[Rhodes22-list] Politics -- Question

Wed Jun 11 12:55:38 EDT 2003

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/31140.html


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "brad haslett" <flybrad at yahoo.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Politics -- Question


> 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
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>