Are you referring to Moi?
I believe this is the first Hillary thread I’ve ever started, nor do I recall starting a Bill thread at any time.
I would certainly be happy to place my record of anti-Clinton threads against any of the Enemies of George who feel it necessary to keep 5-6 anti-Bush/Republican threads going at any given time.
In purely social circumstances, if you discover that your neighbor Mr. Ostrow is playing hide-the-salami with the cute divorcee Marge across the street, and you inform Mrs. Ostrow of that fact, it’s not unlikely that she would angrily deny it, and thereby accuse you (implicitly, at least) of being a liar.
If, subsequent to that conversation, Mr. Ostrow confesses his dalliance, and they agree to work on their marriage rather than separate, does Mrs. Ostrow owe you an apology for doubting your word, and the implicit accusation that you were a liar?
I say she does not. I say that when people insert themselves into a couple’s private relationship and ask questions or reveal startling facts like that, a certain amount of emotional blowback is expected and understood.
I think the OP is expecting Mrs. Clinton to have reacted like a politician - to calmly assess the situation, to respond in a fashion calculated to defuse. I say she was responding as any wife might when confronted with an accusation about her husband’s infidelity: she denies and lashes out. She had every right to do this.
Now, it may be that a close examination of her words, as Scylla suggests, will reveal that she specifically blamed the “vast right-wing conspiracy” for promulgating the lie that Mr. Clinton had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Obviously, that assertion, if she made it, was wrong. But given the stress and shame of the time, the need for her to believe her husband, and the fact there there was undeniably a conspiracy going on, even though it didn’t manufacture that circumstance… frankly, I believe she should be excused from any expectation of an apology. She was, quite frankly, an innocent and wronged party in this matter. To demand an apology from her now is not noble, any more than it would be right to confront a sobbing Mrs. Ostrow after her husband confessed and say, “See? See? I was right all along! You owe me an apology for doubting me!”
That’s a weak counter-argument, bacause:[ol][li]m-w’s example of the definition you cite is “**circumstances *conspired to defeat his efforts”. [/li]
When people engage in a conspiracy, it’s a “**secret **agreement to do an **unlawful **or **wrongful **act.” (emphasis added)[li]You have chosen the second definition, rather than the primary one.[]The *impact on the listener is from all definitions, especially the most common ones. [/li]
You argue that Mrs. Clinton didn’t mean “conspiracy” as an insult because she may have had a particular definition in her head. That’s like saying, “I didn’t have sex with Ms. Lewinsky” isn’t a lie, because Mr, Clinton may have had a particular definition in his head.[]Mrs. Clinton has never claimed that she meant a non-pejorative meaning for the word.[/ol]
elf6c
You should thank your lucky stars that Scylla has this little conservative quirk about him- otherwise he’d be too powerful in his perfectness. 
Bricker:
There is some reasonableness to what you say. Please understand that I tend to agree with you in saying that she is the most aggrieved party in the whole shebang.
But you make the point: Is she acting like a wife, or a politician?
I would argue that her appearance on the Today show was in the role of politician and not a tete a tete across the hedgerow with an inquisitive and nosy neighbor.
Certainly today she is in the role of a politician, and, as she recounts the incident in her book that will also be in the same role.
I’ve finished “Dereliction of Duty,” which claims to be an objective view but fallys way short of that claim, IMO, and I look forward to reading Hillary’s book.
It simply seems to me that there was a claim that the affair was deliberately fabricated as a means of character assasination. That claim was both false and damaging, and has not been addressed.
Now I tend to agree with you that further humiliation from Hillary is neither required no desirable. I wonder however if Bill has addressed this.
I will certainly concede that there were a lot of people out to get Bill. I think that goes with the job and generates little sympathy from me, especially in view of the equally vicious vast left wing conspiracy out to get George Bush.
However, if George had claimed that the drunk driving incident against him was fabricated by those vicious lefty liberals, than I think an apology or at least an acknowledgement would need to be forthcoming upon revelation that the charge was indeed accurate.
I don’t beleive that anything like this ever came out of the Clinton Administration.
I agreed w/the first statement way back at the beginning of the thread, but also agree w/Bricker & you that demanding the pound of flesh from her re: this isn’t necessarily the right thing to do, either.
however, I can’t let this last thing go by w/o pointing out the obvious:
The act that was discussed in the first part was one that was a private action between two people, not commonly thought of as a criminal act (naturally I suspect somewhere somebody will be able to show some particular law against having a blow job outside the bounds of matrimony).
The Bush act was a public act and was in fact a crime.
