individuals 'off the record' including a leading forensic scientist in New York. May we have that reaction?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Yeah, I didn't name the person involved... what I was trying to reassure the reader is that this photograph is authentic... officially authentic... that a prosecutor who is currently serving on the staff of Kenneth Starr has been showing it to people to get their evaluation.

George Putnam: What about Starr, any reaction from him on this?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Not yet, I think it's too early.

George Putnam: What about his tough assistant?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Hickman Ewing. We'll have to see. I'll wait for a few days and see what happens.

George Putnam: I cannot believe that in this world in which we live a thing like this can happen so close to the Presidency of the United States and go unnoticed!

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: I don't know. It's very disturbing... I just want to make a point here... I remember interviewing, a long time ago, one of the paramedics who found the body and he told me that there was a wound in the neck. Now at that point - it was long before we had any documents available - I just thought that I must be confused. But he was absolutely insistent, and then I did normal work and then we got more and more documents and we found that several of the paramedics saw trauma on the neck.

The Fiske report said categorically that allegations that there was some kind of trauma were fools because all of the crime scene photographs showed that there was no such wound. Well, that statement was an outright lie. Because this photograph does show the wound and it confirms exactly what the eyewitnesses have said... the paramedics who found the body... who have no reason to lie or conjure up some false piece of evidence. In other words, the Fiske report made a very specific lie.

Ray Briem: You once told me that you believed that the Vince Foster, quote, suicide -- that the Vince Foster affair is the Rosetta Stone.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Yes, well, I believe it is. I think what's clear is that Vince Foster was being intensely lobbied by a number of people surrounding the President in the days before his death -- by the President himself the night before his death, who called him up from the White House, asked him just as Vince Foster was about to sit down and have supper at home, asked him to come back over to the White House, supposedly to watch a film, In the Line of Fire, where the Secret Service agent takes a bullet for the President. If you remember.... to meet Webb Hubbell and Bruce Lindsay and others. Clearly they were trying to lobby him on something to get him to change his mind or take a position. He'd been lobbied that same afternoon by Marsha Scott, who we now know was in charge of that White House data bank. He was lobbied between one and two hours, according to Vince Foster's secretary, behind closed doors; a very unusual event....

Ray Briem: How about that previous weekend at Cardozo's place with Hubbell?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: He was lobbied during the weekend with the Hubbells and others. Hubbell's reaction when he heard about Foster's death is very interesting because he was in a restaurant in Washington. I'd spoken to someone who was with Hubbell when he was notified. He was absolutely ash stunned, ash white! He knew what it was about. I don't think he realized what the sanctions were going to be. I think that Vince Foster should have met that particular end absolutely stunned Hubbell. Hubbell's reaction was half fear.

George Putnam: What was Hubbell's exact quotation? I don't recall the exact words he spoke... didn't he say something to the effect that the 'ghost is up' or 'this is it' or ...

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: No, I don't think so. He was so confused that he couldn't find the keys to his own car or where he'd parked it.

George Putnam: Oh, wait a minute! Speaking of keys... what has become of Craig Livingstone? ... the two sets of keys and why is it he was the one who went down to identify the body? The keys were not found at the scene, but were found on his person in the morgue!

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: What we know is that the Park Police officer, John Rolla, searched Vince Foster's pocket and didn't find any keys, even though it was a set of four keys and two rings - a quite a big clump.

George Putnam: He'd have to drive to get to the scene at Fort Marcy Park, wouldn't he?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: One would have thought it hard to drive without any keys. Anyway, the keys reappeared at the morgue in the pocket after Craig Livingstone and Foster's deputy William Kennedy turned up to identify the body.

In fact, the Park Police had said 'there's no need to identify the body, we've already identified it with his White House ID'... Livingstone and Kennedy insisted on going there. Shortly after they were there the keys turned up in Vince Foster's pocket. The official position is, 'Well, maybe they just missed it the first time around and the keys were there all along.' I'll let the listeners draw their own conclusions.

