Pages

Showing posts with label Bill/Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill/Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

Hillary lip-synced more than Beyonce


By Mark Steyn
The Orange County Register
http://www.ocregister.com
January 25, 2013

If I'm following this correctly, according to one spokesperson for the Marine Corps Band, at Monday's Inauguration Beyoncé lip-synced to the national anthem but the band accompanied her live. However, according to a second spokesperson, it was the band who were pretending to play to a tape while Beyoncé sang along live. So one or the other of them was faking it. Or maybe both were. Or neither. I'd ask Chuck Schumer, the master of ceremonies, who was standing right behind her, but he spent the entire performance staring at her butt. If it was her butt, that is. It might just have been the bulge of the Radio Shack cassette player she was miming to. In an America with an ever more tenuous grip on reality, there's so little to be sure of.

Whether Beyoncé was lip-syncing to the band or the band were lip-syncing to Beyoncé is like one of those red pill / blue pill choices from "The Matrix." Was President Obama lip-syncing to the Founders, rooting his inaugural address in the earliest expressions of American identity? ("The patriots of 1776 ... gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.") Or maybe the Founders were lip-syncing to him as he appropriated the vision of the first generation of Americans and yoked it ("preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action") to a statist pitch they would have found utterly repugnant.

POLITICAL CARTOONS:

The whole event had the air of a simulacrum: It looked like a presidential inauguration, but the sound was tinny and not quite in sync. Obama mouthed along to a canned vocal track: "We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future." That's great! It's always reassuring to know the head of state is going to take issue will all those people wedded to the "belief" that America needs either to shove every granny off the cliff or stake its newborns out on the tundra for the wolves to finish off. When it comes to facing the music, Obama is peerless at making a song and dance about tunes nobody's whistling without ever once warbling the real big numbers (16 trillion). But, like Beyoncé, he's totally cool and has a cute butt.

A couple of days later, it fell to the 45th president-in-waiting to encapsulate the ethos of the age in one deft sound bite: What difference does it make? Hillary Clinton's instantly famous riposte at the Benghazi hearings is such a perfect distillation that it surely deserves to be the national motto of the United States. They should put it on Paul Krugman's trillion-dollar coin, and in the presidential oath:
"Do you solemnly swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?"
"Sure. What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Well, it's the difference between cool and reality – and, as Hillary's confident reply appeared to suggest, and the delirious media reception of it confirmed, reality comes a poor second in the Obama era. The presumption of conservatives has always been that, one day, cold, dull reality would pierce the klieg-light sheen of Obama's glamour. Indeed, that was the premise of Mitt Romney's reductive presidential campaign. But, just as BeyoncĂ© will always be way cooler than some no-name operatic soprano or a male voice choir, so Obama will always be cooler than a bunch of squaresville yawneroos boring on about jobs and debt and entitlement reform. Hillary's cocksure sneer to Sen. Johnson of Wisconsin made it explicit. At a basic level, the "difference" is the difference between truth and falsity, but the subtext took it a stage further: no matter what actually happened that night in Benghazi, you poor sad loser Republicans will never succeed in imposing that reality and its consequences on this administration.
And so a congressional hearing – one of the famous "checks and balances" of the American system – is reduced to just another piece of Beltway theater. "The form was still the same, but the animating health and vigor were fled," as Gibbon wrote in "The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire." But he's totally uncool, too. So Hillary lip-synced far more than BeyoncĂ©, and was adored for it. "As I have said many times, I take responsibility," she said. In Washington, the bold declarative oft-stated acceptance of responsibility is the classic substitute for responsibility: rhetorically "taking responsibility," preferably "many times," absolves one from the need to take actual responsibility even once.
In the very same self-serving testimony, the Secretary of State denied that she'd ever seen the late Ambassador Stevens' cables about the deteriorating security situation in Libya on the grounds that "1.43 million cables come to my office" – and she can't be expected to see all of them, or any. She is as out of it as President Jefferson, who complained to his Secretary of State James Madison, "We have not heard from our ambassador in Spain for two years. If we have not heard from him this year, let us write him a letter." Today, things are even worse. Hillary has apparently not heard from any of our 1.43 million ambassadors for four years. When a foreign head of state receives the credentials of the senior emissary of the United States, he might carelessly assume that the chap surely has a line of communication back to the government he represents. For six centuries or so, this has been the minimal requirement for functioning interstate relations. But Secretary Clinton has just testified that, in the government of the most powerful nation on Earth, there is no reliable means by which a serving ambassador can report to the Cabinet minister responsible for foreign policy. And nobody cares: What difference does it make?
Nor was the late Christopher Stevens any old ambassador but, rather, Secretary Clinton's close personal friend "Chris." It was all "Chris" this, "Chris" that, when Secretary Clinton and President Obama delivered their maudlin eulogies over the flag-draped coffin of their "friend." Gosh, you'd think if they were on such intimate terms, "Chris" might have had Hillary's email address, but apparently not. He was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends cabling the State Department every hour of the day.
Four Americans are dead, but not a single person involved in the attack and the murders has been held to account. Hey, what difference does it make? Lip-syncing the national anthem beats singing it. Peddling a fictitious narrative over the coffin of your "friend" is more real than being an incompetent boss to your most vulnerable employees. And mouthing warmed-over clichés about vowing to "bring to justice" those responsible is way easier than actually bringing anyone to justice.
And so it goes:
Another six trillion in debt? What difference does it make?
An economic stimulus bill that stimulates nothing remotely connected with the economy? What difference does it make?
The Arab Spring? Aw, whose heart isn't stirred by those exhilarating scenes of joyful students celebrating in Tahrir Square? And who cares, after the cameras depart, that Egypt's in the hands of a Jew-hating 9/11 truther whose goons burn churches and sexually assault uncovered women?
Obama is the ultimate reality show, and real reality can't compete. Stalin famously scoffed, "How many divisions has the Pope?" Secretary Clinton was more audacious: How many divisions has reality? Not enough.