Would some one lie specifically claiming a crime, yes, an apology should be forthcoming.
and december, the fact that dictionaries list various definitions for words means that, well, sometimes those words are in fact used in that way, so you cannot reasonably hold Ms. Clinton to the one particular definition that suits your purpose. Yes, she’s a lawyer, however, I see no evidence to suggest that while she used the phrase “Conspiracy” that she meant it in the strictly legal sense of the word, signifying a criminal act. Naturally, if you have evidence to support your thesis (ie, further quotes of hers suggesting that criminal charges be brought for example), I’d be willing to concede the point. However, absent that, I’m not willing to force her to accept your one specific definition that supports your point, vs. any of the other various generally, commonly accepted meanings of the word that don’t.
and my irony meter went off the chart when I saw you demanding an apology from anyone else regarding ‘unfounded accusations’.
I expect reimbursement for the costs of getting that sucker fixed. those things aint’ cheap.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *
That’s a weak counter-argument, bacause:[ol][li]m-w’s example of the definition you cite is “**circumstances *conspired to defeat his efforts”. [/li]
When people engage in a conspiracy, it’s a “**secret **agreement to do an **unlawful **or **wrongful **act.” (emphasis added)[li]You have chosen the second definition, rather than the primary one.[]The *impact on the listener *is from all definitions, especially the most common ones. [/li]
You argue that Mrs. Clinton didn’t mean “conspiracy” as an insult because she may have had a particular definition in her head. That’s like saying, “I didn’t have sex with Ms. Lewinsky” isn’t a lie, because Mr, Clinton may have had a particular definition in his head.[li]Mrs. Clinton has never claimed that she meant a non-pejorative meaning for the word.[/ol] [/li][/QUOTE]
Bah.
Let us address your points seriatim:
M-W’s example “circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts” is neither exhaustive nor limiting. There is no support for your proposition that people’s conspiracies are inherently unlawful. I can equally well say that the Sierra Club and Greenpeace conspired to defeat oil drilling in National Parks without implying an illegal, or wrongful process.
It’s true that I advanced the second definition, rather than the first. However, that doesn’t mean that the second is substantially less common than the first. For example, if a word has two meanings, one used 51% of the time and the other 49% of the time, can you really suggest it’s substantially weaker to advance the second meaning? After all, something must be listed first. As long as the word is used correctly, and no other intrinsic evidence points away from the meaning I’m arguing, I’m absolutely entitled to use the second, third, or fifth meaning.
The impact on the listener is perhaps the most valid of the points you raise. However, I can tell you that when I heard this phrase, I did not conclude that Mrs. Clinton was accusing anyone of illegal or wrongful acts; except in the generic “wrongful” sense of attacking someone who shouldn’t be attacked: her husband. That struck me as an expression of opinion, which she was as welcome to hold as others were to disagree with her. So my reaction as a listener is consistent with my interpretation above, and inconsistent with yours. Nor do I believe that my reaction was so resoundingly atypical as to cause commentary.
I don’t claim that the definition in Mrs. Clinton’s head should save her from the charge of lying. On the contrary, I am asserting that the objective analysis of her words save her from that charge. There was a vast, right-wing conspiracy. That is true.
Now, as Scylla has since suggested, Mrs. Clinton directly claimed that this conspiracy was responsible for publicizing the lie that Mr. Clinton had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. This is obviously not true – that is, the sexual relations happened. So to the extent that she made that claim, it was untrue. Here, however, I will bring her subjective state of mind into play: she was convinced by her husband’s denials. As such, her lashing out at Mr. Clinton’s accusers is understandable, even though not ultimately accurate. I do not believe she should apologize for this very understandable reaction.
Finally, Mrs. Clinton has never clarified her statement to show that she meant an illegal or wrongful agreement, either - all her failure to clarify means is we must judge the words and the circumstances in which they were spoken without any other evidence. You cannot point at her failure to clarify her words as evidence that they should be construed as you like, unless I may also point at her failure to clarify as evidence of MY interpretation.
She didn’t. The story was invented by a “columnist” name o’ Mark Steyn, and has been propagated unquestioningly by people inclined not to question anything defamatory about the Clintons.
In short, it’s a lie, and you’ve just tried to spread it. Are you going to apologize?
To the OP, it seems strange that someone should be asked to apologize for saying what was frickin’ obvious several years into the Starr witchhunt, even before the name Monica ever appeared. The extent of the denial by those who still want to tell themselves they were actually defending, not attacking, morality is incredible, and to continue to do so only makes them look more foolish. As the dear, departed Ann Landers used to say, “Wake up and smell the coffee.”
Elvis:
Hillary was referring specifically to the Monica Lewinsky allegation.
You are missing the context unless you claim that that charge was manufactured by the VRWC, as well.
Excellent question.
I agree with you that the book, and the various talk show appearances, are politically calculated. Moreover, she is now a United States senator, and we can reasonably stick her with a little yellow Post-It that says “Politician - Beware!”
But she was a wife when she made those angry comments, and I think for those she deserves the slack that Mrs. Ostrow would get.
