Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 99
  1. #1
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...la-home-center


    Matthew Dowd helped win the White House. Now he views the administration with a mixture of anguish and contempt.
    By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
    November 14, 2007
    WIMBERLY, TEXAS -- Matthew Dowd knows sorrow and loss. He has been divorced twice. A daughter died two months after she was born. And then there is the added heartbreak -- a word he uses -- of his split with President Bush.

    Dowd, 46, is one of the nation's leading political strategists, a onetime Democrat who switched sides to help put Bush in the White House, then win a second term. He spent years shaping and promoting Bush's policies -- policies that Dowd now views with a mixture of anguish and contempt.

    He began expressing his disillusionment, tentatively at first, at a UC Berkeley conference in January. Since then, he has grown more forceful.

    On the administration's response to the Sept. 11 attacks: "I asked, 'Why aren't we doing bonds, war bonds? Why aren't we asking the country to do something instead of just . . . go shopping and get back on airplanes?' "

    On the White House stand against same-sex marriage: "Why are we having the federal government get involved? . . . Does a thing limiting someone's rights and aimed at a particular cons uency belong in the U.S. Cons ution?"

    On the war in Iraq: "I guess somebody would make the argument, well, the Iraq war was about defending ourselves. But it seems an awfully huge stretch these days to say that."

    With a rueful laugh and, at one point, a catch in his throat, Dowd offered a lengthy account of his break with Bush during hours of conversation at his 18-acre ranch in the green Hill Country outside Austin. He puffed a cigar, and then another, as the fading sun glinted off the Blanco River. A CD player cycled through sacred music and country songs.

    Dowd is not the first Bush ally to part with the administration. Former Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill contributed to a book that likened the president at Cabinet meetings to a "blind man in a roomful of deaf people." John J. Dilulio Jr., who led the White House office of faith-based initiatives, left with a shot at "Mayberry Machiavellis." Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who once led U.S. forces in Iraq, accused the administration of going to war with a "catastrophically flawed" plan.

    But Dowd was a part of Bush's political inner circle, enjoying a degree of power and intimacy that made his criticism all the more unexpected -- and hurtful to those still close to the president, many of whom are Dowd's friends.

    "I care about him as a human being," said Mark McKinnon, a former Dowd business partner who produced Bush's campaign ads and sometimes bicycles with the president. "The problem was not just what he said, but that he never voiced any of those concerns directly to people he was supposed to be advising."

    Dowd responded that he shared his feelings with McKinnon and others close to Bush more than once before going public.

    In speaking out, Dowd has not only strained personal relationships but raised larger questions about loyalty in the political realm. Is he obliged to stand by his old boss, whose success made Dowd one of the most sought-after consultants in the campaign business? Or does he owe it to the country to openly dissent, even if he didn't do so from the start?

    The answer, for Dowd, is simple, even if his life these days is less so. "When you're a public advocate of something in the high-profile way that I was, and all of a sudden it doesn't turn out the way you thought, the counterweight is not to just sit quietly and let it go," Dowd said. "I had to say something in a high-profile way."

    His disenchantment with the president built over several years. Dowd went public at a Berkeley seminar on the 2006 California governor's race; Dowd was both a senior advisor to the Republican National Committee, where he landed after Bush took office, and a top strategist for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's reelection effort. It was a question about the president that set Dowd off and, looking back, liberated him.

    "Do you lose sleep at night knowing that you gave this country probably the worst administration we've ever had?" asked a young man. "I mean, have you thought about maybe trying to save your soul by calling for impeachment?"

    Dowd tensed and leaned forward. Rather than defend Bush, he spoke of the oldest of his three sons, an Army language specialist then facing deployment to Iraq. "Now, am I a person who stays up at night thinking about that? Yeah. . . . Do we have hopes and dreams and disappointments? . . . Yes," Dowd said.

    But when things don't turn out as hoped "it does not mean that you somehow have to walk down the street in a hair shirt with a sign that says, 'Forgive me, forgive me, forgive me,' " he said. "We move on."

    Dowd now sees the confrontation as "a gift [that] gave me the opportunity to start expressing things more and more publicly."

    In March, he wrote a piece for Texas Monthly magazine suggesting Bush had undercut his "gut-level bond with the American public." Finally, applying torch to bridge in spectacular fashion, Dowd detailed his break with Bush in a front-page interview in the New York Times. No one in the White House was alerted.

    "I was definitely disappointed I had to learn from a reporter, and not him, that he was going public," said Dan Bartlett, a former White House counselor and a friend of Dowd's.
    n the seven months since, Dowd has spurned book offers and the talk-show circuit, as well as the antiwar movement. He is not comfortable in the role of Bush basher. "I don't hate the guy," he said of the president, who has not spoken with Dowd since he aired his views. "I don't think he's evil or bad. I think he's a good person that didn't accomplish what he set out to do."

    Dowd grew up the third of 11 children in an Irish Catholic family in Detroit. His father was an auto executive; his mother taught elementary school before becoming a full-time mom. If not for all those kids, Dowd said, his family might have been upper-middle-class. Instead, there were hand-me-downs and lots of meatless suppers.

    His conservative parents shaped his political views. But that changed at Cardinal Newman College, a small liberal arts school in St. Louis. Dowd became a Democrat, albeit one who opposed abortion and heavy taxation. It made for a good fit with conservative Democrats in Texas, where he moved in 1984 to work for Austin's congressman.