George Putnam: Fascinating that they can't find Livingstone... we can go to the moon, the Marshals are out, but we can't find Livingstone... Mr. Livingstone, where are you?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: (chuckles) Um, yes.

George Putnam: Back in Minnesota, back on the farm, I used to run through the pastures avoiding the 'cow pies'. This administration comes up with a cow pie and their foot or mouth in it each and every day!

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Yes, I'm afraid it's a very corrupt group of people.

George Putnam: (laughter) To say the least!

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: And it's not going to stop.

I'm very disappointed, in a way, to find out that Al Gore is also mixed up in some of this nonsense. I'd at least hoped that somebody up there had some integrity, but maybe not.

George Putnam: $40 million dollars worth, according to the latest report.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Yes, I was quite surprised to learn the degree of involvement.

George Putnam: Dick Morris said that the President could not have been re-elected without the help of Mr. Gore and his telephone calls. That's a statement today.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Yes.

Ray Briem: Ambrose, I want to thank you for what you have done on my program and thanks for being with us here with George. An absolutely sensational story! We'll watch for the fall-out.

Link at

http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~isa94001/foster.html

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 18, 1999.

Robert,

I agree with you. I just wanted to make a point that I think that all those in a position of authority who made a choice to avoid the issues Y2k may pose to the health, safety and welfare of the worlds population would all be guilty.

In my mind, as the leader of the free world, Bill would be the person with the most blood on his hands.

If anyone I know or love dies, all bets are off.

=====================================================================

Jeremiah Jetson,

I don't know you and you don't know me. I've never even read or seen one thing you've ever posted here until now.

I would never make a leap such as you have made regarding me. You seem to suggest that I am someone I am not. In essence, you've made assumptions about me without basis or knowlege of who I am.

I haven't had time yet to read everything in your post. The fact of the matter is that I've never done any research regarding disinformation. However, I am in advertising...

However, I think the gist of your post is that you believe I'm suppressing the truth and engaged in a campaign of disinformation. Is that correct?

I'm totally sure, even without reading all the material you've posted above, that everything you've posted above can be used from either side of a position.

It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?

Try a little common sense.

I'm a graphic designer living in the Los Angeles area. I am not a political hack from some PR spin firm. I don't even do political work.

Can I suggest something about you?

You are paranoid AND delusional. Of course, that's just my own opinion of the position you have taken regarding me.

I'm sure you might feel differently.

It's all just a matter of perspective, right?

=====================================================================

Andy,

So, now we've gone from a sad day in America to "bloodgate" to a Vince Foster interview from 1997.

Should I repeat this here now?

I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON.

I'm truly sorry that our conversation has turned so sour. You have a serious problem with not allowing others to post views alternative to your own. That's just unfortunate.

You've also felt the need to use profanity in attacking me personally. That is also unfortunate.

Regarding this, "Mike, I can't believe that you are actually coming back for more punishment... Are you still stinging because I called you an idiot? I've explained EXACTLY why you've proved yourself to be an idiot, it's all in the posts above - you sure have a short memory."

I'm not "stinging" at all. My blood pressure is normal and my heart rate is steady. Are you really so arrogant that you believe you have subjected me to "punishment" Andy?

If (in your mind) you've proven I'm an idiot then good for you.

Regarding my short term memory, it's working just fine.

Andy, you're entitled to your own opinion and I would fight and die to support your right to have such an opion, no matter how I feel about it personally. I am concerned, however, that perhaps you couldn't say the same about my opinions.

You say you couldn't give a "f" regarding how I feel about your credibility.

Well, here is how I see a problem with that position and your extreme and unbalanced positions regarding other issues Andy.

You're expressing them in the context of a board dedicated to Y2k with sources I view as "questionable".

It is my personal feeling that you lessen the credibility of what you've written regarding Y2k with every extreme position you take or every questionable source you mention.

The positions which you state yourself you cannot prove do you damage in other areas Andy.

How does this effect everything I read that you post Andy?

How can I believe anything you write about Y2k?

Regarding the interview above...

Great source... thank you.

