Today I read that some woman in Texas filed suit against Bush jr for sexual escapades. Now, I have my doubts. But- I didn’t read it on the front page. I didn’t read it in the political news. I t wasn’t even in the “gossip” section. It was in “News of the Weird”.
So woman files siut against Bill for the same thing- splashed all over front pages, investigated for years & millions of dollars. Same suit against Shrub- nada. Isn’t Bush a guy also? Capable of screwing around? Got into Politics for the power, liek everyone else?
Hey FU, just check my sig for an appropriate comment to your useless post.
Sorry about the delay, the SDMB has not been responding for me and I’ve been away for a few days.
Clinton was only there for two years before being tossed-out. He never really earned his way in, but after raping a 19 yo girl, and being more concerned with drinking, he was ousted in 1969.
According to the Associated Newspapers Ltd., 01 March 1999
We will never know what kind of student x42 was, because he refused to release his college transcripts.
He may have gotten a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford…but after he assaulted two women at Oxford we will never know what kind of student he was. What’s that…you don’t know about the Oxford allegations? Well read here…
"President Bill Clinton is facing a fresh sex scandal today over claims that he raped a 19-year-old girl while he was a student at Oxford in the Sixties.
The allegation - together with claims that he sexually assaulted another student while at Yale - appear on a Washington website, Capitol Hill Blue
It is claimed the future president met the 19 year old in an Oxford pub when he was a Rhodes Scholar in 1969. A retired State Department official is quoted by the website confirming that the rape took place and saying: "There is no doubt in my mind that this woman suffered severe emotional trauma.
"But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report to my superiors and that was the last I heard of it."
He added that he was under the impression that while at Oxford "Clinton was more interested in drinking, drugs and sex than studies." Capitol Hill Blue says the alleged victim - who is now married and lives near London - hired a lawyer and changed her phone number after saying she would not go public with further details. Before moving to the London area she is believed to have lived in Europe for a number of years, most recently in Germany.
Women students who were at Oxford at the same time as Clinton have accused him of "boorish behaviour", claiming he would press himself up against them and frequently suggest they should be honoured to have sex with him.
The above is typical of my experience–Clinton-haters will lambast someone for suggesting that Bush appears to have used some cocaine in the past, a fairly non-serious allegation that he has never outright denied and that his carefully-worded evasions suggest is probably true.
Meanwhile, the idea that Clinton was kicked out of Oxford for raping a woman, a suggestion corroborated only by an unnamed State Dept. official, the story of which appeared on a single website (which has since deleted it) and is now kept archived by some Free Republic fans, is repeated as fact.
On another thread, someone implies that Hillary is a lesbian. On another board, I have a long-standing feud with another poster who claimed that Clinton had to register as a sex offender when he moved to New York. (First he said that it was all over the news and he couldn’t believe I didn’t remember it, then he said a friend of his told him about it, now he wisely says nothing, though he has never re-canted this.)
If you believe that alamo-girl site, Clinton has spent the last 35 years on a constant bender of rape and other philandering behaviors, yet $40 million of your tax dollars + God knows how much of Richard Mellon Scaife’s money + more right-wing-rags than you can shake a stick at never managed to get any of it conformed or corroborated. My guess is that the right-wing press has become its own echo chamber; once a story gets picked up, it ends up in enough places around the web that it starts to look legitimate.
I know of no one who thinks Clinton is choirboy material–but I still think calling him a rapist, in the absence of more substantial evidence, borders on slander.
Oh, and Brutus:
So you’re saying that our government knows what’s best for a child better than his own father does?
Of course not. At the time, the gov’t decided that it was best for young Elian to be a good little communist. Common sense, which was sorely lacking at the time, tells us that Elian would have been best served here in America, where his mother died to bring him.
That was probably me. I don’t even hate the Clintons, BTW. I voted Libertari…wasted my vote in 1992. In 1996 I was moving and did not vote.
Geez, it was a joke. But, if she is, there is no way Bill “cheated” on her - which was the topic if I recall. I got pop-up swamped by a porno site and never even finished my thought.
One thing I’ve noticed, while we all speculate and generalize about people who think this or that about the Clintons, is that those who support the Clintons always assume that any criticism of Bill or Hillary is mere window dressing for something deeper, darker. Some kind of inner longing, hatred… My precious!
Personally, the reason that I loathe Clinton (aside from him simply being a loathesome person) is that he single-handedly made it possible for a buffoon like George W. to occupy the white house.
B&I, do you even believe the shit you’re shoveling. You’re own link provided nothing regarding your allegations. However, for the sake of being thorough, I entered “Clinton kicked out of Oxford” into their search engine. Of course, as you probably know, no story remotely related to yours came up. However, on the fourth page of hits, a link to an ABC News story appeared, which said, in part:
Kind of odd thinking regarding someone they discreetly asked to leave.
