The Link to the story here

Los Angeles Times Kills Mention of Clinton Rape Allegation

He may be on the way out, but Bill Clinton can still count on his friends in the media to cover for him.

Today’s Los Angeles Times is a good example. The paper cut a line from George Will’s Jan. 11 column, eliminating a reference to well-founded allegations that President Clinton committed rape.

Without naming Juanita Broaddrick, Clinton’s rape victim, Will wrote, "It is reasonable to believe that [Clinton] was a rapist 15 years before becoming president, and that as president he launched cruise missiles against Afghanistan (a nearly empty terrorist camp), Sudan (a pharmaceutical factory) and Iraq to distract attention from problems arising from the glandular dimension of his general indiscipline."

The Los Angeles Times, however, wrote "It is reasonable to believe that he launched cruise missiles against Afghanistan (a nearly empty terrorist camp), Sudan (a pharmaceutical factory) and Iraq to distract attention from problems arising from the glandular dimension of his general indiscipline."

In his column Will wrote that "other than by soiling the office, he was a remarkably inconsequential president, like a person who walks across a field of snow and leaves no footprints."

Apparently, as far as the L.A. Times is concerned, poor Juanita Broaddrick left no footprints either.

After noting that Richard A. Posner, chief judge of the 7th Circuit, called Clinton's illegalities "felonious, numerous and nontechnical" and "constituted a kind of guerrilla warfare against the third branch of the federal government, the federal court system," Will concluded by writing that "Clinton is not the worst president the republic has had, but he is the worst person ever to have been president."

Carl Limbacher broke the Juanita Broaddrick story. Read more about it in the blockbuster book "Bitter Legacy."

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), January 12, 2001

Answers

"...well-founded allegations that President Clinton committed rape. "

Please define "well-founded allegations"-this is horseshit spin- who "found" them-and who gets to say if they are beleivable. George Will is an ass. I will go on record here that it is reasonable to believe he beat his wife 15 years ago. Heck, I heard it from my best friend. I cannot find a more well-found source than that.

Poppycock. An allegation is just that-allegation-and is total nonsense outside of a conviction for rape.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 12, 2001.

FS:

While certainly not all allegations are well-founded, not all of them are nonsense. I personally would like something a lot better documented than George Will's say-so, but Will is not an ass, nor is he prone to say such things without backing of some kind. If indeed he said this at all.

The original basis might be a swearing contest, where Clinton swears he didn't and Juanita Broaddrick swears he did, and there were no witnesses. In that case, are you saying the woman is lying by definition? You don't strike me as the type who would adopt such a policy, to be honest. Especially taking the word of someone with Clinton's reputation purely on faith. Given Clinton's track record, it's entirely credible that *something* happened. And given Clinton's position, it's equally credible that he could get it swept under the rug.

So we have two allegations here. That Clinton did something that George Will allegedly called rape, which somehow didn't show up in print. Everything considered, not enough smoke here to bother looking for a fire, but denying without looking at all can't be right either.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 12, 2001.

NewsMax

Yeah, good source. Not biased.

They should change their name to PropagandaMax, or The Sludge Report.

-- let's hear (the Shrub @ rape. stories), January 12, 2001.

Hey Uncle Bob! Where were you during the Linda Chavez news coverage???

I see that you didn't post a single thing for several days, like you fell off the earth, or maybe you were hiding your head in the sand like an ostrich?

Your coverage of the "news" seems to be extremely lopsided, to say the least.

-- bwwaahaaahaaa!! (Bob@the.ostrich), January 12, 2001.

Flint:

We can agree to disagree on wether or not george will is an ass. Fine.

But I think there is an important distinction between a sex addict (which I believe Clinton may be) and someone who rapes. There is a huge leap from borderline(or actual) sexual harassment and rape. A huge leap from sexual indiscretions(consensual) and rape.

A man full of lust does not go around raping women. Rape, though considered a "sexual" crime is an act of power, of humiliation, and is nearly never motivated by the thought "I have to get laid, even if it means forcefully". There is a different pathology, a different etiology, to rape than there is to lying about adultery.