Because I live in the L.A. area I can cofirm both the existance of George Putnam and KIEV.

Too bad the interview dates all the way back to 1997. You would think that this would be mainstream news by now.

Still, the interview suggests facts yet unproven and holes in the "evidence".

Can I share this with you about my view?

Because I work at home I had an opportunity to view the majority of the OJ Simpson "trial" unlike the vast majority of people. Living in L.A., I've even had the opportunity to visit the townhouse where the murders took place. The T.V. kinda skews the perspective. The street is really close to that front gate and the neighbors are really, really close. I think the neighbors heard and saw a lot more than they are saying.

Anyway...

I think O.J. Simpson killed, most likely with help, both Ron and Nicole.

I do not, having viewed the trial, believe that that crime was proven in a court of law.

Why?

Reasonable doubt.

Who planted reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury?

The prosecutors.

No matter how much money Marsha Clark is making on Geraldo and other T.V. shows she and the L.A. District Attorney's Office BLEW that case when they had OJ try on the gloves found at the crime scene in front of the jury. The prosecutors gave the case to OJ at that moment in an arrogant display of how righteous they felt they were. They didn't do their homework and they blew it.

"If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit."

Reasonable doubt.

In our system, that's all it takes.

The gloves appeared not to fit. Chris Darden handed OJ another pair of identical gloves and they went right on OJ's hands without a problem.

BAMM!

Reasonable doubt.

No matter how much distaste I had for the rhetoric of Johnny C. it was/is absolutely true. That is what separates our judicial system from any other in the world.

The D.A.'s office blew the case.

Reasonable doubt, Andy.

A court of law, Andy.

Until such things are proven in a court of law they are not crimes.

Even if guilty of a crime a defendent can be deemed not guilty in a court of law.

Circumstantial evidence can't win a case if all your fingers don't fit perfectly inside the very glove found at the crime scene.

There are a lot of fingers in that interview, Andy. It's just tough to prove when the glove hasn't been found yet.

Now, if ol' Vince Foster's body is exhumed and Dr Cyril Wecht finds that there is credible evidence that this is indeed a murder case and charges are filed, etc. then maybe I might think differently.

If the trigger man is found and there is a confession that offers up Mr. Prez as the lead conspirator then I am left without a reasonable doubt. The Prez is a guilty scumbag.

Why?

That is the objective view of someone who might serve one day as a juror in a system where a defendent is innocent until proven guilty.

I'm sure you'll feel the need to rake me over the coals once more, Andy. You should never, ever be so arrogant as to think you could punish me.

You can't even get close enough to touch me.

Mike. =====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 18, 1999.

one quick point for J. Jettson...

You make claims about my posts on this thread but did you ever read them before making such an assumption about me?

I am a conspiracy theorist.

I do believe that there was a conspiracy behind the assassination of JFK. In fact, that is even the view of the most recent House investigation into the matter.

I think the government lies to us. I think there is a secret government which manipulates all the talking heads in D.C. I think a whole lot of stuff happens that we don't ever know the truth about.

I think you're a regular poster hiding behind a new identity to support the views of those who might differ with my point of view.

Do I think that is a conspiracy agains me?

Nope.

I'm not paranoid.

Mike ==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 18, 1999.

Andy,

Before you feel the need to post again I want you to read the first paragraphs I posted on this thread,

"Sometimes it just blows my mind how anyone could be so naive as to think that we haven't been lied to by presidents for decades about issues much larger than sex in the White House. Sheesh, do you actually believe that this was the frist time that sex has happened in the White House? Give me a break. We have whole agencies whose duties are to lie to the American people and the world. Sometimes, Presidents and politicians HAVE to lie. You should fear THOSE lies and that which we don't know more than this kind of lie. This is lightweight stuff.

Personally, I look back upon this whole process and view my civil liberties and freedoms being played with and violated on both sides of the political spectrum. If you can't see how everyone from the OIC to the House to the President has tortured this process over the last year then I have to wonder, why? Are you so entrenched in political ideology that you can't see the partisan nature in which all have acted?"

