“Conspiracy” is an insult. According to dictionary.com, conspiracy means* [ol][li]An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.[]A group of conspirators. []Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas. [/ol]*The vast forces arrayed against President Clinton were the conservatives, just as the vast forces arrayed against President Reagan and both Presidents Bush were the liberals. That’s how the two-party system is supposed to work. It’s healthy when each party points out the flaws in the other one. There’s nothing illegal, wrongful, subversive, criminal, or sinister about it. [/li]
Mrs. Clinton was wrong and insulting to call the forces arrayed against her and her husband a “conspiracy.” She was particularly wrong to attribute the Lewinsky accusations to a “conspiracy,” since they were true. Even if she truly disbelieved the Lewinsky accusations, that was was her mistake.
If you wrongly insult people, you owe them an apology.
subversive
*[list=1]Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established government: “Sex and creativity are often seen by dictators as subversive activities” (Erica Jong). [/list=1]*subvert [list=1][li]To destroy completely; ruin: “schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community” (Alexander Hamilton). [/li][li]To undermine the character, morals, or allegiance of; corrupt. [/li][li]To overthrow completely: “Economic assistance… must subvert the existing… feudal or tribal order” (Henry A. Kissinger). See Synonyms at overthrow. [/li][/list=1]
I question the legality of a special prosecutor brought in to look into the facts surrounding a land deal not closing up shop when it became clear that they were clean on that front.
Yup. You’re correct. I’ve seen the Whitehouse surveillance tapes. James Watt is the guy who took Bill’s dick and stuffed it in Monica’s mouth. Ed Meese is the guy who ordered the pizza. And Gordon Liddy paid for it out of his left over CREEP funds.
She doesn’t have to apologize for me. Might be nice to hear her say she may have been mistaken, that the vast conspiracy had nothing to do with her husband’s infidelities. She’s entitled to believe a vrwc existed to bring him down, but it wasn’t responsible for whatever the president did. That’s his responsibility.
I don’t think for a minute that there was ever a time that Hil thought that Bill didn’t know Mon. I think it surfaced and she probably read him the riot act for being so stupid. She acted the way she did in public because that’s how she was supposed to act.
No, but I believe she was waiting for all the Republicans who’ve done wrong to apologize first. Perhaps she figured that in severity, she was so far down the line of apologists that before she’d be called upon to speak, she’d have time to be able to go get lunch, get her hair done, and raise five or six children. (To retirement age)
The “vast right wing conspiracy” was in full swing before Bill ever met ML. The country (you and me in case you have forgotten) got to pay millions for the witch hunt staged by that same “vast right wing conspiracy.” What did they come up with? One marital infidelity that he denied under oath.
I don’t know about you but if the entire might of the federal legislature were dedicated to my downfall for several years they could probably come up with something more serious to charge me with than lying about a sexual experience.
There my be a punch line here. According to an item on the radio, The New York Post has reported that Mr. Starr had expressed a sort of wish to have dinner with the Clintons. When asked about the story Mr Starr is reported to have replied:
There is always the possibility that the v/r/w/c is so vast and powerful that Bill Clinton was a willing and active member of the conspiracy against himself! :dubious:
I don’t believe she would ever apologize for her mistaken belief (even if it was sincere, big if) that the infidelity accusations against Bill were untrue. She’s politically savy enough to know that any such public statement would come back to haunt her in campaign ads and opponents’ fundraising materials for years to come. Why would she ever give someone that kind of ammo to use against her?
“I’m sorry. Not only was I a cuckold, I was a dupe as well.” Not gonna happen.
Is there a word or phrase for a poster who is normal, nice and well respected until one topic comes up in which they consistently seem like an entirely different poster? Jeckyl and Hyder come to mind, but seems overbroad.
Then I thought Bruce Banner poster- but again the single topic requirement seems to ruin that as well.
I am sure there is a clever one, but I am at a loss to come up with one myself.
Well, then stop questioning it. It was legal. The Attorney General approved the change in mission of the special prosecutor, as did a federal judge, which is what was required by the statute. It was legal.