I dismissed this out of hand because I see no evidence of Clinton being a rapist. He may be many things, and he may love power, but I do not think moreso than many other presidents.

An overactive libido is not akin to the sociopathic behavior inherent in a rapist.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 12, 2001.

bwwaahaaahaaa!!

Pull your head out of your ass...never mind.

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), January 13, 2001.

Bob:

I hate it when you look in the mirror and post at the same time.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 13, 2001.

A man full of lust does not go around raping women

A man full of rage does not go around killing women either...ask OJ

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), January 13, 2001.

FS--

I am not a rape expert but I doubt if you are either. Seems to me that your definition of rape is of one kind of rape; ie, a "power rape". Maybe power-rapes are the most common type of rape (certainly they are in prison) but to define all rapes in those terms is a little facile. What sbout sadistic rapes (Ted Bundy); what about "date rapes"; what about gang rapes ("pulling a train"); what about a abuse-of-power rapes (sexual harrassment)?

I don't know if Clinton "raped" anyone. Certainly he is not at risk of conviction just because of Juanita's j'accuse. You "see no evidence of Clinton being a rapist". Fine, neither do I, but I don't rule it out. I'll bet Hilary doesn't either.

Bottom line for me is the old cliche "what if it were a Republican being acused?" Sheesh, look at the reaction to allegations of a pubic hair on a coke can?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 13, 2001.

Something that Newsmax obviously doesn't understand and probably never will... professional responsibility.

A paper like the LA Times cannot go ahead and print unproven statements from an asshole like George Will just because he believes them. That's called slander, and they will get the shit sued out of them if they print something that isn't true.

Of course, craprag tabloids like Newsmax don't have to worry. It's fine for them to piss lies all over the internet because they have nothing to lose. No one would bother trying to sue them because their net worth is the same as a pile of horse shit.

-- (newsmax prints crap @ and. calls it "news"), January 13, 2001.

FS:

OK, We'll disagree on George Will. I often disagree with him as well, but you are too didactic. He has kept a job for a long time that an ass could not keep at all...

I must agree with Lars and others on two counts here. First, the word "rape" has been stretched by the "sensitivity movement" to cover a remarkably wide range of behaviors. And second, your own politics are so demonstrably extreme and rigid that as far as I'm concerned, a Democrat must have violent sex at the point of a knife or gun before you'd agree it was rape, while for you a Republican committed rape if anything happened that the woman had any later misgivings about at all. Your standards are wildly double, FS.

Without further information than I have, I don't automatically assume the man is telling the truth and the woman is lying about such things. Sometimes this is true, sometimes it's the opposite. And always, political party affiliation is irrelevant. Denying anything untoward happened on the basis of party affiliation is kind of like denying it happened on the grounds that it was Wednesday.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 13, 2001.

Thanks for your support Flint, but my quibble with FS is that his defintion of rape was too narrow, not too wide. The motives for forced penetration can be other than those of control and humilation. Any psychologists care to comment?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 13, 2001.

off?

-- (helping@out.here), January 14, 2001.

"Cringing scum"--

It must be difficult to go thru life not appreciating subtleties. The cringing folk I was referring to are those Liberals that don't want to be associated with a yahoo like yourself. Like I said, thank you for NOT being a Conservative.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 14, 2001.

Lars,

It must be difficult to go thru life in such a pathetic fashion that you can't find anything more intelligent to do than falsely accuse others of being rapists. Guess that is just part of the Christian "love thy neighbor" mentality, eh? "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Yep. Thank you for NOT being a major league asshole... NOT!!

-- (practice.what@you.preach), January 14, 2001.

FS:

Now let's see here. Newsmax claims that George Will *tried* to say that Carl Limbacher said that Juanita Broaddrick said that Clinton did something she called rape, 15 years before Clinton became president. And that the L.A. Times decided to edit that particular reference out of Will's editorial.

Now, just how much substance do we have here? From what's presented here alone, there isn't much to go on one way or another. The issue has never been important enough for anyone to jump on, despite Limbacher's "blockbuster" book. I have no idea who Limbacher is, or who his sources may have been, or what he claims Broaddrick claims ever took place. So this is like any other unsupported claim -- it might be true, it might not, and we cannot know on the basis of what's presented here. But it doesn't seem important.