Do those words sound like some naive idiot out to support Clinton or the Federal Government?

Mike ======================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 18, 1999.

Mike - I really don't care what you think of my credibility regarding my opinions on y2k. Take it or leave it.

The reason I posted on the antics of Clinton is quite simple - this is the guy that will influence all our lives over the course of the next year - the more we know about him the better. If you can't see the link then thats your problem.

All i pointed out Mike is that you seem to be ill-informed on Clinton. Period.

On that note here is an article from this morning's WSJ.

February 19, 1999

Commentary

Juanita Broaddrick meets the Press

By Dorothy Rabinowitz, a member of the Journal's editorial board.

VAN BUREN, Ark.--To any reporter, it was the kind of story that doesn't come along often in a career--an alleged 1978 sexual assault involving William Jefferson Clinton, then attorney general of Arkansas. From the viewpoint of Juanita Broaddrick, it has been a trial and concern ever since reports began emerging in the 1992 presidential campaign, through the Paula Jones case and into the impeachment proceedings.

Indeed, her story was crucial to the outcome of those proceedings-- just one among several reasons it is far more than another now-irrelevant Jane Doe account. It was when several wavering House Republicans read the Jane Doe material from the independent counsel's office that they decided they would vote to impeach. As Jane Doe No. 5, Mrs. Broaddrick had filed an affidavit denying that Mr. Clinton had subjected her to--as the delicately phrased document put it--"unwelcome sexual advances." Interviewed by the independent counsel's office, she said that affidavit was false, and that she had been assaulted--an account essential to understanding the second presidential impeachment in U.S. history.

Since the 1992 campaign, journalists had chased after Mrs. Broaddrick, a resistant quarry if ever there was one. With the advent of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal last year, the chase took on a new level of intensity. A Fox News crew pursued her down the highway, as she tried to outrace them at 90 miles an hour. Time magazine reporters trying to get to her pretended they were covering a local tennis benefit. The Broaddricks' phone rang incessantly with requests for interviews, all of them refused until one weekend last January.

Mrs. Broaddrick finally agreed to see NBC's Lisa Myers, who had already done a brief report on her in March and who had been calling her regularly for nearly a year. Within a day, Ms. Myers and a crew were on their way, even as an ABC producer was on the phone asking if Mrs. Broaddrick would come to New York to meet with Barbara Walters. Too late--nor was she about to vault from home, where she was surrounded by all that gave comfort and warmth, to go rushing to New York to talk about this with a stranger. It was hard enough with a reporter familiar to her.

First she had to break the news to her obdurately protective husband that, after all the years of running from the media, she had consented to go on camera. She is clear enough, in her mind, about how she had come to this decision. On New Year's Eve, as the family sat around a table celebrating with friends, someone passed around a copy of the Star, which had a report about her saying, among other things, that Mr. Clinton had bribed her husband to keep him quiet. The rest of New Year's Eve was a ruin. So was the day that followed, as she contemplated all the layers of tawdry rumor about her that had multiplied in the wake of the other, larger scandal involving the president. Perhaps the time had come, she thought, to get the facts out and put an end to all the stories, as Ms. Myers, a respected veteran reporter, had so long argued.

Still, three hours before the crew started shooting, Mrs. Broaddrick began to shake with fear as she considered the consequences, what she would be telling, and about whom. He was the president. She thought of asking if it was too late to get out of the whole thing. Still, soon enough, the camera crew had set up, the interview begun. The filming went on from midmorning to evening, and then it was over.

The interview took place Jan. 20, just over a month after the president's impeachment on Dec. 19. The Senate trial had been under way for nearly two weeks--focused, at this point, on whether Monica Lewinsky should testify. At NBC, the debate was what to do about the Broaddrick interview--a large question. NBC had scheduled the program for airing on the Jan. 29 episode of "Dateline," Mrs. Broaddrick heard--but it did not air then or later. The network had an explosive story on its hands, to be sure, and also an exhaustively investigated one. NBC's researchers had combed through the Broaddricks' entire lives, through dusty basement files and court records. "They got to read," Mrs. Broaddrick marvels, "old papers about the case we settled with two employees fired for theft 20 years ago."