Hillary's Little Helpers


POLITICAL HAY

Hillary’s Little Helpers

The cult of Clinton is alive and well.
The late Christopher Hitchens was one of Hillary Clinton’s most bullish critics. When Clinton was nominated to be secretary of state, he noted a chasm of opinion: “It still divides us,” he said on Hardball, “as between those of us who think that a job must be found for Hillary Clinton, that the country would be somehow disgraced if she wasn’t in an important position, and those of us who could do without her.”
Hitchens’ main concern was that Clinton would use her leverage as secretary of state to benefit foreign friends and cronies. He was vindicated the next year when James Riady, the Indonesian businessman who’d been barred from the United States for illegal contributions to Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, mysteriously obtained a waiver andreturned to Arkansas. Say what you will about the Clintons, they don’t waste any time.
But Hitchens’ first point, that fealty to Hillary would divide us, was also prescient. That divide still exists today, albeit in a different form. In one camp are those who believe that Hillary should be judged on her merits and held accountable when necessary. In the other are those who admire her to the point of deification, who believe her critics are beneath her, and who scramble the fighter jets every time someone gives her a sour look.
After more than 20 years in the public eye, Clinton still has one of the most dedicated fan bases in American politics. And after she testified on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, they started fawning.
Clinton was “professional and authoritative for hours in the witness chair,” declared the New York Times. She “stood up to the raging bulls with grace and fire of her own,” gushed Joan Walsh. She “served up a potent brew of righteous outrage,” breathed Dana Milbank.
She was “steely but sometimes emotional” who began “with restraint” before she “choked up.” But her “anger boiled over” when she was questioned by the “rookie” and “intellectually underwhelming” Sen. Ron Johnson, along with other “unimpressive” critics who “don’t quite measure up to her and never will.” They like “nothing more than beating a dead horse” and revealed a “stature gap between Clinton and these possible 2016 rivals.”
Mercifully, Clinton “disarmed her critics,” including Sen. Rand Paul who “wasn’t intimidating but funny” and was “not worth wasting her breath.” She wore a “heavy green jacket, dark pants, and thick jacket.” At one point, she “wav[ed] her index finger.”
Oh, and her questioners were “angry men.” Angry white men, in fact. That alone should disqualify them from criticizing her.
Reading those quotes, it’s hard to escape the feeling of being vacuumed through a black hole into another solar system. Were these people watching the same hearing? Was another Hillary Clinton testifying before another Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday? Why are the walls starting to pulse and breathe?
Clinton was there to answer questions about an attack that left four Americans dead, embarrassed the United States, resulted in the dissemination of false information, destroyed the life of a now-imprisoned filmmaker, involved a suspicious cover-up of information, and called into question the Obama Administration’s ability to respond to foreign attacks.
She offered no answers, dodged questions, and blamed others. She claimed ignorance over cables from one of the most important ambassadors in the Middle East. She contradicted her own assistant secretary of state in blaming Republicans for security cuts. She stammered over America’s role in shipping weapons from Turkey to Libya. And when asked about the cause of the deadly attack, she shouted, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
It was a shameless and unenlightening performance. And yet the press is obsessing over her theatrics and wardrobe choices. Anyone who disagrees is just, to dust off the 1990s term, a Clinton hater.
In fact, the opposite is true. Clinton’s Republican critics spent untold hours praising her. Sen. Marco Rubio was uncharacteristically cautious. Sen. John McCain, despite seeming angry, barreled through his questions and allowed Hillary to ignore them. There was no outbreak of Clinton hatred at the hearings. Instead there were skeptics trying, often feebly, to get answers.
But there was an outbreak of Clinton love among her supporters. What mattered wasn’t her substance or honesty, but the fact that she looked awesome. Her fans never seemed to consider that this attack was a failure of government and it was her responsibility to provide answers.
Then again, there’s a lot her fans never seem to consider. From Hillary lying about being attacked by snipers in Bosnia, to justifying remaining in the 2008 race by citing Bobby Kennedy’s assassination; from her involvement in her husband’s despicable pardon of Marc Rich and commutation of Puerto Rican terrorists, to her central role in Travelgate, commodities trading, and the numerous other scandals of the 1990s: none of it ever makes a dent in the Hillary love-fest. Her acolytes are unshakeable.
A colleague and were talking about the Kennedys the other day, and we were both pondering how a political family with so many moral failings still had such star-struck fans. Hillary benefits from a similar phenomenon. Her fan club is smaller than the Kennedys, and more centralized in Washington. But it’s just as devout, and just as impervious to inconvenient facts.
It’s unhealthy to lionize any politician. But the Hillary love has become a matter of faith, and it’s time for her admirers to shake the spell. She needs to answer questions about Benghazi and her Republican critics have every right to hold her accountable.
Photo: UPI

About the Author

Matt Purple is The American Spectator’s assistant managing editor.
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/25/hillary-helpers-benghazi

Hillary Clinton's Dodgy Testimony



http://www.nationalreview.com

A lot of people in Washington apparently forgot how good Hillary Clinton is at not telling the truth.
Wednesday, in her testimony before the Senate and, later, the House, Clinton brilliantly fudged, dodged, and filibustered. Of course, she’s a pro. Clinton was slow-walking depositions, lawyering up, and shifting blame when many of her questioners were still civilians down on the farm.
Aided by a ridiculous format, she outfoxed most of the Republicans with ease.

Meanwhile, the Democrats, almost uniformly, seemed singularly interested in celebrating Mrs. Clinton as a global diva who somehow manages to carry the burden of her awesomeness with humility and grace. If smoking were still allowed in the Capitol, one could easily imagine her removing a cigarette from a gold case and tapping it nonchalantly on the witness table, and the entire Democratic caucus leaping over their desks for the chance to light it for her.

The most dramatic moment came early, when Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson tried to get Clinton to explain why the State Department blamed the September 11 terrorist attacks in Benghazi on an impromptu protest over an anti-Muslim video. In a rehearsed moment of spontaneous outrage, Clinton yelled back, “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

It is a measure of Clinton’s cult-like status on the left and among much of the press that this passed for a satisfactory, never mind impressive, response. But it’s also a tribute to Clinton’s gift for mendacity that it worked so well.