    Over the next 10 years, Dowd helped elect Democrats throughout Texas and elsewhere, growing close to one in particular, the state's crusty Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock. Bullock, in turn, hit it off with Bush after the Republican became governor in 1994. Bullock even crossed party lines to endorse Bush's 1998 reelection.

    Soon after that landslide, Dowd was approached by Karl Rove, Bush's top campaign advisor. The two were friendly, having lectured together on politics at the University of Texas. Bush was preparing a presidential run, and Rove wanted help. Dowd was impressed with the way Bush worked with Bullock and other statehouse Democrats. "I thought Washington was so screwed up, so polarized, maybe he'd be the guy who could fix that," Dowd said.

    His hopes rose during the 2000 campaign. "We were going to change Washington," Dowd said. "There was kind of a mutual agreement that [Bush] was going to be a different kind of Republican."

    At first Bush governed that way, Dowd said, working with Democrats to cut taxes and overhaul education policy. But he believes something changed after Sept. 11, 2001. "There was an imperial feel to it," Dowd said. "The things he did in Texas, he didn't do any of that. . . . We didn't build relationships with Democrats in Congress, and we didn't build them overseas."

    When Dowd voiced concerns -- about the failure to ask more of Americans after Sept. 11, about further tax cuts -- he felt ignored. "Karl wanted me to worry about other things," Dowd said. "I'd get a nice pat on the head." Rove had no comment for this article.

    The GOP congressional gains in 2002 didn't help, Dowd said. "Increasing Republican majorities in both houses," he said, "became a disincentive for consensus building."

    Still, Dowd stuck by the president and managed his reelection campaign because he assumed things would change once Bush was in a second term. It was, he said, like ignoring doubts in hopes of saving a marriage. "You say, 'Well, they got drunk last night but it'll be better next week.' Or, 'They had an affair but they're not really that way.' You talk yourself out of it because you believed, and you want to believe."

    His disaffection grew, however, when Bush started his second term with an acrimonious fight over Social Security. Dowd felt the president had the chance -- but not the desire -- to reach out to Democrats.

    The years between the 2000 campaign and Bush's reelection had been a whirlwind for Dowd, a time of great professional success and personal upheaval. In September 2002, he and his second wife had twin daughters born prematurely; one died after two months in the hospital. Their marriage began unraveling.

    He spent much of 2005 co-writing a book on leadership, "Applebee's America," and thinking. His work advising Schwarzenegger pushed him further from Bush. The governor's bipartisanship, Dowd thought, was a favorable contrast to the president's "my-way-or-the-highway" approach.

    The White House, however, was not pleased when Schwarzenegger distanced himself from Bush. After some "fairly heated discussions," Dowd said, he and Rove stopped talking before the midterm election. They have not spoken since. Dowd left his job with the Republican National Committee at the end of last year.

    He expresses no regrets for repudiating the president he served, even if the experience seems to have deepened his disappointment in Bush and the ways of Washington. Dowd has taken comfort from strangers who called and sent e-mails "basically saying that it took a lot of courage to say the truth." It is friends who have let him down: "People who called up and said, 'We agree with you, but you should not have said anything until January '09.' "

    Dowd had hoped his harsh words would break through to the president and White House. "But it doesn't seem to me less bunkered than it was," Dowd said, with a mirthless chuckle.

    Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, rejected that notion. "I think there's a lot of exchange and interaction," Fratto said. "No one here fails to hear criticisms or concerns, whether it's coming from the media or experts or the public or Capitol Hill. In fact, I would say it's impossible not to."

    Dowd said he heard secondhand that Bush was hurt by his criticism. Asked whether he would like to resume their relationship, Dowd paused. "Sure, I'd like to visit with him," he said. "It would be a nice thing to do at some point. But I don't feel a necessity to do it to settle something in myself."

    Dowd lives alone on his ranch, amid the tall grass, cedar and live oaks that run to the edge of the Blanco River. It is an exile of his choosing, six miles outside Wimberly, population 4,000. He is, he happily noted, just another local tooling around in a silver Dodge pickup.

    His 3,300-square-foot home has a country feel, with antique fixtures, a wraparound porch and knotty wood floors. A frilly bedroom guarded by a life-size stuffed tiger awaits frequent visits from his 5-year-old daughter, Josephine. The house is filled with books, inspirational sayings -- "Happiness often sneaks in a door you did not open" -- and, by a quick count, more than 100 crosses. The Prayer of St. Francis -- "Lord, make me an instrument of your peace; where there is hatred, let me sow love" -- is inscribed on a big painting above the fireplace.

    Notably absent are pictures of Bush, or any other politician. "I don't define myself by my professional career. How much money I made, who I elected," Dowd said. He may be through with campaigns; but there is plenty of work doing brand consulting for corporate clients, which takes him two to three times a week to Austin, a 50-minute drive.

    Faith has always been important to Dowd, a former altar boy who once considered becoming a priest (except for the fact he liked girls too much). But it has become even more important after the discouragement of the last few years. He attends Mass each Sunday, and sometimes during the week. Recently, Dowd took a spiritual journey, including stops in India, Nepal and Israel, to walk in the footsteps of Gandhi, Buddha and Jesus, among others.

    "If you really want to know where I'm at, it's understanding now that the people that have had the most profound effect on the world are not elected officials, not people who have held vast kingdoms, but are basically people who walked out their front door and acted right," Dowd said.

    Happiness, he believes, requires three things: people, a place and work that feed the soul. He has his children and ranch. Dowd is now trying to figure out the last piece.

