[Rhodes22-list] Politics -- Question

[brad haslett]

Wally,

The specific officers I had in mind when I wrote that
were the ones that had their careers terminated over
Tail Hook (some who now share a cockpit with me) Here
is an excerpt from a column on that very subject.

"In my opinion, Bill Clinton was only remorseful for
getting caught and I also believe that he still cares
more for his personal popularity than he does about
America. Clinton shamed and abused our trust on every
level, not the least of which was being exposed as a
molester, eager to impose himself upon every
vulnerable, and even unwilling female, around him. To
those who say, "it was only sex," I must respond that
he fired military personnel involved in the Tail Hook
Scandal for lesser sins than his. "

The entire article can be read at:

http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/dec/01/marti.htm

Brad


--- Wally Buck <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Brad,
> 
> I agree, the impeachment proceedings were a real
> waste of time and money. 
> And yes a few Officers and the top Non Com went down
> (no pun intended) for 
> sexual offenses. In most of the cases I can recall
> (not all) there were 
> complains filed against the offending military men.
> Monica never had any 
> type of sexual harassment claim against Clinton. I
> realize that there were 
> claims from other women but not Monica.  I thought
> the whole thing was blown 
> (pun intended) out of proportion.
> 
> Wally
> 
> 
> 
> >From: brad haslett <flybrad at yahoo.com>
> >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Politics -- Question
> >Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 06:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >Bill,
> >
> >If Bush lied to push his war agenda I'll be the
> first
> >to call for his impeachment.  I think the evidence
> was
> >there to make his case but others with a different
> >agenda could probably have used the same data to
> make
> >theirs.  Clinton, his cabinet, and both parties
> during
> >his administration felt there were WMD in Iraq and
> now
> >their words and votes are haunting them.
> >
> >I have read the Clinton Grand Jury testimony and
> >watched most of the impeachment trial.  Frankly, I
> was
> >dissapointed with the whole thing, a waste of time
> and
> >taxpayer money.  What Bill does with his "Mr.
> Happy"
> >is of no concern to me what-so-ever now that he is
> out
> >of office and was of very little concern while he
> was
> >in office.  But, several members of the military
> got
> >fried for far less serious conduct that had a
> sexual
> >overtone while he was Commander-in-Chief. I
> couldn't
> >behave like that on my job and get away with it and
> >neither could most folks.  Was it an impeachable
> >offense?  Probably not.  I'm still disappointed
> that
> >the press didn't do their job in 1991.  It didn't
> >suprise me that Ken Starr failed his original
> mission.
> >  If I sat down with my corporate pilot buddies
> from
> >Little Rock and started connecting the dots from
> >everything we saw and heard from the period of 1978
> to
> >1985 we could put together 95% of what really
> >happened.  Avoiding that last 5% is why he earned
> the
> >moniker "Slick Willy" and he had it long before he
> >became President.
> >
> >Hopefully Hillary will run in 2004 or 2008.  I
> still
> >want her to share that commodity trading program
> that
> >no one in the history of commodity trading has been
> >able to duplicate.  The Rose Law Firm put a lot of
> >bread on my table during my last two years of
> college
> >at UALR, Most of those folks were nice people.  The
> >senior partner, Joe Gior (my most frequent
> client)went
> >bankrupt, Vince Foster died, Hillary (never flew
> her)
> >got a little creative with billing (just another
> >Arkansas method of funding candidates) but most
> were
> >just hard working, honest attorneys.  Thats no
> joke.
> >
> >Run, Hillary Run!
> >
> >Brad
> >--- Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
> > > Brad,
> > >
> > > I really, really, hope this question will not
> > > degenerate into the question "If Clinton lied
> about
> > > a blow job, is it OK for Bush to lie about a
> war?"
> > >
> > > Have you ever read the Clinton Grand Jury
> testimony?
> > >
> > > Most people have not.  I think you'll find it
> quite
> > > interesting.
> > >
> > > First of all, everyone was lying.  They had
> quite a
> > > cast of characters.   People couldn't remember
> if
> > > they were fired from their last job.  They
> couldn't
> > > remember accusations made against them.  etc.
> > >
> > > Then Clinton gets asked a sex question with no
> > > direct bearing on the matter at hand.  His
> attorneys
> > > object.  The question is rephrased in the
> negative.
> > > It is so convoluted that it is written down and
> > > handed to Clinton who is asked if he understands
> the
> > > question.  He says he thinks he does.  He is
> told to
> > > answer yes or no.  His lawyers again object,
> telling
> > > the judge it has become the "Do you still beat
> your
> > > wife?" question--Clinton will be accused of
> lying no
> > > matter how he answers the question.  The judge
> > > insists that he answer the question.
> > >
> > > The question permitted was "Have you had
> intercourse
> > > with Monica Lewinski?"  To which, it would seem,
> > > Clinton could have honestly answered "no".  The
> > > question asked was "Have you had sex with Monica
> > > Lewinski?" with a paragraph long definition of
> "sex"
> > > that explicitly excluded, for the purpose of
> this
> > > answer in this court at this time, blow jobs
> among
> > > other things.  Clinton seemingly truthfully
> answered
> > > "no".
> > >
> > > This was a set up, and I think you know it.  The
> > > testimony was never supposed to become public,
> but
> > > of course it did.  If you look at his public
> > > statements around this time, for a while he was
> able
> > > to tap dance around the truth, saying,
> truthfully,
> > > things like "Under the definition of sex as
> provided
> > > to me in my Grand Jury testimony I can honestly
> say
> > > that I never had sex with Monica Lewinski..."
> > >
> > > Then he got sloppy and started to rely on
> implied
> > > disclaimers.  I will not, for one moment, try to
> > > defend this.  It was dumb.  It was dumb to get
> > > backed into this situation.  Knowing what he
> knew,
> > > he would have been smarter to settle earlier,
> even
> > > if he knew the charges against him amounted to
> > > extortion, and would lead to more frivolous
> suits.
> > >
> > > To answer my own question: no, I do not think it
> is
> > > OK to lie about blow jobs.  I do not think it is
> ok
> > > to lie about war.  I do think you agree.
> > >
> > > Bill Effros
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: brad haslett
> > > To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 7:08 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Politics --
> Question
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's a link to a Rich Lowry column that
> addresses
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com