I suggest that it is time for you to sit right down in your thinking chair and think, think, think. Because if you use your mind and take one step at a time, you can critically evaluate any claim, like you should want to do.
I provided a cite from the associated newspapers, the link was just part of the text included in the newspaper. Feel free to consider me irrelevant, I did not lookat or follow the link. BTW, in your supposed thoroughness, I’m sure you decided selectively omitted the cite provided???
I know it hurts, but you need to calm down and open your eyes. 1969 was a long time ago, lets see how things pan out at Oxford - I’m sure it will be another “I told you so.”
AND FU that was just a comment in response to your child like rant - certainly does not warrant any more effort (period omitted for the sake of FU)
:rolleyes: Surely you must see how leaky this cite is for such a serious allegation. Anything similar posted anywhere else on this board would be shot down as the rumour-mongering that it is.
This proves exactly what the Dems on this board are saying - Republican hatred of Clinton is extreme to the point of irrationality. Could you imagine such a blatantly based and unsubstantiated cite being provided in any other discussion in this forum?
Hentor, Bill Clinton only went to Oxford for two years. Oxford has never made it clear why he left, although they did grant him an Honorary degree in 1994. I think it’s safe to say that he was not dismissed for nefarious reasons. The British press is hardly forgiving for such things as public figures and scandal.
B & I
You didn’t look at your own link? Well that explains why it didn’t lead to anything but the front page of the Capitol Hill Blue. I think you may want to check your sources.
As for you defense of Iran/Contra, you are kidding right? Even if you profess to believe that Iran/Contra was solely about getting the hostages freed (kinda stupid but I’m going with it for the sake of argument), then you must admit that it’s a bit shady for the head of the CIA (Bush) to bypass the President (Carter) and scheme with the Governor of CA (Reagen) to release hostages. You don’t see anything wrong with this?
I think I can handle this DoctorJ. Clinton worked for Senator Fulbright during Vietnam. Supposedly Fulbright got him into Oxford so he could avoid the draft. There is no question that Fulbright did indeed step in for Clinton, asking that his draft status be deferred so that he could go to Oxford, however, there is no evidence that Fulbright actually got him in.
However, I’m sure no Republican would ever resort to using connection to get into a prestigious University.
You don’t know me. You don’t have the first idea of whether this is hindsight or not. I will confess that I did not know what Osama bin Laden had in mind, but I could find reams of folks who will remember me complaining pre-September 11th that we needed to go get OBL and his cronies or we would pay a severe price. When a terrorist murders your people, you do not allow him to run free. You have a moral obligation to track that person or persons down and bring them to justice. This is not hindsight, it’s common sense.
I would not hate Clinton for not participating in a UN humanitarian mission if it were poorly organized, had no clear objectives, and had little chance of success. In fact, it would give him a modicum of respect in my book. Don’t put words in my mouth. That keeps hatred alive.
OK, so Clinton is not responsible for the actions of the Janet Reno. I mean, he hired her, and was her boss, and all…
And who the heck said I was a Republican (I’m not) or that I approved of them doing it either? This was supposed to be a list of what was so bad about Clinton. Learn to read the OP.
I won’t get over it, and I am not at all ashamed. You should be ashamed for dismissing blatant subversion of the law to protect one’s own hide from deserved punishment as “Being a Lawyer.” Explaining away corruption as being widespread does not justify its existence. And I cannot believe that you have not heard of Tyson Foods using the futures market to funnel cash to the Clintons while they were in Arkansas. I think that your attitude towards the Clintons must be “see no evil.”[
Oh yeah, he just packed-up and left because ________, humm why? You tell me since you seem to refuse to believe your beloved Clinton could be guilty of something.
AND
Light strand, I have already said that it is not my link! It was just a part of the article found in the Associated Newspapers Ltd., 01 March 1991 - that is the cite.
Sorry for the confusion, I should have bolded the section quoted from the THE ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS.
Also I’ve notice that you tend to believe that nothing your beloved GOP has done could be the last bit shady, including Iran/contra, does this not strike you as a wee bit hypocritical?
Hell I know a whole bunch of people who dropped of college before they got their degrees. The reasons vary from, running out of cash, to boredom, to failing. Of those people not one was kicked out because of rape, or in fact, any other criminal charge (although one was kicked out of the dorms due to smoking pot). Why must the Clinton-haters always believe the worst?
And what was the reason for the guns, or the middle of night raid on Easter weekend for that matter? The house had been under constant surveilance, heck it was on tv almost constantly, for months. There were no credible reports of guns in the residence, nor of anyone in the residence being threatened.