    Another one comes out and says the exact same thing about Bush and his inner circle. If this were a Democrat the righties on this board would call this a pattern and they would choose to believe all of the people coming out as being honest. it only makes sense..

    yet those same people will caveat there way out of this one and never admit we have been right all along about Bush..

    sigh..

  2. #2
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...la-home-center

    Another one comes out and says the exact same thing about Bush and his inner circle. If this were a Democrat the righties on this board would call this a pattern and they would choose to believe all of the people coming out as being honest. it only makes sense..

    yet those same people will caveat there way out of this one and never admit we have been right all along about Bush..

    sigh..
    What's the scandal here? Dowd disagrees with the president on a few key issues. Big Whoop, so do many other people.

    I found this paragraph, in the story, rather telling of the angle the writer was pursuing:

    "Do you lose sleep at night knowing that you gave this country probably the worst administration we've ever had?" asked a young man. "I mean, have you thought about maybe trying to save your soul by calling for impeachment?"

    Dowd tensed and leaned forward. Rather than defend Bush, he spoke of the oldest of his three sons, an Army language specialist then facing deployment to Iraq. "Now, am I a person who stays up at night thinking about that? Yeah. . . . Do we have hopes and dreams and disappointments? . . . Yes," Dowd said.
    Obviously, the writer is intending for the reader to get the impression Dowd stays up at night because he "gave this country probably the worst administration we've ever had," when, in fact, he's only talking about losing sleep over the prospect of his oldest son being deployed to a war zone.

    I don't have a problem with anything Dowd says. In fact, it demonstrates Bush is a uniter and not a divider. Dowd, a former Democrat, talks aboout how Bush reached across the aisle to work with Democrats prior to 9-11. One can only imagine why he stopped afterward but, getting repeatedly told you lied and people died because of it might have something to do with why President Bush began to withdraw his bi-partisan spirit.

    There's no mention the Bush administration attempted to dissuade Dowd from going public with his complaints. There's no mention of any illegal scandal involving the Bush administration. He merely disagrees with policy choices made by the President. Good for him.

    Nothing to see here.

  3. #3
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    What's the scandal here? Dowd disagrees with the president on a few key issues. Big Whoop, so do many other people.

    I found this paragraph, in the story, rather telling of the angle the writer was pursuing:


    Obviously, the writer is intending for the reader to get the impression Dowd stays up at night because he "gave this country probably the worst administration we've ever had," when, in fact, he's only talking about losing sleep over the prospect of his oldest son being deployed to a war zone.

    I don't have a problem with anything Dowd says. In fact, it demonstrates Bush is a uniter and not a divider. Dowd, a former Democrat, talks aboout how Bush reached across the aisle to work with Democrats prior to 9-11. One can only imagine why he stopped afterward but, getting repeatedly told you lied and people died because of it might have something to do with why President Bush began to withdraw his bi-partisan spirit.

    There's no mention the Bush administration attempted to dissuade Dowd from going public with his complaints. There's no mention of any illegal scandal involving the Bush administration. He merely disagrees with policy choices made by the President. Good for him.

    Nothing to see here.


    One can only imagine why he stopped afterward but, getting repeatedly told you lied and people died because of it might have something to do with why President Bush began to withdraw his bi-partisan spirit.




    The GOP congressional gains in 2002 didn't help, Dowd said. "Increasing Republican majorities in both houses," he said, "became a disincentive for consensus building."
    This was before the Iraq war... maybe you need to read it agagin..

  4. #4
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781



    This was before the Iraq war... maybe you need to read it agagin..
    I read it. Democratic obstinence didn't begin in March of '03...I guess you don't recall Tom "The Muffler Man" Daschle.

    But, again, where's the scandal. The guy is within in his rights to say these things and, I believe, they are reasonable criticisms of the adminisration even if I don't agree with them.

  5. #5
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    You want to talk about scandalous accusations made by a former associate of a president; here you go...

    The Kathleen Willey Interview

    Yesterday, I did a phone interview with Kathleen Willey, who has a new book out: Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    What follows is a transcript of our conversation, edited slightly for readability's sake.

    First off, give my audience a quick rundown of what initially happened between you and Bill Clinton in the Oval Office.

    I went to see Bill Clinton, who was a friend of (both me) and my late husband. I was in the middle of a really, really serious financial family crisis. I had been a volunteer at the White House. I had volunteered on Bill Clinton's inaugural and I just decided...my volunteer days were over and I needed a paying job. I went to see the President to ask him for help, to see if he could help me find employment in the federal government. It didn't necessarily have to be at the White House, just with the government.

    It was one of the worst days in my life. He took advantage of that situation...

    Now, explain to people how it came to be known that Bill Clinton groped you during that visit.

    I was subpoenaed by Paula Jones' attorneys. They were looking for women who had suffered at Bill Clinton's hands. They heard about my story...

    From Linda Tripp, right?...

    ...I suspect it was Linda Tripp...I was then subsequently subpoenaed by Monica's attorneys and deposed under oath in her sexual harassment case.

    I've read a transcript of your examination on the stand and it seemed pretty obvious to me that you were being very evasive. You seemed to be trying to do everything humanly possible to give the impression that nothing had happened between you and Bill Clinton without actually perjuring yourself. Is that the case?

    I did not want to tell that story. My intention was for that story to go to my grave with me. Eventually, I just knew I had to tell the story and I did.

    Like I said, in the transcript, you did everything you could to avoid talking about it and got to the point where you had to perjure yourself or tell the story, right?

    That's absolutely correct...and I had been threatened a few days before that and all kinds of things had been happening to me.

    Like what? Tell me about that.

    Strange phone calls. You know, "We're getting ready to turn the power off, do you have small children or elderly people there?" The power company doesn't do that and the power never went off.

    Then, one day, I live out in the country, in a very rural part of Virginia and...I walked out of my house one day and I had three flat tires. I wondered how that had happened and came to find out that someone had come down with a nail gun and shot the tires out in the sidewalls. I mean, you don't run over nails and get them in the sidewalls.

    And I had a beloved pet of 13 years that disappeared...

    That was your cat, right?

    That was my cat. I put the word out...and put up pictures saying she was missing..and one morning, I was out walking at first light with my dogs, a couple of days before the deposition, and this stranger approached me and asked if I had ever found the cat. He was very knowledgable about my cat, and talked about what a nice cat he was -- talking about him in the past tense. Then he asked me if I had gotten my tires repaired -- "Did you ever get those tires fixed" -- which was when I knew something was going on. Then, the worst part was when he threatened my children by name....He said, "You're just not getting the message, are you?" The message was clear, it was to lie at that deposition in two days and not tell the story of what Bill Clinton did to me.

    That person was connected to the Clintons, correct?

    It's my opinion that he was.

    You actually named him in the book; I read the name (Cody Shearer), but I didn't know if you were giving that out in interviews or not...

    ...He had an alibi -- he was investigated after I was shown a picture of him, and his alibi was not so much iron clad as uncheckable. These private investigators and their operatives have been on the Clinton payroll for years, as damage control, to come after someone like me -- and they're very good at what they do. Don't think for one minute that they don't walk around with all kinds of alibis in their back pockets. I have my opinion. I know who I saw, I know who I talked to, but that doesn't mean I can prove it.

    I understand. Now, you've talked about some of the harassment you've suffered. Can you tell me about that and also about your manuscript being stolen recently?

    Well, over Labor Day week-end, someone broke into my home, in the middle of the night, while I was upstairs asleep...They wanted it to look like a botched burglary...I think they came in through the screen...they took my purse, which I later found out in the woods. They didn't take the credit cards, but they took the money that was in my wallet. They broke the antenna off of my car, they tampered with my satellite system, my wireless internet system, and took the manuscript and this is within days of two stories in a national magazine and newspaper (saying) I was almost finished with my book and that it was going to be published in November. I think the person that came in here, came in here with a mission. That mission was to terrify me and get their hands on my manuscript.

    Near the end of the book, you had a fascinating little paragraph on some of the harassment that other authors of Clinton books have suffered. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

    Well, we've got just any number of people who have criticized or questioned the Clintons and have been subjected to this kind of behavior -- former state troopers in Arkansas, of course, other women like me. Our stories are so similar it's eerie. I mean, we all tell the same stories.

    Juanita Broaddrick and Gennifer Flowers have had similar stories, haven't they?

    Sure, they're all very similar and I have to tell you -- I've had other women call me, who wouldn't give me their names, who've told me stories that were so similar to mine that I've had hair standing up on my arms -- at Bill Clinton's hands, in the Oval Office, at other places, in other years. This is not going to stop. The man has a serious problem...he's a sex addict....(Hillary) covers it up, she enables his behavior....

    Now, one thing I have heard used against you on a number of occasions is that you asked for a job in the White House after Bill Clinton groped you. Can you tell me why you did that?

    I didn't ask for it and I am glad you have given me the opportunity to address this. After my husband's death, if I thought our financial situation was bad, it was far worse than I thought it was going to be. I had children in college, I was a soccer mom, a housewife, I didn't finish college, and my best opportunity at that point for my family was to gain employment with the federal government. I didn't ask for a job in the complex, sitting right outside the Oval Office. That was the last place I wanted to be. I asked Bill Clinton to help me get a job anywhere in the federal government -- in Richmond, Virginia -- Washington -- anywhere. I was willing to move. That's what it was about. I didn't ask for a job in the White House per se, I asked for a job anywhere within the federal government.

    Was there any thought on your part that maybe, "Gee, he might do this to help keep me quiet, that sort of thing?"

    That he would get me a job?

    Yeah, maybe he'd think, "If I get her a job, she won't testify -- if it ever came to that." I know it hadn't come up at that point.

    Who knows what he thought? I can't answer that question. I will tell you, I never got a job. They certainly toyed with me. Supposedly, I was hired by his reelection campaign. I was given a start date, told where to be, when to be there, told what my salary was going to be, and never heard from them again.

    Now you've said that you've learned that your husband was involved in shady financial dealings with the Clintons. Can you tell us a bit about those?

    After his death, some dear friends of mine told me that my husband had told them that during the election, during the campaign, he had been carrying suitcases full of cash to Little Rock. I never knew that. He never told me that. I never saw evidence of that. He never shared that with me. So, needless to say, I was shocked by that.

    I can't imagine that he would just make that up and...I don't know, I want to find out. I want to pursue that.

    And you said you think that there's a possibility that the Clintons may have been involved in his death. Is that correct?

    What I said was -- and again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this, too -- what I said was that I finally was emotionally able to look at my husband's autopsy report while writing the book and there were some things in there that got my attention. I'm not an expert and I don't pretend to be, but I did take the autopsy report and show it to an expert, a criminology and forensic expert, and she saw some pretty compelling inconsistencies in that report and she suggested that I pursue it, that I get further opinions, which I am doing. I feel like I owe that to his memory, I owe that to my children, and for my own piece of mind. I want to know what happened. That's what I talked about briefly in my book.