Even among the administration’s harshest critics, people seemed at a loss to fully explain what difference it makes whether the administration’s spin was true or not. For many, the answer is simply that government officials shouldn’t lie. That’s a necessary criticism, but hardly sufficient.

Just to be clear, Clinton lied and is still lying. When asked about the claim that the attack was sparked by a protest over a video, she responded, “I did not say . . . that it was about the video for Libya.”
That’s simply untrue. When she stood by the caskets of the four Americans killed in Libya, she directly blamed an “awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.” Afterward, she reportedly told the father of Tyrone Woods, the former Navy SEAL who was killed in the attack, “We will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” Why tell the man that if the video had nothing to do with it?

Moreover, Clinton was part of an administration that crafted an entire PR strategy to blame these attacks on “an awful Internet video.” White House press secretary Jay Carney was unequivocal: This was a “response to a video, a film we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.” In his address to the United Nations, President Obama mentioned the video six times but al-Qaeda once. When he appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman, he blamed the video directly. U.N. ambassador Susan Rice went on five Sunday shows blaming the video. All of this happened when they already knew it was not true on the day of the attack, and even the president of Libya had publicly called the protest explanation ridiculous.

But again, the lying, while outrageous, is incidental to the real offense, which is twofold. First, why did the administration lie? Well, it wanted to conceal its utter failure to prepare for terrorist attacks on September 11 — which is like being surprised by Christmas falling on December 25. Also, the Obama administration, by which I mean the Obama campaign, was desperate to protect its hyped record of fighting terrorism. A “spontaneous” attack invited not by the administration’s shortcomings but by some nutty video was just the ticket.

Indeed, on this score, Clinton was true to her word. While none of the murderers have been apprehended, the filmmaker is in jail, the picture of his arrest splashed across the globe. 

Which brings us to the second part: the nature of the lie. Remember, not all lies are equally harmful. In this case, the U.S. government responded to the murder of four Americans by treating our constitutional rights as part of the problem. A former teacher of constitutional law, Obama was happy to watch the country argue new limits on free expression and the necessity of giving bloodthirsty savages and terrorists a heckler’s veto on what Americans can do or say.
Clinton was in on that lie, and that makes all the difference in the world.
— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. You can write to him by e-mail at JonahsColumn@aol.com, or via Twitter@JonahNRO.©2013 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

"You Let the Consulate Become a Death Trap"


By Katie Pavlich

     http://www.townhall.com

1/23/2013

 
UPDATE: During Clinton's testimony in front of the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday afternoon, Reps. Dana Rohrabacher, Matt Salmon and Mo Brooks mentioned the anti-Islam film originally blamed for the attack. Clinton danced around the subject by saying the investigation into what happened in Benghazi is ongoing. The best exchange was between Clinton and Brooks:

U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens sent multiple requests for more security to the State Department throughout 2012 and cited al Qaeda threats as a reason why it was needed. The extra security was never sent. Today Rep. Jeff Duncan accused Clinton of gross negligence and of turning the consulate in Benghazi into a "death trap."


After months of waiting, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has wrapped up her first round of questioning about the 9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi from lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Testifying in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Clinton failed to mention both in her opening statement and her answers, the now notorious YouTube video that was blamed by multiple Obama administration officials for the attack. The focus of today’s hearing was supposed to be two things: the Obama administration cover-up of the attack, including the promotion of the false narrative that the attack occurred as a result of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam YouTube video and how an attack can be prevented in the future.

“As I have said many times, I take responsibility," Clinton said, adding that she directed the response to the attack on 9/11, briefed President Obama and stood in the Rose Garden with him when he called it “a terrorist attack” on 9/12. 

Major questions remaining in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack and regarding the coverup still ongoing include who within the administration chose U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to deliver talking points about the attack to the American people on five different Sunday shows and who within the administration came up with those talking points. Today Clinton washed her hands of the situation, saying she did not choose Rice and did not help with talking points for her media appearances.

“People have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of misleading Americans...nothing could be further than the truth," Clinton said. “I wasn’t involved in the talking points process.”

Clinton also said that nobody in the administration was or is “stuck on talking points.”

Republican Senators Johnson, Paul and McCain were all tough in their questioning of Clinton, but failed to specifically ask why the administration blamed the YouTube video for weeks, even after intelligence showed within hours the attack was planned and executed by terrorists. Clinton was however questioned about why the administration classified the attack as a result of a spontaneous protest which prompted Clinton to shout, “What difference does it make?”

 “We have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people but what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown,” Clinton said. 

 

As a reminder:
"I want to take a moment to take moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests."
“To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage,” Clinton said. “But as I said yesterday there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence.”

 
The Obama administration also used $70,000 in taxpayer money to purchase an advertisement apologizing for the video on Pakistani television. The ad included an official message from the President of the United States Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The man who made the YouTube video that had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack, but was used as a scapegoat by the Obama administration after the attack, is still sitting in jail. Clinton will testify Wednesday afternoon before the House Armed Services Committee at 2 p.m. EST.

“We’ve been as transparent as we can,” Clinton said.

Semper Fi, Unless It's Not Convenient

By Bill O'Reilly
http://www.townhall.com
December 29, 2012

Jon Hammar saw combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, but his most brutal foreign experience was in Mexico. Last August, the 27-year-old former Marine corporal was incarcerated by Mexican authorities in Matamoros for trying to register an antique shotgun with customs agents. Foolishly, Cpl. Hammar followed instructions given to him by U.S. Border Patrol agents in Brownsville, Texas. He registered the gun with them and brought the paperwork to the Mexicans to get their stamp of approval in order to carry the gun through the country. Hammar and a friend were driving a Winnebago, hoping to have a nice surfing vacation with some hunting on the side.

Even though the Mexican authorities clearly saw that Hammar was trying to follow the rules, they seized the Winnebago and locked the corporal up in the notoriously corrupt CEDES prison anyway. There he was threatened by other inmates and told by guards that he could buy his way out of the hellhole by paying money to the "right people."