If any apology should be forthcoming, it should be from Mr. Clinton: he put his wife in the position of falsely accusing others (unnamed others, to be sure) of lying. She acted in good faith; he most certainly did not.
If my contributions to this thread sound like fawning adulation of Mrs. Clinton, they’re not. I disagree with most of her politics, and I don’t know that I trust her ethics as a lawyer. But IN THIS CASE, she’s done no wrong; she was wronged.
So, how is that hunt for weapons of mass destruction going?
Honestly folks, let it go. The impeachment did not stick, and your guys are in power pretty much in all three branches of the federal government (all 4 if you count the press). You have free reign to fuck up, er I mean run the country the way that you see fit.
We get it, you win. Conservatives and Republicans good, Liberals and Democrats bad. Pretty please let the rest of us try to survive in a world that we consider repugnant and hostile, and stop trying to grind us in to dust. For fuck sake.
So calling Barney Frank a “Fag” is OK, because that word also means a stick of wood? :dubious:
Did she address these questions/issues in her book? I don’t plan on reading it but I would like to know what if anything she had to say about the following:
After Gennifer Flowers, Dolly Kyle Browning, and Elizabeth Ward Gracern confirmed being with your husband, Katherine Willey accused him of sexual harrassment, Juanita Broadrick accused him of rape, and being smack dab in the middle of the Paula Jones lawsuit, why did you chose to believe him about Monica?
How do you turn a $1000 investment in cattle futures into $100,000 in less than a year when you claim to know nothing about cattle futures and most people lost money on their investment during the same time frame?
Why do the families of 9/11 whom you have claimed to have met with have no memory of ever seeing you?
Was it more to your advantage in not being held to account as First Lady when you tried to take over the Health Care System in this country than it is now to have your every move under the microscope?
december - that’s an inapposite comparison. If the person speaking was someone who ordinarily used the term ‘fag’ to describe a stick of wood, AND the context of the conversation was such that it made sense to accuse Mr. Frank of being a stick of wood… well, then it’d be fine, yes. But I’m hard-pressed to imagine how that might actually happen.
Here, the context of the conversation supports either interpretation - while it would be nonsensical to call a person a stick of wood, it wasn’t nonsensical for Mrs. Clinton to suggest that a vast group of people were working towards the common, legal purpose of discrediting her husband.
yea, what **Bricker ** said - and december you know better.
no comment yet about the irony meter breaking re: you demanding appologies because of unfounded accusations?
Which also gives them full responsibility, and accountability for their actions. No wonder they’re scared.
Scylla, yes, there was a blowjob. That is not in question. The context you’re missing (or deliberately ignoring?) is why it was made anyone else’s damn business, much less a prosecutor with a charge to find something to get him with (and his failures to do so with anything substantive), and why it was in the political arena at all much less to the point of an attempted overruling of democracy itself.
Re the existence of the VRWC specifically, do some research on the names Richard Mellon Scaife and Larry Klayman. You might learn something. OK, maybe it wasn’t all that vast, and “cabal” might be a better word than “conspiracy”, but still, wake up and smell the coffee.
No doubt Quasimodem will be by any moment now with his apology.
No, no, you have it wrong. See, the bad economy/deficit/emerging police state/hole in the ozone layer/things generally getting worse for just about everyone is all Clinton’s fault because he put his dick in someone’s mouth. Get with the program buddy!
Kidding aside, what makes me sad about this is that is sort of underlines just how sex-negative and pro violence our culture is. I can admit it, I am a big boy. Clinton had sex and he lied about it (semantics aside, I would say that if a penis is put into some other humans orifice, that is sex).
What kind of gets me down, while folks still beating this dead horse I am not seeing anything near the same level of outrage towards our current administration. It is pretty clear that we went to war (you know, where people actually get killed as opposed to a dry-cleaning bill for a cum stain) because we were lied to, yet for the most part people seem to be swallowing this with no problem (pun somewhat intended).
SIGH.
What totally amazes me is the lack of proportion here, in equating having sex and lying about it to the subversion of the electoral process of this nation.
Am I correct in assuming that all the people who felt that it was right to impeach President Clinton for lying about having had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky will shortly be starting a thread demanding the impeachment of the incumbent President Bush for lying about weapons of mass destruction?
And don’t make the distinction of “under oath” – if an incumbent President calls for the support of the American people in the waging of a war, he damn well better be telling the truth to them!
Up to now, I have not felt that the impeachment process should be used – my feeling has been that it’s supposed to be a reserve for serious offenses against the nation – but if you choose to justify lying to the country as an impeachable offense, have the decency to be consistent!
Poly I suspect the distinction isn’t “lying” as such, it’s “committing a crime while in office” (which lying under oath is, but lying in a speech isn’t).
I’ve recommended this before, and I’ll recommend it again: