By Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsrouces.com)
February 26, 1999
The Clinton Impeachment Trial was not about sex. It was about perjury and obstruction of justice. While Clinton and his supporters in the media tried mightily to MAKE it about sex, one of the criticisms of the House Managers was that their presentations were "tedious" and brought out "nothing new."
But, it didn't take long. Every effort was made to short circuit a real trial. Senator Arlen Spector, for example, voted against having witnesses. Now, who ever heard of a trial without witnesses? Then he voted with the Democrats because, he said, the House Managers "didn't prove" beyond a reasonable doubt that perjury and obstruction of justice had been committed.
For a few days we had a bit of media driven "bipartisan" talk, sprinkled with a reports, first in the Drudge Report and then in "respectable" newspapers about the Juanita Broaddrick story. Wednesday, we heard Juanita tell her story of being raped by Bill Clinton, then the Attorney General for the State of Arkansas.
Actually, this turn of events isn't simply about sex either. It's about violence. If we are to believe the studies about rape, and we also believe that the numerous documented stories that have surfaced about Bill Clinton over the years - no one should be surprised that there was also rape in his sexual history. A national Academy of Sciences report on violence in 1993, written by a team headed by Ron Langevin studied a group of 40 rapists, 40 nonviolent sex offenders, 40 normal controls and 25 nonsexual assaultive offenders. The study showed the rapists were similar to the group of men who were sexually abnormal and had a history of "exposing, peeping, making obscene calls and rubbing against women in crowds."
Well, Bill Clinton has a history of exposing himself, a la Paula Corbin Jones, making phone sex calls, a la Monica Lewinsky, and pulling women to him in what has been considered "hugs," a la Kathleen Willey. Rapists, the report said, also were generally "feminine and even engaged in transvestism." Bill Clinton is about as far as a man can get from masculinity, having been controlled his entire life by women - first his mother, than his wife.
The study concluded, incidentally, that the most effective method of stopping rapists was castration, which resulted in only a 3.5% recidivism rate. Therapy and hormones had recidivism rates of about 30%. Those who are not treated or imprisoned, and only 52% of the rape cases, even today, end in an arrest and fewer than that result in punishment. Does the nation just sort of pretend that Clinton's obvious and deep-seated hatred towards women will just sort of go away? Or, will it demand some kind of treatment to stop his tendency toward sexual violence?
Then there are those in the media, such as Geraldo Rivera, who claim to be skeptical of Juanita Broaddricks story because she "didn't go to the police." They can't be serious. In 1978 when this occurred, far fewer than 52% of the rapes were even reported. If Juanita Broaddrick had reported being raped by the Attorney General who was a candidate for Governor of the State in Arkansas to the police, she would have risked ending up financially ruined, at the least and probably worse than that. Being a friend of Bill Clinton's has been bad for the health of a number of people over the years. (see "Being a friend of Bill Clinton Can Be Bad for Your Health) And, that is a fact well known in Arkansas.
Perhaps the most amazing part of this story is the behavior of America's top feminists towards Bill Clinton. Remember the determined efforts by feminist leaders Sen. Barbara Boxer and Patricia Ireland of the National Organization for Women to keep Clarence Thomas from serving on the Supreme Court and to oust Sen. Bob Packwood from his elected position in the U.S. Senate? Does anyone remember any defense of Bob Packwood based on the fact that the people of Oregon ELECTED him? If that defense, used so extensively in the case of Bill Clinton, was ever used for Bob Packwood, I missed it.
But, you say, Patty Ireland has finally come out and indicated she can no longer support Bill Clinton because of the overwhelming evidence of his contempt and misuse of women, a la Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, and the rape of Juanita Broaddrick? While that was said on CNN, it is not accurate. She still supports Clinton. Her statement ( see today's HOT TOPICS) begins: "We will likely never know the truth about Juanita Broaddrick's accusation against Bill Clinton. "It's virtually impossible to prove or defend against a 21-year-old rape charge. Perhaps the best way to respond is to call on President Clinton and his supporters not to launch a broadside against his accuser and to urge the president and the Congress to work to improve the status of women."
As a woman I can't think of anything that would improve the status of women of America more effectively than getting the rapist out of the White House. His behavior towards women has been known in Arkansas for a number of years. In the 1996 Clinton biography "Partners in Power" Roger Morris wrote: "A young woman lawyer in Little Rock claimed that she was accosted by Clinton while he was attorney general and that when she recoiled he forced himself on her, biting and bruising her. Deeply affected by the assault, the woman decided to keep it all quiet for the sake of her own hard-won career and that of her husband. When the husband lataer saw Clinton at the 1980 Democratic Convention, he delivered a warning. 'If you ever approach her, I'll kill you.' Not even seeing fit to deny the incident, Bill Clinton sheepishly apologized and duly promised never to bother her again."
This is not the Broaddrick incident. Juanita Broaddrick is a nurse, not a lawyer. But, what's with the biting which was common to both?
Scott, one of my readers had an explanation:
I remember seeing on a National Geographic-type show that showed that a male tiger will bite a female tiger on the back of her neck, and hold her still with his teeth while he has intercourse with her. The expert on the show opined that the purpose of the instinctual "holding bite" was to control the female, and make sure that she doesn't escape. The show then displayed the same behavior in some domesticated "house" cats.Bill Clinton seems to have displayed the same behavior as these cats.
Scott
That is downright scary. THIS is the man that the feminists of America think is their best bet for "improving the status of women?" A man who rapes women and controls them by biting them like a cat is the best bet for American women to improve their status? Is Patricia Ireland out of her mind?
Actually, nothing has improved the status of women more effectively than the Contract With America, which, through the Welfare Reform passed finally with a veto proof majority after Clinton had vetoed it twice, has helped hundreds of thousands of poverty stricken women to join the work force and improve their standard of living and that of their children. It was an effort opposed by the feminists.
In fact, most of the feminist agenda has not improved the role of women. Women have never worked harder, been more in danger of crime, sexual abuse and rape, or had less love, respect and concern shown towards them than in the past six years of the administration of Feminist President Bill Clinton.
If American women can continue their blind support of Bill Clinton, after seeing Juanita Broaddrick and hearing her story, they are simply hopeless.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com
If you like Mary's daily column, you'll LOVE her monthly in depth column and issue research in the Reagan Monitor,a monthly newsletter dedicated to advancing Ronald Reagan's dream of beginning the world over again - building a land for all mankind, "a Shining City on a Hill." To order call toll free 877-821-6244 or e-mail Gavin Grooms, the publisher, at ggrooms@ctrpublishing.com. The print version is $34.95 and e-mail edition is $16.95.