Perhaps Mrs. Clinton used the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary (at www.m-w.com) instead. There she might have found that conspiracy, the act of conspiring together, is also defined as “…to act in harmony toward a common end.” Under this definition, the word conspiracy does not demand a sinister, illegal, or wrongful result, but merely a common one.
And, december, as your post concedes, that is precisely what many people were doing in an effort to attack the President. You cannot reasonably deny that a conspiracy existed to get the President on something, anything. Woefully, or fortunately (depending on your perspective) Mr. Clinton helpfully handed his attackers a rope, fashioned the other end into a noose, and obligingly stuck his head through it.
Not to claim sainthood, but if the entire might of the federal government were focused on me… they wouldn’t find anything. No martial infedelity, and more importantly, since that’s not a federal crime anyway, no instance of lying under oath about it. Nor would I lie under oath. No cheating on taxes. No insider trading. In short, I live my life, perhaps boringly, inside the law.
By the way, Degrance, you do realize that Mr. Clinton was accused of lying UNDER OATH about a series of sexual experiences, right? I ask only because you characterized it, in your quote above, as “lying about a sexual experience,” which is not against the law. It was the “under oath” thing that, if true, was a violation of the law.
Not quite. The investigation stemmed from his sexual harassment of Paula Jones - another in the list of Slimy Things Clinton Did Because He Felt Himself To Be Above The Rest of Those Trailer Trash Who Ought To Be Grateful For A Chance To Suck His C**k.
And I am not entirely sure what you mean by evidence, but there was reason to believe that the Clintons were involved in a ton of chicanery - Filegate, Travelgate, lying about his draft record, Hilary’s uncanny knack for cattle futures, and so forth.
So it wasn’t like there was this minor blip on the moral record of an otherwise outstanding citizen. And none of this was triggered by Republican conspiracies - the draft record lies happened when he was still in school, and I don’t imagine even Hilary claims that the RNC planted the evidence that was missing for two years on her library table, and forged her fingerprints all over it.
If you think that, by “a vast, right-wing conspiracy” Hilary really meant “Bill is about to be impeached for lying under oath - a charge which will be found to be true by the presiding judge in the civil suit”, OK, but that is clearly not what she meant.
Convicted criminals often blame someone for their conviction, but they rarely blame themselves. It is always the prosecuting attorney who had it in for them, or the judge who convicted them out of bias, or those evil witnesses who testified. Rarely do they admit that they did anything wrong - it is always the fault of somebody else.
OJ has never, to my knowledge, said that the reason he was indicted for a double murder was because he slit his ex-wife’s throat with a knife. Oh no. For him too, it was a vast, right-wing conspiracy of racist cops and bigotted lab technicians.
Same with the Clintons. It is always somebody else’s fault when Clinton does something disgusting, and gets caught. Not Clinton’s fault, for doing it in the first place, or Clinton’s fault for lying about it in the second place, or even Clinton’s fault for lying about it to his wife and his staff. No, it is a conspiracy against him, by all those shadowy types out there, who (as UncleBeer points out, forced Bill to act like a slimeball practically from the first moment he appeared on the political scene).
No, Hilary has not apologized. Why should she? She can count on the support of her more hysterical sympathizers (hi, Diogenes) to blame whatever Bill does on someone else.
A vast, right-wing conspiracy? Sure - just like the vast, left-wing conspiracy that brought down Nixon.:rolleyes:
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t see why the establishment as fact of Clinton’s dalliance should negate that there was a vast right wing conspiracy at play- The fact that it should come to light when and how it did was a result of the furious, desperate machinations of that conspiracy. From the Sidney Blumenthal book mentioned above, from which the Guardian published extracts a couple of weeks ago(http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,959819,00.html):
They were desperate to find any “immoral” dirt on him at all. Could that not have been what Hillary meant by the phrase, rather than seeing it as an outright denial of Bill’s infidelity?
They both seem to make clear that there was indeed a conspiracy at play, but I suppose it’s a doubly biased source coming from both Sidney Blumenthal and the Grauniad.