However, why go so far as to say that "An allegation is just that- allegation-and is total nonsense outside of a conviction"? If all allegations were nonsense pending a conviction, then there could NEVER be a conviction, because the allegations someone would be convicted of would be nonsense. This defies logic. Not all allegations are nonsense. Ever done something wrong and got away with it? If someone alleges you did it, is that nonsense?

So my question is, why leap to Clinton's defense lacking any knowledge of anything one way or another? If you're going to leap in ignorance, why not leap to Broaddrick's defense instead?

For that matter, while I disagree with many editorialists, I insist that they have freedom of speech, and shouldn't be censored just because they are "an ass". Why leap to the defense of the editor's censorship, if in fact Newsmax is right and it took place? You are implying that censorship is fine *provided* you agree with it.

Political convictions are fine, but what I've been seeing here amounts to corruption -- the claim that *anything* your side does is fine and any law they break is stupid and anyone who disagrees is an ass. But if the other side does the same thing, hang them!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 14, 2001.

And that the L.A. Times decided to edit that particular reference out of Will's editorial.

That is the point...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), January 14, 2001.

Bob and Flint:

This is not censorship at all. You have both conveniently sidestepped the issue of what the LA Times would open themselfs up to if they had printed the "allegation". Take a look at this web page:

http://www.ssrn.com/update/lsn/cyberspace/lessons/libe01.html

This gives a very basi definition of slander and libel. The anon brought this to your attention, but neither of you have responded. If you cannot respond to an anon, respond to me. Let us say you are the editor of the newspaper. Do you not think that printing an article in which Clinton is said to be a rapist would open you up to an action? Granted, the direct libeler/slanderer in this case is George Will, but by printing his allegation, the paper opens itself up to being a party to the suit.

Sure we have first amendment rights, but that does NOT prevent the law from stating how we can legally express that right. We do NOT have the right to slander, the right to defame another, and because of this, we have civil penalties on the books should we decide not to act responsibly.

"Free speech" is not a license to say anything you want in print, or even on a street corner to a third party, and we have a responsibility to the law not to slander or libel another. Since the LA Times is a medium in which a large group of people are informed of the news, it has a responsibilty to the law, as well aas a responsibility to journalistic ethics, not to print anything which could be considered libelous or slanderous.

I really do not understand your hard line on this.

As far as my previous statement about allegations, you are right-What I really meant to say is that the allegations mean nothing to me outside of an indictment. At least with an indictment, the legal system has stated there is enough evidence to look further into the matter. As far as Broderick, I am going to do more research-if I remember correctly, her story was already found to be not credible.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 14, 2001.

FS:

Not an open and shut case. Will is kind-of-quoted as trying to say that, based on published allegations, it is "reasonable to believe" that Clinton may have raped someone. I notice that Will's exact words are essentially unknown, since they weren't printed and we don't have an exact quote here.

But just how much protection is provided a public person against libel? Our legal precedents have established that a public person is pretty much fair game for almost any allegation. Conversely, if someone has made allegations or accusations not yet established as either having or lacking merit, surely it's permissable to *mention* such allegations in the newspaper.

You say that Broaddrick's statements were not found credible. Apparently (if we believe Newsmax's story) Will found them credible enough to mention. I believe that a general policy that a newspaper SHALL NOT print ANY unproven accusation against a public figure to be chilling in the extreme. This places our leaders and decision makers above criticism in an important way, if accusations of impropriety cannot be published against them.

In short, for a famous politican to be slandered or libeled requires something a great deal more specific than Will has purportedly written. As a lifelong newspaper columnist, Will surely knows the limits of what he can write without being censored. He hasn't pushed those limits here at all. Broaddrick's case is now a matter of public record. Will MUST be permitted to mention this.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 14, 2001.