As the days passed, with no Broaddrick interview--and the Feb. 12 Senate impeachment trial vote imminent--NBC News spokesmen told all callers the "Dateline" report was still a work in progress, requiring more investigation. Other sources at NBC asked--profoundly off the record- -how much more confirmation could the story need? They had four witnesses giving corroborating testimony--citizens with nothing to gain and possibly much to lose by going public and talking, as the husband of one witness kept warning her. Still, they had come forward. NBC had investigated and investigated, and it was not yet enough. Word went out from NBC that the network had to cross-check dates, or lacked enough dates. Meanwhile, for any journalist asking what happened to the interview with Mrs. Broaddrick, the office of NBC News president Andrew Lack had a simple, uplifting message-- namely that NBC wanted to make sure the story was "rock solid" journalism.

Mrs. Broaddrick understood her position. All she had tried to avoid by refusing all these years to talk to the press, all that she had feared--that she would not be believed, that she would be passed off as just another bimbo with a Clinton story--had now come to pass, in her view. As soon as it was evident there was to be trouble about airing the piece, she recalls, Lisa Myers told her: "The good news is you're credible. The bad news is you're very credible." Mrs. Broaddrick repeats this more than once, as though trying to puzzle its meaning--but its meaning of course is entirely clear to her, as to everyone else hearing it. It meant that to encounter this woman, to hear the details of her story and the statements of the corroborating witnesses, was to understand that this was an event that in fact took place. "Too credible" sums the matter up nicely.

It isn't hard to see what had given NBC pause. There was, first of all, the detail. Then the subject herself--a woman of accomplishment, prosperous, successful in her field, serious; a woman seeking no profit, no book, no lawsuit. A woman of a kind people like and warm to. To meet Juanita Broaddrick at her house in Van Buren is to encounter a woman of sunny disposition that the nudgings of anxiety can't quite suppress--a woman entirely aware of life's bounties. She sits talking in the peaceful house on a hilltop overlooking the Broaddricks' 40 acres, where 30 cows, five horses and a mule roam. An effervescent dog called Wally and a three-legged companion, Pearl, rush around in their midst. It is a good life all right.

The story: In 1978, 35-year-old Juanita Broaddrick--a Clinton campaign worker--had already owned a nursing home for five years. Since her graduation from nursing school she had worked for several such facilities and decided she wanted to run one of her own. It was that home that Attorney General Clinton visited one day, on a campaign stop during his run for governor. He invited Juanita, then still married to her first husband, to visit campaign headquarters when she was in Little Rock. As it happened, she told him, she was planning to attend a seminar of the American College of Nursing Home Administrators the very next week and would do just that. On her arrival in Little Rock, she called campaign headquarters. Mrs. Broaddrick was surprised to be greeted by an aide who seemed to expect her call, and who directed her to call the attorney general at his apartment. They arranged to meet at the coffee shop of the Camelot Hotel, where the seminar was held--a noisy place, Mr. Clinton pointed out; they could have coffee in her room.

They had not been there more than five minutes, Mrs. Broaddrick says, when he moved close as they stood looking out at the Arkansas River. He pointed out an old jailhouse and told her that when he became governor, he was going to renovate that place. (The building was later torn down, but in the course of their searches, NBC's investigators found proof that, as Mrs. Broaddrick said, there had been such a jail at the time.) But the conversation did not linger long on the candidate's plans for social reform. For, Mrs. Broaddrick relates, he then put his arms around her, startling her.

"He told me, 'We're both married people,' " she recalls. She recalls, too, that in her effort to make him see she had no interest of this kind in him, she told him yes, they were both married but she was deeply involved with another man--which was true. She was talking about the man she would marry after her divorce, David Broaddrick, now her husband of 18 years.