    I got you. That makes perfect sense...just, as an interesting side note, you complained a bit about the atmosphere in general in the White House -- how people didn't seem to respect the office. They commonly used bad language, didn't dress appropriately, etc. Tell me a bit about that.

    Ever seen the movie Animal House? It was kind of like that. There was no dress code, pizza boxes all over the Oval Office, everybody's feet up on the furniture, foul language, obviously no respect for the...White House, for the office of the presidency. It was pretty appalling and I witnessed that on a regular basis. I don't think it's supposed to be that way.

    Are you disappointed that feminists haven't stuck by you? After all, you were groped by Bill Clinton and unquestionably, the Clintons have worked to destroy your reputation. Do you ever sit and wonder, "Gee, where are all these feminists who are supposed to be looking out for ordinary women like me..."

    Of course, I did. Every night, when I was being raked over the coals by the Clintonistas, of course I did. Believe me, I appealed to the feminists. I called the National Organization for Women. I asked for their help, but they weren't going to criticize him. He was their guy. He was their man. He was pro-choice...they were in no position to criticize him or validate me and they didn't.

    You know, think about it: where are they today? You don't see representatives of NOW. Where are the feminists? Where are they? I think Bill and Hillary Clinton pretty much shut them down. The feminists, NOW, they're all about one issue: abortion. They're not talking about women's rights, being an advocate for women, or equality in the work place. Those aren't issues anymore. It's abortion, plain and simple.

    Along similar lines, a big part of Hillary Clinton's campaign for the presidency has involved playing up her gender and promising to stand up for single mothers. Yet, you're a woman who was a loyal Democrat and a Clinton supporter and after you were victimized by her husband, Hillary helped work to try to personally destroy you. What message do you give to women who are considering voting for Hillary in...

    Well, that's one of the reasons that I wrote my book. I hope that women, men and women, but women especially, young women, first time voters, who are excited about voting for a woman for President for the first time in our history -- this woman claims to be a champion for women, a women's advocate, a feminist, but look what she has done to me. Look what she has done. And believe me, when I say look what she's done, she gears up the war room. She enables his behavior, she cleans up after him. It has been going on since before they were married and it will continue because his behavior has not stopped. This is no advocate for women. If this is what she's going to do to women like me, who unfortunately crossed paths with her husband, a sex addict and a predator, she is not a champion for women and she is not a women's advocate. I hope that young women will at least read my book, read my story, and think about what it would be like to be caught in the crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    Last question, tell us a little bit about your book, Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    Well, I talk about everything we've discussed today in detail. I talk about what it was like. I talk about the harassment. I talk about the threats to my safety -- the threats to my children, the loss of a beloved pet, and being afraid to live in my own home. I think that no man or woman, in this country, should be subjected to this sort of harassment, intimidation, and threats. This is not what our forefathers had in mind for us. Hopefully, people will read this book and arm themselves with knowledge before they go into the voting booth and vote.

    ...I really appreciate your time.

    Thank you for the opportunity.
    Does the country really, really, want another 4 years (possibly eight ) of this family in the White House?

  6. #6
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    You want to talk about scandalous accusations made by a former associate of a president; here you go...

    The Kathleen Willey Interview


    Does the country really, really, want another 4 years (possibly eight ) of this family in the White House?

    did you know that her story changed? she gave a completely different story when interviewed for the paula Jones lawsuit. Not only that the she was under oath at the time

    So maybe before you believe , anything and everything, that charges the clinton's you should at least verify the accuser hasn't already changed her story..

  7. #7
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    25,321
    "I'm more interested in selling my book"

  8. #8
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    did you know that her story changed? she gave a completely different story when interviewed for the paula Jones lawsuit. Not only that the she was under oath at the time

    So maybe before you believe , anything and everything, that charges the clinton's you should at least verify the accuser hasn't already changed her story..
    My question had less to do with the veracity of Ms. Willey (whom I have no reason to beleive or disbelieve except for the fact she's not alone in her accusations agains the Clintons) but with the sense of the American people and whether or not they want another scandalous Clinton administration.

    I keep waiting for the libel, defamation, and perjury accusations from the Clinton camp but, they never seem to come.

    I think Billy Boy is ultimately going to sink her presidential aspirations.

    That is my opinion.

  9. #9
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    Steele claims Willey asked her to lie to Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff about her alleged encounter with Clinton. Last spring Willey called Steele and asked her if Isikoff could come over to interview her. While Isikoff was on his way, Steele says, Willey called back and "told me exactly what to say." The directive: tell Isikoff the President had groped her on Nov. 29, 1993, and that Willey had rushed to Steele's house in the aftermath quite distraught. "I went along with it," Steele told TIME. "It was terrible, but Kathy and I were friends for 20 years, and she told me it wouldn't matter, that the whole thing was off the record anyway." Steele says that Willey never rushed over to see her on the day of the encounter, that she wasn't told of Willey's Oval Office visit until weeks after it occurred, that she was simply left with the impression that there might have been "mutual affection" between Clinton and Willey but nothing sexual. And Willey was not upset. Steele told her friend that Isikoff said Willey was tearful when relating the tale of the alleged groping to him. In response, Steele says, Willey laughed.