Hammar's parents, who live in South Florida, immediately contacted the State Department and were told to be patient. And so they were. Three months later, Hammar was still incarcerated and had not even seen a judge, and things were becoming increasingly desperate.

That's when his parents gave up on the State Department and contacted the media.

When the story crossed my desk, I found it hard to believe. Cpl. Hammar had served his country honorably, returned to the USA with post-traumatic stress disorder, been treated for nine months in California and simply wanted a vacation after his ordeal. It was obvious that he was being held on bogus charges, and the State Department seemed impotent. When we asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for a comment, she refused to say anything about the case. A few of her deputies visited Hammar in prison, but the official line was that State could do nothing more.

Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen raised some hell about the situation, but things continued to deteriorate. Mexican authorities actually chained Hammar to his bed. Another inmate sent a picture of that out to the press.

In mid-December, the Fox News White House correspondent asked press secretary Jay Carney about the case. President Barack Obama's spokesman looked perplexed and said he did not know anything about it. As unbelievable as that sounds, I believe that Carney was telling the truth. And by telling one truth, Carney indicated another truth: Neither Obama nor Secretary of State Clinton had come to the aid of an American combat veteran who was being abused by Mexican authorities.

Disgusted by our apathetic government, I took the case directly to the government of Mexico. On national television, I bluntly told the new Mexican presidente, Enrique Pena Nieto, that if he did not release Hammar by Christmas, I would lead a boycott of Mexican tourism and products. The next day, Hammar was released after a Mexican judge ruled there had been no intent to commit a crime.

The ordeal cost the Hammar family tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and untold emotional damage. Thankfully, the corporal did arrive home to South Florida in time to have a nice Christmas with his family. But this story is a cautionary tale for any American traveling outside the USA. If you get into trouble, you will be essentially on your own, even if you are a combat veteran. Our leaders in Washington are basically bureaucrats with short attention spans. If they couldn't work up the energy to help Jon Hammar, they are not going to help you.

True leadership means helping those who are powerless and sincerely need help. That takes time and energy. President Abraham Lincoln set aside one day a week to answer calls for help from the folks. The current administration would not answer a desperate call for months.

As for Mexico, it remains a corrupt country hostile to the rule of law. Let the buyer beware.

Click if you like this column!

Petraeus vs. Clinton


http://www.nationalreview.com
The sudden departure of a compromised CIA director hasn’t been an episode of Showtime’s espionage dramaHomeland, but it could be.
The story of David Petraeus’s resignation is evolving, and we may know more soon enough. But for now, he is said to have resigned because he committed marital infidelity in a way that could have exposed the U.S. to harm. Greta van Susteren of Fox News says his jobs as a general and CIA director made him “very vulnerable to blackmail from those with very bad intentions against the United States.”
Fair enough, but many commentators took an entirely different line 15 years ago when President Bill Clinton, who had access to all of our nation’s secrets, was caught having an affair with an intern named Monica Lewinsky. The Starr Report, released in September 1998, revealed that Clinton told Lewinsky that “he suspected that a foreign embassy was tapping his telephones, and he proposed cover stories” if they were ever questioned about their relationship.
When she left the White House, Lewinsky got a cushy Pentagon job, complete with a security clearance. Later, after Lewinsky threatened to expose the relationship, Clinton accepted her demand for a well-paying job in Manhattan and then asked a friend, Vernon Jordan, to make the contacts. Lewinsky told her then-confidante Linda Tripp that the president owed her something special: “I don’t want to have to work for this position. I just want it to be given to me.” But none of this brought down Clinton, who was acquitted by the Senate in a impeachment trial for having committed perjury before a federal judge.
Foreign governments must be chuckling at the thought that the world’s superpower has been consumed with the Petraeus scandal. Former Financial Times editor Eamonn Fingleton points out on the Forbes website: “Similarly ‘mission critical’ officials in other nations are not similarly vulnerable. This applies in spades in East Asia. Whether we are talking about China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, or any other nations of the Confucian world, a man’s sexual behavior is — within large limits — not a national security issue. It is simply taken for granted that ‘boys will be boys.’” In addition, governments in most of those nations — unlike the U.S. government — spy on their officials and usually know all there is about them. Other nations also often know about the personal vulnerabilities of U.S. officials long before our own government does.
It’s pretty clear that unless there were other factors involved, Petraeus could have kept his job if he had simply alerted someone at the CIA. Justice Department officials have concluded that there will no charges against Petraeus or his mistress, Paula Broadwell, and that there was no breach of national security.
“Petraeus could have gone to the CIA’s security chief and said, ‘I’m having an affair with an American citizen.’ And that would have been the end of it,” former undercover CIA officer Bob Baer told Politico. As long as such relationships are reported, they almost never lead to action by the CIA. After all, the agency is filled with people who travel frequently, are skilled in the arts of subterfuge, and share little about their work life with their family.
But the fact of the matter is that Petraeus did try to keep his affair a secret, and he thus exposed himself to blackmail. He also apparently managed to anger his mistress enough that she sent threatening e-mails to a State Department employee she suspected of competing for his affections. A sticky wicket indeed.
The Code of Federal Regulations (Title 32, Chapter 1, Part 147) makes clear that sexual behavior is a security concern. A person may lose a security clearance for “personal conduct or concealment of information that may increase an individual’s vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or duress, such as engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s personal, professional, or community standing or render the person susceptible to blackmail.” In August 1995, that regulation was strengthened by Executive Order 12968. It stated that individuals eligible for access to classified material must have a record of “strength of character, truthfulness, honesty, reliability, discretion and sound judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion.” The man who issued that Executive Order was none other than President Bill Clinton. A mere three months later he began his affair with Monica Lewinsky, a chatty 22-year-old who eventually spilled the beans to eleven other people.
I think it was proper for General Petraues to resign his position, even based only on the facts we know. But we need a national debate on a consistent standard that we hold our high officials to. Is it the Petraeus standard, by which officials with access to secrets must adhere to a zero-tolerance policy? Or is it the Clinton standard, by which egregious breaches of security go unpunished?
— John Fund is a national-affairs columnist for NRO and a co-author of the newly released Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk (Encounter Books).