To the anon lout who posted this---

Lars,

It must be difficult to go thru life in such a pathetic fashion that you can't find anything more intelligent to do than falsely accuse others of being rapists. Guess that is just part of the Christian "love thy neighbor" mentality, eh? "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Yep. Thank you for NOT being a major league asshole... NOT!!

If you can find any words of mine where I "falsely accuse others of being rapists", please post them now and I will aplogize. If you cannot find such a quote, then you owe me an apology. (I won't hold my breath).

The strongest thing that I said in this thread about rape was that "I don't rule it out".I stand by that remark. My total statement was--

"I don't know if Clinton "raped" anyone. Certainly he is not at risk of conviction just because of Juanita's "j'accuse". You (FS) "see no evidence of Clinton being a rapist". Fine, neither do I, but I don't rule it out. I'll bet Hillary doesn't either"

I don't remember what I may have written in other threads. Here is your chance to embarrass me. Go for it.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 14, 2001.

This is not censorship at all

Never said it was...what I say it is the media controlling the spin to influence the masses. It is wrong, immoral, and unethical. The mainstream media as we know it will be out of business in a few years because people who care (those who pay attention to the news) are wise to this. As people step away from the spin ad generated revenues will dwindle. When this happens mainstream has 2 choices; report the facts without editorializing them and let the viewer decide the relevance or close shop. I hope they close shop...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), January 14, 2001.

Bob,

You should probably just stick to copying and pasting the lies of other right-wing extremists. Everytime you open your mouth you look like a complete idiot.

-- gaaaawd! (howdumb@canyou.get), January 14, 2001.

gaaaawd! (howdumb@canyou.get)

Normally I don’t respond to anonymous posters. However, out of curiosity, please point out to me where anything I said in my prior post is wrong. Based upon your remark I assume that you disagree with :

1. The media controlling the spin to influence the masses 2. It is wrong, immoral, and unethical 3. The mainstream media as we know it will be out of business in a few years because people who care (those who pay attention to the news) are wise to this 4. As people step away from the spin ad generated revenues will dwindle 5. When this happens mainstream has 2 choices; report the facts without editorializing them and let the viewer decide the relevance or close shop

Specifically, explain to me where I am wrong…

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), January 14, 2001.

Okay Bob, pay attention now...

"It is reasonable to believe that [Clinton] was a rapist 15 years before becoming president"

An outright lie. Law says we are innocent until proven guilty, so how can it be "reasonable" to label Clinton a rapist without any proof? If you think a professional organization like the LA Times is going to print an outright lie just to make George Asshole Will happy, you are a fool. Very naive, very DUMB. They take more responsibility in printing such garbage than Will does in saying it. They don't want to get sued for hundreds of millions of dollars you fool. If you don't believe me, just ask a lawyer.

This is NOT "wrong, immoral, and unethical" you idiot, it is the only ethical thing they can do. How would you like it if they printed front page headlines saying you murdered someone just because some looney who wanted revenge told them you did? Being "ethical" at a minimum means abiding by what is legal and what isn't legal, for starters. That might be hard to understand for people like you who think the world is here for you to do with as you please. That is YOUR problem, get real.

If you think the LA Times is going to go out of business because they don't cater to crooked, lying, deceptive bastards like you and George A-hole Will, you've got another thing coming. The majority of people in this country still respect the law. If anyone goes out of business it's going to be Newsmax, Worldnetdaily, The Media "Research" Center, and all of the other right-wing propaganda rags you adore, after they get sued into bankruptcy for spreading filthy lies about people they don't like.

If you believe any of what you said it just goes to show that you are DUMB, DUMBER, DUMBEST, a complete IDIOT!!

Best wishes,,,

-- liberal (sick.of@greedy.liars), January 14, 2001.

liberal (sick.of@greedy.liars)...

You didn't answer the question. You name-called, yelled, finger- pointed, but, you didn't answer the question...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), January 15, 2001.

Wow, you're even denser than I thought! Amazing.

Bob,

EVERYTHING you said is INCORRECT, get it? As in NOT TRUE, ain't gonna happen, no way, not even close.

If you want to believe otherwise that is your privelege, but you are seriously deluded.

-- (bob@very.deluded), January 15, 2001.