The argument failed to persuade Mr. Clinton, who, she says, got her onto the bed, held her down forcibly and bit her lips. The sexual entry itself was not without some pain, she recalls, because of her stiffness and resistance. When it was over, she says, he looked down at her and said not to worry, he was sterile--he had had mumps when he was a child.

"As though that was the thing on my mind--I wasn't thinking about pregnancy, or about anything," she says. "I felt paralyzed and was starting to cry."

As he got to the door, she remembers, he turned.

"This is the part that always stays in my mind--the way he put on his sunglasses. Then he looked at me and said, 'You better put some ice on that.' And then he left."

Her friend Norma Rogers, a nurse who had accompanied her on the trip, found her on the bed. She was, Ms. Rogers related in an interview, in a state of shock--lips swollen to double their size, mouth discolored from the biting, her pantyhose torn in the crotch. "She just stayed on the bed and kept repeating, 'I can't believe what happened.' " Ms. Rogers applied ice to Juanita's mouth, and they drove back home, stopping along the way for more ice.

For some time to come, Mrs. Broaddrick relates, she chastised herself for agreeing to coffee in a hotel room. "But who, for heaven's sake, would have imagined anything like this? This was the attorney general--and it just never entered my mind."

All the way home, she says, they talked about two questions: How could a man like this be governor of a state? The other, more urgent one was what to tell David, the man she loved, about the condition of her face. She decided to tell him she had been hit in the mouth by a revolving door. His answer: "That didn't happen." A few days later, she told him what had actually occurred, and it had its lasting effect. In the years that followed, they would never go to any meeting concerning nursing homes if they knew the governor would attend. Still, one day, when they ran into Mr. Clinton, he greeted them with his customary affability. This precipitated a scene wherein her husband grabbed Mr. Clinton hard, by the hand, and warned him: "Stay away from my wife and stay away from Brownwood Manor [her nursing home]." The governor, she recalls, tried to pass it off as joshing, but had to wrest himself from Mr. Broaddrick's grip.

But Mr. Clinton didn't forget her, as it turned out. In 1984, her nursing facility was judged the best in the state, which brought a congratulatory official letter from the governor. On the bottom was a handwritten note: "I admire you very much." That contact was not quite as memorable--or personal--as the one that occurred in 1991, when she was called out of a meeting concerning state nursing standards. She had no idea that the person who had summoned her was Gov. Clinton, who waited by a stairway for her. He took her hands, she recalls, and told her that he wanted to apologize, and asked what he could do to make things up to her. She said nothing and walked away. For a time, she and Norma wondered what had brought this on. Not long after, Mr. Clinton announced he was running for president.

Trouble began in 1992, when the story Mrs. Broaddrick had shared with a small circle of friends reached a wide public, thanks to a business associate by the name of Philip Yoakum. A bitter opponent of Mr. Clinton, he urged that she come forward during the presidential campaign, which she declined to do. When the Paula Jones lawsuit came along, the plaintiff's lawyers approached her, but Mrs. Broaddrick was determined to stay clear of involvement. That was how she came to sign the false affidavit.

It was this matter that the White House spokesmen and others point to when dismissing her account. Her lawyer, Republican state Sen. Bill Walters, prepared the affidavit--the model for which he says he got from White House lawyer Bruce Lindsey, who was happy to oblige. Her lawyers, Mrs. Broaddrick relates, didn't actually know the facts--that the sexual advances in question were very far from consensual. Her goal was to keep out of everything.

When Kenneth Starr's investigators came around, explains her 28-year- old son, Kevin, a lawyer, it was a different matter. "I told my mother-- and she understood it--that this was another whole level. She knew it was one thing to lie in a civil trial so she could get away from all this, but another to lie to federal prosecutors and possibly a grand jury."

Fearful of punishment for that earlier perjury, she was prepared to admit to the independent counsel's officers--after receiving immunity--that her prior affidavit had been false. In the event, it became a footnote in the Starr report, and carried no weight as far as obstruction of justice charges were concerned. Both Mrs. Broaddrick and her lawyers emphasize that no one from the White House had harassed her or subjected her to other pressures aimed at keeping the story quiet.