Bill Clinton Pulls the Race Card

By John Fund
http://www.nationalreview.com
September 6, 2012

In his speech last night, Bill Clinton shamelessly played the race card in an attack on voter-ID laws. He veered from a discussion of the economy to say “If you want every American to vote and you think it’s wrong to change voting procedures just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority and disabled voters, you should support Barack Obama.”

His timing in attacking efforts to combat voter fraud couldn’t have come at a more ironic time. Just yesterday, a Democratic state legislator in Clinton’s native Arkansas pled guilty along with his father, a West Memphis police officer, and a West Memphis city councilman to a conspiracy to commit voter fraud.

Democratic representative Hudson Hallum was part of a conspiracy to bribe voters in three separate elections in 2011.

“In a nation in which every person’s vote matters, protecting the integrity of the electoral process from those who seek to win office by cheating the system is critical,” assistant U.S. attorney Jane Duke said in a statement released by her office. Attempts to steal votes “have the devastating effect of eroding public confidence in elected officials and disenfranchising voters.”

Prospectors say that two campaign workers for Hallum assisted voters in filling out absentee ballots and were guilty of “actually completing absentee ballots in some instances without regard to the voter’s actual candidate choice.” In some cases, voters were given money in exchange for surrendering control of their ballots. Ballots for Hudson’s opponent were also destroyed.

At one point, Hallum told Philip Wayne Carter, the city councilman, that “We need to use that black limo and buy a couple cases of some cheap vodka and whiskey to get people to vote.”

Clinton has been similarly sloppy in his attacks in the past. 2008, he played the race card by comparing Barack Obama’s level of support in South Carolina to that of race-agitator Jesse Jackson — and the resultant bad publicity imploded his wife’s primary chances in that largely minority state.

Then last year, he told a group of young Democrats that “There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the other Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today.”

Clinton was speaking of laws to impose voter-ID requirements in several states that had previously allowed anyone to vote without proving they were who they said they were. The corrupt group ACORN showed just how easy it is to manipulate the system before it collapsed in a maelstrom of scandal. Their widespread voter-registration fraud in recent years drew national attention to the problem and criminal actions.

In a new book, Hans von Spakovsky and I point out that voter-ID laws make it harder for a person to vote at multiple locations and block illegal aliens from voting. Combined with a cleanup of voter-registration laws and absentee-ballot security, such laws can dramatically increase voter confidence in our elections.

The week before Clinton’s 2011 attack on voter ID, Democrats in Rhode Island’s legislature approved a photo-ID law to combat what African-American state senator Harold Metts, the bill’s co-sponsor, called “a serious and ongoing pattern of voter fraud in this state.” The bill was sponsored in the state house by Gideon Fox, that body’s first African-American speaker.

Clinton’s attacks on voter-ID laws, along with those of Attorney General Eric Holder, ignore the fact that a recent Washington Post poll found that 74 percent of Americans favor having people show an ID when they vote, including 65 percent of African Americans and 64 percent of Hispanics. Most voters believe showing ID — a necessity in our daily lives — is common sense. For those few who lack an ID, getting them a free one is doing them a favor and helping them enter the mainstream of American life.

But critics such as Bill Clinton and Eric Holder prefer to drum up racial fears and tensions with constant references to Jim Crow and poll taxes. Their criticism is not only unwarranted. It is reckless and irresponsible. 

Clinton Helps Out

By Mona Charen
http://www.nationalreview.com
September 4, 2012

The byzantine relations between President Obama and former president Bill Clinton could fill several psychology textbooks, providing juicy examples of passive aggression, older man/younger man competition, complex alliances (Hillary as secretary of state is the perfect embodiment of the maxim “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer”), and mutual interests.

That the president needs Bill Clinton now to make his case to the country must be richly satisfying to the only American whose ego can compete with Barack H. Obama’s.

Let’s recall that one of Obama’s supposed triumphs in 2008 was defeating the vaunted Clinton machine. The Democratic party’s delirium for Obama supposedly obliterated the Clinton magic. After winning the South Carolina primary in January, Obama exulted that “we’re up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as president comes from longevity in Washington. . . . But we know that real leadership is about candor and judgment and the ability to rally Americans . . . around a higher purpose . . .” Though he never tired (and still doesn’t) of insulting George W. Bush, that barb wasn’t aimed at him. It was for the Clintons.

Bill Clinton, for his part, nurses grudges. Obama eclipsed Clinton as the most charismatic Democrat. The former president and his wife also got a crash course in media bias. Obama spoiled the Clintons’ carefully nurtured plan of returning to the White House and achieving vindication. And as someone who preened himself on his high standing among blacks (Toni Morrison called him America’s “first black president”), Clinton was justly outraged when Obama supporters Donna Brazile and Rep. Jim Clyburn accused him of racism in 2008 because he referred to Obama as a “kid” and dismissed his Iraq War stance as a “fairy tale.” Good thing he didn’t use the word “Chicago” or mention “golf” — as those are now “dog whistles,” we’re told.

Now His Royal Majesty needs old Bill. He needs him to mount the stage in Charlotte and persuade waverers to reelect The One. Why? Because Clinton, for all his squalid ways, and for all that he was a practitioner par excellence of what Obama disdained as the “old politics,” has something Obama lacks — a successful economic legacy to brag about.

The wizardry that will permit Clinton to obscure Obama’s record — or to throw the mantle of Clinton’s economic success over Obama’s economic failure — isn’t entirely clear. In fact, this could easily backfire.

A swing voter could well glance at the screen and recall that Clinton heeded the voters, whereas Obama thumbed his nose. After suffering a rebuke in 1994, Clinton backed away from Hillarycare, tax increases, opposition to welfare reform, and huge increases in federal spending. With Republicans controlling Congress, Bill Clinton — after some resistance, and after insisting it couldn’t be done — signed a balanced budget.