    But the story of Kathleen Willey, a former White House volunteer, and her erstwhile friend Julie Hiatt Steele is much more than the story of two women drawn into a political scandal. The story of how these women became crucial players in the independent counsel's investigation provides graphic detail about the lengths to which Starr and his staff were willing to go in their efforts to find evidence that could impeach the President. It reveals the pressures Starr has brought to bear against ordinary citizens such as Steele, a Virginia woman who has never been involved in politics and whose only connection to his investigation is her consistent refusal under oath to back Willey's story

  10. #10
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    a he said, she said response
    Like I said, you're not really addressing the core concern of my post. I'm not interested in debating the history of these women's allegations or their veracity.

    I think they run the real risk of driving the country to Clinton Scandal Fatigue before next November's election.

    Yes, I'm okay with that.

  11. #11
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    My question had less to do with the veracity of Ms. Willey (whom I have no reason to beleive or disbelieve except for the fact she's not alone in her accusations agains the Clintons) but with the sense of the American people and whether or not they want another scandalous Clinton administration.

    I keep waiting for the libel, defamation, and perjury accusations from the Clinton camp but, they never seem to come.

    I think Billy Boy is ultimately going to sink her presidential aspirations.

    That is my opinion.
    Well it looks like this 'scandal' was a non event so to claim that the American people don't want anymore of it is silly. The far right has proven they will do anything to demonize the clintons so maybe you should ask yourself do the American people want the far right to bring unsubstantiated claims and scandals continuously.

  12. #12
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    Like I said, you're not really addressing the core concern of my post. I'm not interested in debating the history of these women's allegations or their veracity.

    I think they run the real risk of driving the country to Clinton FAKE Scandal Fatigue before next November's election.

    Yes, I'm okay with that.

    There I fixed it for you.

  13. #13
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    Well it looks like this 'scandal' was a non event so to claim that the American people don't want anymore of it is silly. The far right has proven they will do anything to demonize the clintons so maybe you should ask yourself do the American people want the far right to bring unsubstantiated claims and scandals continuously.
    You say this as though Republicans have created these scandals out of whole cloth.

    I don't know what Ms. Willey's political affiliation is, I suspect she's a Democrat though. Same with Ms. Brodderick, Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Flowers...I'm not sure about the Washington hooker he approached.

    Are Republicans exploiting Bill Clinton's irrascibility, yeah. Are they making these people up? I think it can be proven all of them has social or political relationships with Bill Clinton prior to the allegations -- which, by the way, were brought forward by them.

    And, further, everytime the Clintons make a concerted effort to deny the allegations, they get burned like George Gervin's Afro in Spurstalk. Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky the two most prevelant examples.

    I only wish Hillary would go on a campaign to disprove Ms. Willey and Juanita Brodderick. I think the revelations would be interesting. In fact, I think that is precisely why Hillary is avoiding the topic altogether.

  14. #14
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    There I fixed it for you.
    Hey, however you want to look at it. I don't agree the scandals are fabricated but, at least you suggest the possibility the American public may be fed up with it come election day.

    That's good enough for me.

  15. #15
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    You say this as though Republicans have created these scandals out of whole cloth.

    I don't know what Ms. Willey's political affiliation is, I suspect she's a Democrat though. Same with Ms. Brodderick, Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Flowers...I'm not sure about the Washington hooker he approached.

    Are Republicans exploiting Bill Clinton's irrascibility, yeah. Are they making these people up? I think it can be proven all of them has social or political relationships with Bill Clinton prior to the allegations -- which, by the way, were brought forward by them.

    And, further, everytime the Clintons make a concerted effort to deny the allegations, they get burned like George Gervin's Afro in Spurstalk. Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky the two most prevelant examples.

    I only wish Hillary would go on a campaign to disprove Ms. Willey and Juanita Brodderick. I think the revelations would be interesting. In fact, I think that is precisely why Hillary is avoiding the topic altogether.

    Ok so want Hillary Clinton to prove false claims are false? Sort of like us wanting Saddam to prove he didn't have wmds? Why would anyone want to investigate something that is not true? or better yet keep a false scandal out in the public eye so people like Yonivore can the story regardless of it's merits.

  16. #16
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    Ok so want Hillary Clinton to prove false claims are false? Sort of like us wanting Saddam to prove he didn't have wmds? Why would anyone want to investigate something that is not true? or better yet keep a false scandal out in the public eye so people like Yonivore can the story regardless of it's merits.
    All I know is the two times Hillary Clinton said the allegations weren't true and came out vociferously denying them; they turned out to be true.

    Monica Lewinsky wasn't a vast right wing conspiracy and Gennifer Flowers did have a long-term affair with her husband.

    I don't think Mrs. Clinton wants to know the truth on these matters anymore. If I believed Ms. Willey were lying, I would sue her ass off for alleging I assaulted her and then implying I had something to do with the death of her husband.

    But, that's just me.
    Last edited by Yonivore; 11-14-2007 at 12:06 PM.

  17. #17
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    it just dawned on me that you have proven my point about you. I started this thread to prove the point that people like you like to consider anything that accuses the dems of doing something inappropriate you jump on it. you then claim that:

    I don't agree the scandals are fabricated but,
    I'm not interested in debating the history of these women's allegations or their veracity.
    My question had less to do with the veracity of Ms. Willey (whom I have no reason to beleive or disbelieve except for the fact she's not alone in her accusations agains the Clintons) but with the sense of the American people and whether or not they want another scandalous Clinton administration.


    yet when it comes to accusations of the Bush administration's made by many people who were close to the President are brushed off as simple examples of partisanship and political agendas....