Which does not mean the White House is rushing to facilitate any coverage of this story. Mrs. Broaddrick reports that NBC told her its investigators were waiting for the White House to answer some 40 questions relating to this matter. Asked for a response to Mrs. Broaddrick's charges, a White House spokesman told this writer yesterday that the story was so old that Mr. Clinton's personal lawyer, David Kendall, was the one to answer it. After repeated phone calls, Mr. Kendall's assistant said he was unavailable for comment.

In the meantime Mrs. Broaddrick gets intermittent calls from NBC investigators, still hanging out at the Capital Hotel in Little Rock, waiting. In the meantime, too, spokesmen for NBC News still announce their intention to make certain the story is solid--a heartening testimony to the elevated standards of journalism that have now apparently seized the network. Mrs. Broaddrick laughs, noting that NBC is still seeking answers and working on the program, which the network may one day air--an event for which she is not holding her breath.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 19, 1999.

Eeek. That man is a crazy MF, no? wow..................

-- sickened (lajkdf@alksjd.laksjd), February 19, 1999.

Andy,

Thank you for the article. It's a thought provoking piece in many areas. You have to wonder why the Starr Investigation didn't pursue this matter further.

I'd already heard on CSPAN this morning that this article existed. I had intended to find it and you saved me time by posting it.

Also, thank you for returning to a more civil tone. I appreciate it grately.

This is one of the things that bothers me about this account though...

"In the meantime, too, spokesmen for NBC News still announce their intention to make certain the story is solid--a heartening testimony to the elevated standards of journalism that have now apparently seized the network. Mrs. Broaddrick laughs, noting that NBC is still seeking answers and working on the program, which the network may one day air--an event for which she is not holding her breath."

Unless she signed a contract which gives NBC exclusive rights to this story I don't see why she couldn't talk to FOX News or ABC or any other news organization. She doesn't have to wait for NBC to make up it's mind to air this story. This story says that others have contacted her. Why would NBC sit on this story if they could be breaking such incredible news?

This brings up one of the reasons why I think the recent impeachment did a whole lot of harm to "we, the people".

Perhaps the reason why NBC is hesitant is because of the damage that has been done to the media over this last year and the fact that after all was said and done the Paula Jones lawsuit was thrown out because the judge ruled that even if all the evidence were true in her case she did not suffer as her claim suggested. In the end, the judge thought Paula Jones did not have a case. She did have her day in court regardless of the rhetoric to the contrary. The case was then settled.

Now, the media seems to want to back off of everything. Part of me really likes that and another part of me really fears that.

This alleged act seems to me to be much more powerful than what happened with Paula Jones.

This alleged account seems much more credible to me and easier to prove than the alleged Vince Foster murder.

If there was a basis for true sexual misconduct by the President then this account should have been it.

I'm left wondering why her account was just a footnote in the Starr Report and why she wasn't called to testify before the House Judiciary. By this account, she was obviously prepared to testify.

I'm left with more questions than answers.

What kept the hands of the Republican majority tied?

Why didn't they call her? Why didn't they build a more credible case against Clinton?

Why didn't they make sure all the fingers went into the glove before they tried to put the glove back on Clinton?

Why were they in such a hurry to impeach Clinton that they didn't build a more credible case?

After all, this IS the President of the United States and one would think that in order to build a consensus that the account is true the evidence would have to be beyond questionable. In fact, the evidence should have to be solid in order to impeach the first elected President and it should have to be above question to actually remove the President.

If Clinton raped a woman he should be impeached and removed from office and tried, convicted and then shot on the Mall.

Did the House Judiciary and the House Managers just pull off something equally as stupid as Chris Darden and the L.A. D.A.'s office but with much higher stakes?

Man, we really are living in interesting times.

Mike ===============================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 19, 1999.

Quoting above, after the reported rape:

<< ...Clinton said: "He's sterile - he had mumps as a child.">>

Then who is Chelsea's father?

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 19, 1999.