The combination of the end of the Cold War and the dot-com bubble gave Clinton’s first term respectable economic growth of 3.2 percent. But the real boom came toward the latter half of his second term, after Clinton (reluctantly) signed welfare reform, a dramatic cut in the capital-gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent, and a phased-in reduction in the estate (or death) tax that exempted estates up to $1 million (increased from $600,000). Clinton lobbied for and got the North American Free Trade Agreement and maintained a strong dollar. With Republicans in Congress demanding spending restraint, the federal government — younger readers may be incredulous — ran a surplus.

The results, as Charles Kadlec recalls in Forbes, were impressive. Economic growth jumped to 4.2 percent. Unemployment fell from 5.4 to 4 percent. Average real wages improved. Millions of Americans shared in the general prosperity as their 401k’s swelled with the rising stock market. Investors responded with enthusiasm to the sense that America was a business-friendly country. Venture capital exploded.

Obama has chosen the exact opposite response to voter disaffection. Unlike Clinton, Obama is a committed leftist. He doubled down on Obamacare, ramming it through in an ugly, totally partisan vote. He refuses to budge from his insistence on tax increases — though he has himself acknowledged that tax hikes are counterproductive in a weak economy. He has attempted to undo the key feature of welfare reform, the work requirement. And he has presided over the downgrading of America’s AAA credit rating as he races heedlessly into crippling levels of federal debt.
Bill Clinton can attempt to perfume Obama’s record — but the truth is that Obama is following diametrically opposed policies. The results speak more eloquently than either man can.

— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2012 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Bill Clinton and 'Legitimate Rape'