  18. #18
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    it just dawned on me that you have proven my point about you. I started this thread to prove the point that people like you like to consider anything that accuses the dems of doing something inappropriate you jump on it. you then claim that:
    ***
    yet when it comes to accusations of the Bush administration's made by many people who were close to the President are brushed off as simple examples of partisanship and political agendas....
    Actually, you proved nothing. I said nothing of the sort about Mr. Dowd. I allowed that his complaints were reasonable even if I (and presumably others in the Bush administration) don't agree with him.

    I never accused him of being either partisan or having a political agenda. I merely accused him of being wrong.

  19. #19
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    Yoni doesn't care about the truth.

    Someone said Bill Clinton killed her cat, even if it's totally false Hillary Clinton should not be elected.

    Great logic.

  20. #20
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    If Rove later comes out with a book criticizing this administration, you can bet Yoni will find numerous blogs to discredit the man.

    The Clintons are s of the Earth, we know that. But the Bush Mafia is no better and far from clean.

    Someone else entirely should be elected. Someone who has no allegiance and/or previous relationships with Clinton/Bush. They're all s of the Earth, its our job to choose which dirty bas of a human being to put in office.

    I love American politics. Taking the phrase "Lesser of two evils" to the absolute, masochistic extreme.

  21. #21
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    If Rove later comes out with a book criticizing this administration, you can bet Yoni will find numerous blogs to discredit the man.
    Where did I try to discredit Dowd?

    The Clintons are s of the Earth, we know that. But the Bush Mafia is no better and far from clean.
    Being "no better" and "far from clean" are vastly different characterizations. I could argue the Bush administration is much better, vis-a-vis scandals, just based on the sheer number of scandals alleged about the two administrations, the number of administration officials, from each, that have been indicted for crimes or involved in scandals of their own -- and, yes, as in this case, the number of former administration officials that have changed colors and criticized their former bosses. In those terms, the Bush administration is head and shoulders above the Clinton administration.

    The "far from clean" characterization, I believe, deserves some kind of supporting logic. In what way is the Bush administration "far from clean?"

    Someone else entirely should be elected.
    You won't get any argument from me there. Besides, there's not a Bush up for election anyway.

    Someone who has no allegiance and/or previous relationships with Clinton/Bush. They're all s of the Earth, its our job to choose which dirty bas of a human being to put in office.
    I somewhat disagree with your equating the two administration but, in the sense the current president has been as much of a lightening rod (even if I disagree with the reasons why) as was Clinton, you could make the argument -- even though it's not necessary because he isn't running -- that the country should elect someone that will not evoke the aura of either administration.

    I love American politics. Taking the phrase "Lesser of two evils" to the absolute, masochistic extreme.
    I completely reject the term evil when applied to the Bush administration.

  22. #22
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    Where did I try to discredit Dowd?


    Being "no better" and "far from clean" are vastly different characterizations. I could argue the Bush administration is much better, vis-a-vis scandals, just based on the sheer number of scandals alleged about the two administrations, the number of administration officials, from each, that have been indicted for crimes or involved in scandals of their own -- and, yes, as in this case, the number of former administration officials that have changed colors and criticized their former bosses. In those terms, the Bush administration is head and shoulders above the Clinton administration.

    The "far from clean" characterization, I believe, deserves some kind of supporting logic. In what way is the Bush administration "far from clean?"


    You won't get any argument from me there. Besides, there's not a Bush up for election anyway.


    I somewhat disagree with your equating the two administration but, in the sense the current president has been as much of a lightening rod (even if I disagree with the reasons why) as was Clinton, you could make the argument -- even though it's not necessary because he isn't running -- that the country should elect someone that will not evoke the aura of either administration.


    I completely reject the term evil when applied to the Bush administration.

    I welcome the term evil when applied to the bush administration.

  23. #23
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    I welcome the term evil when applied to the bush administration.
    Thanks Mr. Obvious.

  24. #24
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    Where did I try to discredit Dowd?
    You didnt. My point is, Dowd has refused to do the circuits for good reason. He isnt trying to be a voice of reason, he is just airing his personal view on what things were like, to what things actually were.

    He likened his relationship with the president to a marriage with infidelity in the sense that he constantly had to rationalize his relationship with the Administration.

    I personally think the guy is a coward and money-grubbing political leech. But hes a guy who was in the inner circle of a Presidential Administration. His opinion carries a tad more weight than mine.


    Being "no better" and "far from clean" are vastly different characterizations. I could argue the Bush administration is much better, vis-a-vis scandals, just based on the sheer number of scandals alleged about the two administrations, the number of administration officials, from each, that have been indicted for crimes or involved in scandals of their own -- and, yes, as in this case, the number of former administration officials that have changed colors and criticized their former bosses. In those terms, the Bush administration is head and shoulders above the Clinton administration.

    The "far from clean" characterization, I believe, deserves some kind of supporting logic. In what way is the Bush administration "far from clean?"
    This is an argument of moral and values. It isnt worth it. Not on Spurstalk, not in a bar, not anywhere, ever. One could make the case that anything Clinton may or may not have done pales in comparison to what Bush may or may not have done. If you give credence to the trail of "complaints" against Clinton for being a voracious sex offender, then you must entertain the "complaints" against Bush for trumping up the evidence and threat of attack from Iraq.

    I know you wont. I dont really care. But, to stay with my lesser of two evils remark, if you told me you can have a President that is an "alleged" sexual creep and intimidates those women he has violated or an "allegedly" war-hungry President who trumps up the threat of war from third world countries using fear tactics on his own people......you could guess my complete distaste for the whole matter.


