BurkeWords

In this issue:

• Lack of Evidence, Lack of Denial
  Lack of Outrage, Lack of Questions

• Linda Tripp - What kind of woman would tape her friend?
• Monica Lewinsky - What kind of woman would save a semen-stained dress?
• Juanita Broaddrick - There's no evidence that anything happened.

This is what we're hearing and it's enough to make a country hang it's collective head in shame. If only this country still knew shame.

Suddenly, this is what the world has come to. The impeached President of the United States has such credibility even with his checkered past and known sexual history, that when an allegation of this type comes along, a credible allegation, he can choose to remain silent and the country lets him off with a sigh of "reasonable doubt".

Given the escapades of the man in the office, he should be doing whatever he can to clear himself. Bill Clinton is a man that can lose track of billing records and videotapes, but can produce a letter from Kathleen Willey within an afternoon if it's exculpatory. Any time the White House has evidence to prove a news story wrong, it's out there faster than Bill can drop trou.

And yet, they remain silent. A blanket, terse denial is issued, one that can be parsed into Clintonian a number of ways to render it utterly meaningless, and that's it.

NOW, which was immediately outraged by the things that Anita Hill said that Clarence Thomas said is bored by the things that Juanita Broaddrick says that Bill Clinton actually did. Their only press release is to look to the future, forget the past, and bash Republicans.

The Republicans have little to do with it. Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey were not only Democrats in good standing, but Clinton campaign workers. He's attacking "his own" as it were. Republicans are outraged by the behavior of this man, and outraged that no one else is outrage. Or even asking any questions.

Amazingly, Clinton apologists are still trying to spin this. Keith Watters called Broaddrick a slut. Elanor Rodham Clift claims that Broaddrick isn't credible and the FBI ruled the matter "inconclusive". A charge this serious and we should settle for "inconclusive"?

But what makes matters worse is the lack of denial. Clarence Thomas issued a full and specific denial and stepped forward to clear his name. Bill Clinton, when asked in a press conference, referred back to his hired lawyer's statement and wouldn't comment further. NBC sent a list of questions to the White House and they declined comment. Clinton, if he was elsewhere when the rape occurred could clear himself simply by showing that he was elsewhere that day. That he was in some meeting or at an event in another city.

Except that he can't. Dateline NBC showed that Clinton was in Little Rock that day.

The evidence is long gone. It boils down to he-said-she-said. Or rather he-said-she-said-she-said-she-said-she-said...
If it's a case of crediblity, who has more? For Clinton to be innocent of all charges and telling the truth, how many women, how many Democrat women, have to be lying?

I've refrained from name calling out of respect for the office. But I have no respect for the man. I will call him what he is and I hope everyone else will do the same.

Bill Clinton is a Rapist, a Violent Rapist.

And, Mr. President, the Truth Shall Set You Free. Use it for once.

Return to Table of Contents.