SPECIAL REPORT

Bill Clinton and Legitimate Rape

Clinton rape scandal resurfaces in Akin controversy: The McCaskill-Clinton videos.
"…the threat, use and cultural acceptance of sexual force is a pervasive process of intimidation that affects all women."-- Feminist Susan Brownmiller in her 1975 bestseller Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape
"Rape is rape. And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we are talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me." -- President Obama on Congressman Todd Akin's use of the term "legitimate rape"
"Bill Clinton to Have Leading Role at Party's Convention" -- July 30, 2012 New York Times story announcing that the Obama campaign has selected the former President to nominate Obama
So.
The Obama White House has decided to legitimize rape.
Talk about a mistake.
President Obama, after a considerable absence, abruptly appeared in the White House pressroom the other day to address Congressman Todd Akin's wildly offensive comment about "legitimate rape." In the President's own words: "Rape is rape. And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we are talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me."
In a stroke the President -- not to mention his allies on Capitol Hill, in the media and left-leaning interest groups -- resurrected one of the most divisive moments of the 1990's.
That moment?
What NBC reporter Lisa Myers was said in the day to have called the "very credible" allegation that Bill Clinton raped a Clinton campaign worker named Juanita Broaddrick.
In a ricochet doubtless unintended, the decision by the White House to personally insert the President into the Akin "legitimate rape" controversy now focuses attention on two stark realities:
  • · The selection of Clinton to give the nominating speech for President Obama in a primetime TV slot at the Democrats' convention.
  • · Re-surfacing videos of Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill campaigning with Clinton while saying she "wouldn't want him near my daughter." Videos like this one and this one of McCaskill on Meet the Press.
In other words, both Obama -- not to mention McCaskill -- are now essentially and literally "legitimizing rape" by the selection of Clinton as Obama's nominator -- and as the man who raised funds for McCaskill in the first place.
Will McCaskill return the funds Clinton raised for her in 2006? What do you think?
Just call it the legitimizing of rape.
Not to mention that the "legitimate rape" controversy draws attention to the unintended irony of this remark on Clinton's selection by Obama campaign chief David Axelrod:
"There isn't anybody on the planet who has a greater perspective…."
Ouch.
For those who came in late, let's recall the facts. (And note: our friend Mark Levin was the first to raised this subject as the liberal criticism of Akin grew.)
In 1992, presidential candidate Bill Clinton, then Governor of Arkansas and a former state attorney general, was caught up in a swirl of allegations that he was your basic womanizer. One woman, Gennifer Flowers, came forward in a formal press conference to say that she in fact had been a Clinton paramour. She produced audiotapes of Clinton talking with her over the phone -- talking about both the intimacy of their personal relationship and the campaign. There was much chewing of much political fat. As here with then-Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos on ABC -- where he is now an anchor -- saying "Bill Clinton has no character problem" and that allegations about Flowers and other women were "side issues." (Years later, in his memoirs, Stephanopoulos said simply of Clinton and Flowers: "He lied.") Next, candidate Clinton along with wife Hillary, then both newcomers to the national scene, took to the set of the CBS show 60 Minutesto acknowledge problems in their marriage but insist all was now well. Come November, Clinton was president-elect.
Soon enough -- in late 1993 -- the "Troopergate" scandal erupted, revealed in the pages of The American Spectator. With allegations that Arkansas state troopers had been used during Clinton’s governorship to assist the governor with his womanizing. Paula Jones surfaced for the first time. In other words, the womanizing tales began to blossom more fully in the Clinton first term.
Time passed. Other issues inevitably came to the fore -- the economy, terrorism, the usual. In 1996 Clinton was re-elected with 49% of the vote, defeating former Kansas Senator Bob Dole (and a third party Ross Perot).
In early 1998, out of the seeming blue, another Clinton "bimbo eruption" (as his staff called them) erupted. This one would not go away.
The President was accused of having an affair with a young White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. This in turn launched a veritable small parade of women coming forth with allegations of Clinton's inappropriate sexual behavior.
One of the women involved was Juanita Broaddrick. Ms. Broaddrick, a nursing home administrator and successful professional, had been a campaign volunteer in Clinton's 1978 campaign when then-Attorney General Clinton was running for governor. Lisa Myers of NBC first reported her story for television (no video link available.) But at a later date Broaddrick sat down with the Wall Street Journal's Dorothy Rabinowitz and told her story again.
Here are the key parts of the Broaddrick story as she told them to Rabinowitz:
The story: In 1978, 35-year-old Juanita Broaddrick--a Clinton campaign worker--had already owned a nursing home for five years. Since her graduation from nursing school she had worked for several such facilities and decided she wanted to run one of her own. It was that home that Attorney General Clinton visited one day, on a campaign stop during his run for governor. He invited Juanita, then still married to her first husband, to visit campaign headquarters when she was in Little Rock. As it happened, she told him, she was planning to attend a seminar of the American College of Nursing Home Administrators the very next week and would do just that. On her arrival in Little Rock, she called campaign headquarters. Mrs. Broaddrick was surprised to be greeted by an aide who seemed to expect her call, and who directed her to call the attorney general at his apartment. They arranged to meet at the coffee shop of the Camelot Hotel, where the seminar was held--a noisy place, Mr. Clinton pointed out; they could have coffee in her room.
They had not been there more than five minutes, Mrs. Broaddrick says, when he moved close as they stood looking out at the Arkansas River. He pointed out an old jailhouse and told her that when he became governor, he was going to renovate that place. (The building was later torn down, but in the course of their searches, NBC's investigators found proof that, as Mrs. Broaddrick said, there had been such a jail at the time.) But the conversation did not linger long on the candidate's plans for social reform. For, Mrs. Broaddrick relates, he then put his arms around her, startling her.
"He told me, 'We're both married people,'" she recalls. She recalls, too, that in her effort to make him see she had no interest of this kind in him, she told him yes, they were both married but she was deeply involved with another man--which was true. She was talking about the man she would marry after her divorce, David Broaddrick, now her husband of 18 years.
The argument failed to persuade Mr. Clinton, who, she says, got her onto the bed, held her down forcibly and bit her lips. The sexual entry itself was not without some pain, she recalls, because of her stiffness and resistance. When it was over, she says, he looked down at her and said not to worry, he was sterile--he had had mumps when he was a child. "As though that was the thing on my mind--I wasn't thinking about pregnancy, or about anything," she says. "I felt paralyzed and was starting to cry."
As he got to the door, she remembers, he turned. "This is the part that always stays in my mind--the way he put on his sunglasses. Then he looked at me and said, 'You better put some ice on that.' And then he left."
Her friend Norma Rogers, a nurse who had accompanied her on the trip, found her on the bed. She was, Ms. Rogers related in an interview, in a state of shock--lips swollen to double their size, mouth discolored from the biting, her pantyhose torn in the crotch. "She just stayed on the bed and kept repeating, 'I can't believe what happened.'" Ms. Rogers applied ice to Juanita's mouth, and they drove back home, stopping along the way for more ice.
Broaddrick also told Rabinowitz that after her interview with NBC's Myers, NBC had balked at airing it. The Clinton impeachment proceedings were in full swing, and there was an apparent sentiment within the network not to add to Clinton's woes. According to Broaddrick., Myers had said to her:
"The good news is you're credible. The bad news is you're very credible."
There is, of course, much more to this story. NBC finally aired the Myers-Broaddrick interview -- long after Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in the impeachment trial. At one point early on Broaddrick had even denied the story in an affidavit out of fear. But when the lawyers for Clinton's special prosecutor Kenneth Starr came to her, realizing lying to a federal prosecutor in a presidential impeachment trial was at a whole other level, Broaddrick came forth with her story.
But the first impeachment jury -- members of the U.S. House -- read of her tale. Broaddrick's testimony to the special prosecutor was known as "Jane Doe No. 5" and kept in a closed "evidence room" where Congressmen had to go, read the material, and leave. One of those was Connecticut's moderate Republican Christopher Shays, who later gave thisinterview to a local radio station. Said Shays of Clinton and the rape allegation from Juanita Broaddrick:
"I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 yrs ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event."
At one point, interviewer Tom Scott bluntly asks of Shays: "Do you personally believe our president is a rapist?"
Shays responded: "I would like not to say it that way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."
On another occasion, Broaddrick discussed a later incident involving Hillary Clinton. The conversation is with Sean Hannity here.
Now.
Why is any of this relevant today? Why even bring it up?
Here's why.
Suffice to say, in this corner the thought was that Congressman Todd Akin should abandon his Senate race for his unbelievably inappropriate comments about rape. Rape is not legitimate. Period. Everybody and their GOP or conservative brother and sister from Mitt Romney on down the line had the same belief. There was hardly a conservative anywhere who didn't suggest it would be better if Akin left the Senate race.
Akin decided to stay put.
So the Akin-McCaskill race is now formally on. With Akin expected to have a tough time defeating McCaskill because, well, you know, the "legitimate rape" business.
President Obama has taken after Akin, with the comments noted above. Over at the Democratic National Committee they have a banner on the front page of their website featuring black-and-white photos of Romney, Ryan and -- Todd Akin.
The caption? "The GOP is Dangerously Wrong for Women."
Like clockwork, Nancy Keenan, the President of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), took to theHuffington Post to slam the Romney/Ryan ticket, insisting that the two "… have every intention of a continued War on Women."
And -- get this -- Keenan posted the news on the NARAL website that she was "honored" to be chosen to speak at the Democrats' convention. From the same podium where the man accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick will nominate President Obama. Writes Keenan: "I will speak on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice America's million member-activists, and all Americans who understand that women -- not politicians -- should be able to make personal, private health-care decisions."
All of which is to say, when it comes to the allegation that the convention's star speaker other than Obama himself has a rape problem -- the NARAL president will be only to happy to clam up and, to borrow the now famous phrase, legitimize rape.
Also added to the speakers list at the convention in the wake of l'affaire Akin? Sandra Fluke of Rush Limbaugh fame and the President of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards. Will Fluke or Richards protest Bill Clinton?
 
Of course not. When it comes to the subject of rape and Bill Clinton, these women are stone mute. They will meekly accept their place and say what they are told.
Over in the Senate, California Senator Barbara Boxer stepped into trouble instantly: "All rape is forced. Am I right on that point?"
Well. Yes. Recall Broaddrick's description to Rabinowitz of the force used on her by Bill Clinton:
"Mr. Clinton….got her onto the bed, held her down forcibly and bit her lips. The sexual entry itself was not without some pain, she recalls, because of her stiffness and resistance."
The injuries she received in this act of rape, Broaddrick says, were apparent enough that on his way out of the room:
"This is the part that always stays in my mind--the way he put on his sunglasses. Then he looked at me and said, 'You better put some ice on that.' And then he left."
Whatever Todd Akins' flaws, his worldview is in fact a world away from that of not only Claire McCaskill and Barack Obama -- but certainly of Bill Clinton.
So let's go from here to that famous feminist text of the 1970's, Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will: Men Women and Rape.
Brownmiller's book, today advertised by its publisher as the "Bestselling Feminist Classic," says this on the book flap of its first edition:
"…the threat, use and cultural acceptance of sexual force is a pervasive process of intimidation that affects all women."
Stop.
Say again, this liberal bible of feminism talks about the "cultural acceptance of sexual force."
And what is upcoming in the next few weeks?
That's right. The two national political conventions -- major quadrennial features of American culture.
And which convention is featuring in prime time -- for the specific purpose of re-nominating the President of the United States -- the man who was specifically accused as follows?
"Mr. Clinton….got her onto the bed, held her down forcibly and bit her lips. The sexual entry itself was not without some pain, she recalls, because of her stiffness and resistance."
Correct. The convention nominating President Obama.
The very same president who said just this week that:
"Rape is rape. And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we are talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me."
Obviously, rape is not rape for Obama if the man in question is -- Bill Clinton.
Interestingly, feminist Brownmiller also insisted that rape for women was the same as lynching was for blacks -- a subject that should ring a bell in the White House of the first black president. But, alas, no big deal.
Brownmiller also gives an eerily prescient description in the 1975 of what Broaddrick describes as her three years-later harrowing experience with then-Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Clinton. Writes Brownmiller in a chapter titled Power: Institution and Authority:
…the glamour attached to cultural heroes, such as a movie star, sports figure, rock singer or respected-man-in-the-community, provides a psychologic edge that lessens the need for physical coercion until it is too late for the victim to recognize her predicament.
This description matches almost exactly with what Broaddrick told Rabinowitz. The Attorney General and candidate for governor -- what Brownmiller calls "the respected-man-in-the-community" syndrome -- made a campaign stop at her nursing home business and invited her to "visit his campaign headquarters." She did when next in Little Rock, was instructed to call the Attorney General at his apartment, did so and wound up meeting him at the hotel where her meeting was being held. The rest -- he invites himself to the unsuspecting Broaddrick's room for coffee -- unfolds just as Brownmiller describes in such situations with a power figure. As Broaddrick told Rabinowitz:
"They had not been there more than five minutes, Mrs. Broaddrick says, when he moved close as they stood looking out at the Arkansas River. He pointed out an old jailhouse and told her that when he became governor, he was going to renovate that place….."
In other words, it was too late for Broaddrick to "recognize her predicament." And within five minutes -- five minutes! -- Broaddrick's nightmare began.
So.
In the aftermath of the episode involving Congressman Akin's words, is there not more than a tad bit of irony that the man chosen to nominate Obama is a man who didn't use the words "legitimate rape" -- but is himself accused, in considerably excruciating detail -- of rape?
Which is to say, having now walked themselves out there on the end of a long and fragile limb on Akin's idiotic wording -- insisting the GOP is "dangerous to women" and that Akin is more evidence of a GOP "war on women" -- Democrats and the Obama campaign are blithely giving a pass to an actual accused rapist who is going to be one of the main stars at their convention.
And not only doing it without a peep of concern but thrilled at the very exciting prospect.
Hence the obvious.
Concisely put, Obama, Claire McCaskill and the Democrats are legitimizing rape -- right in the glare of the television lights.
And hoping that no one will notice.
Is this not precisely what Brownmiller was calling "cultural acceptance of sexual force"? Making a man of whom then-Congressman Shays said to the question:
"Do you personally believe our president is a rapist?"
that:
"I would like not to say it that way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."
And Obama and company are going to run a campaign saying Romney, Ryan and Akin are "dangerous" to women?
Whatever Akin's flaws in this episode -- well discussed and agreed to here -- never has he been accused of actually raping a woman. Akins is more than correct to insist that he represents a different worldview than McCaskill and her liberal allies.
Doubtless the Akin campaign will now recall this interesting October 2006 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press when then-host Tim Russert had this exchange with McCaskill:
MR. RUSSERT: You're having Bill Clinton come in to raise money for you. Do you think Bill Clinton was a great president?
MS. McCASKILL: I do. I think -- I have a lot of problems with some of his, his, his personal issues. I said at...
MR. RUSSERT: But do you...
MS. McCASKILL: I said at the time, "I think he's been a great leader, but I don't want my daughter near him."
So McCaskill didn't want her daughter near the man Congressman Shays said he believed to have raped Juanita Broaddrick -- but she would have that same man come to Missouri and raise money for her? Yes, that's exactly what she said.
Can you say "cultural acceptance of sexual force."
Or, more colorfully put, McCaskill was essentially saying to Juanita Broaddrick, in the fashion of her famous fundraiser,'You better put some ice on that.'. Then, having helped along the "cultural acceptance of sexual force" -- McCaskill took the money and ran.
And these people think Romney, Ryan and Akin are "dangerous to women"?
Seriously?
What is the difference between Todd Akin and Claire McCaskill? Between Todd Akin and Bill Clinton? Between Todd Akin and Barack Obama?
Akin used the wrong words -- and apologized for those words.
Bill Clinton stands "very credibly" accused of rape.
And liberals from Barack Obama to Claire McCaskill and the President of NARAL and Senator Boxer simply give Bill Clinton a pass. They will take his money (McCaskill) and his honeyed words to a national TV audience (Obama). And never say a word.
In short, they will do in harsh reality what Todd Akin would never dream of doing.
Give a pass to an allegation of "legitimate rape."
Contrary to what President Obama tried to say, if you are a liberal....
Rape is not rape.
It's no big deal.