    You won't get any argument from me there. Besides, there's not a Bush up for election anyway.
    Thank God. But Jeb isnt too far off. Hes just waiting for the inevitable Democratic collapse.


    I somewhat disagree with your equating the two administration but, in the sense the current president has been as much of a lightening rod (even if I disagree with the reasons why) as was Clinton, you could make the argument -- even though it's not necessary because he isn't running -- that the country should elect someone that will not evoke the aura of either administration.
    I think individuals with the means and qualifications to even consider being President of the Free World couldnt be anything but lightning rods and eccentrics. I have no experience with early Presidents (obviously), but I am sure it was just as contentious then. But then again, none of those men held the same status worldwide that 20th century and beyond Presidents have/do. Cant really equate.

    I completely reject the term evil when applied to the Bush administration.
    I used the remark because its (probably) worldwide common. I dont believe Clinton was evil either. Again, we're arguing semantics. But I do think Bush is either a) ignorant and oblivious or b) semi-intelligent but is truly convinced of his own wisdom, facts be damned. Either way, it makes him at worst a puppet or at best a zealot (minus the religious context of the word).

    But thats just my lowly opinion.

  25. #25
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    You didnt. My point is, Dowd has refused to do the circuits for good reason. He isnt trying to be a voice of reason, he is just airing his personal view on what things were like, to what things actually were.

    He likened his relationship with the president to a marriage with infidelity in the sense that he constantly had to rationalize his relationship with the Administration.

    I personally think the guy is a coward and money-grubbing political leech. But hes a guy who was in the inner circle of a Presidential Administration. His opinion carries a tad more weight than mine.
    But, his opinion carries no more weight than others similarly situated in the Bush administration and, when you consider the number and nature of "turncoats" from the two administrations being discussed, you'd have a hard time convincing anyone Mr. Dowd's opinion of the Bush administration is more compelling or truthful than, say, Morris's.

    This is an argument of moral and values. It isnt worth it. Not on Spurstalk, not in a bar, not anywhere, ever. One could make the case that anything Clinton may or may not have done pales in comparison to what Bush may or may not have done. If you give credence to the trail of "complaints" against Clinton for being a voracious sex offender, then you must entertain the "complaints" against Bush for trumping up the evidence and threat of attack from Iraq.
    You say it's an argument not worth having and then, set out to establish two arguments over which to debate the morality and values of the two administrations.

    So, in that vein, There is ample, tangible and confirmed evidence that Bill clinton is a voracious sex offender. But, the chief complaint isn't that, even though his admirers would like for it to be just about sex; the principal complaint about President Clinton is that he was willing to perjur himself, suborn perjury in others, and obstruct justice in an attempt to deny a U. S. Citizen their cons utionally guaranteed right to due process. And, he did so as President of the United States -- the chief guarantor of said cons ution.

    Add to this all of the scandals from check stubs related to Whitewater to Sandy Berger stealing National Security do ents and President Bush's conduct, in office (by him or his proxies) doesn't even come close.

    There have been exponentially more investigations, by Congress, of the Bush administration than of the Clinton administration and not much to show for it. Clinton on the other hand has seen quite a number of his administration do time for various criminal acts.

    You say I must entertain the idea that Bush trumped up a rationale for war. Why? There's absolutely no evidence of that. In fact, President Clinton himself defends President Bush's decision to dethrone Saddam Hussein. A Congressional investigation exonerated Vice President Cheney of trying to skew the intelligence.

    There is absolutely no reasonable comparison between what Clinton was caught doing and what Bush is accused of doing.

    I know you wont. I dont really care. But, to stay with my lesser of two evils remark, if you told me you can have a President that is an "alleged" sexual creep and intimidates those women he has violated or an "allegedly" war-hungry President who trumps up the threat of war from third world countries using fear tactics on his own people......you could guess my complete distaste for the whole matter.
    Except for the fact you're making the wrong comparison. It wasn't about the sex but about the contempt for his own responsibilities as President that Clinton is condemned. Clinton isn't an alledged perjurer...he is one.

    Bush is an "alleged" war-hungry President because that's what his opponents are painting him as.

    Thank God. But Jeb isnt too far off. Hes just waiting for the inevitable Democratic collapse.
    I don't know much about Jeb. It's possible he'd be a better president than his brother.

    I think individuals with the means and qualifications to even consider being President of the Free World couldnt be anything but lightning rods and eccentrics. I have no experience with early Presidents (obviously), but I am sure it was just as contentious then. But then again, none of those men held the same status worldwide that 20th century and beyond Presidents have/do. Cant really equate.
    There are many comparisons between how Bush is being treated and how Abraham Lincoln was treated during his administration. I even think Lincoln was portrayed as a monkey in some of the attacks...just like this current office holder.

    I think political contentional and hyperbole goes back to Jefferson, at least...not sure there was much argument over George Washington as the first President.

    I used the remark because its (probably) worldwide common. I dont believe Clinton was evil either. Again, we're arguing semantics. But I do think Bush is either a) ignorant and oblivious or b) semi-intelligent but is truly convinced of his own wisdom, facts be damned. Either way, it makes him at worst a puppet or at best a zealot (minus the religious context of the word).
    I notice you don't consider c) Bush is principled and did the right thing in the face of withering opposition.

    But thats just my lowly opinion.
    Meh, you said alot about something you didn't consider worth arguing over in this context.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •