Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Depends on the Meaning of the Word "Rape"

I failed to mention that Bill Clinton followed me by a day to New Delhi on my most recent trip, coming in late Wednesday night. There was a big kerfuffle regarding the use of cars sent from the US embassy versus those provided by the Indian authorities to pick him up at his plane; Clinton insisted upon seven limos from the embassy, each necessary to carry all of his cargo. These cars hadn’t been cleared with the Indian authorities, who were worried about security issues, but eventually relented after an hour or so standoff. My guess is that, while security is important to Clinton, the US embassy there probably knows that there are certain appetites that Clinton would seek to have catered to in the immediate aftermath of 20 hours of flying. And I’m not talking about food.

Pictured above is our very ex-President, in India, with a traditionally dressed mature Indian women. At first the tawdriness of Clinton’s outfit jumped out at me, but later, after doing some internet research on the significance of such apparel and whether or not it conveys subtle cultural signals in India, I came across a link to the India Guide to Sexual Tourism, which described just such an outfit as a signal to mature India prostitutes that you were in the market for some Kama Sutra level pleasure. Could explain his earlier heart problems.

Of course, the Clintons are in the news again with the latest book on Hillary by Ed Klein, which alleges that Bill told a friend in Bermuda that he was going back to his room to rape his wife. Now, as a guy inclined to believe all manner of bad things about this guy, I was nevertheless inclined to disbelieve this allegation. But then I thought about it. The truth of the claim depends on what the meaning of the word “rape” is. My guess is that Hillary, with her roots in the radical feminism of the late 60s and early 70s, happily burned her bra while reading her icons as they droned on about the slavery of marriage and how all sex within marriage is rape. Indeed, Hillary herself once said that marriage is slavery. How can a slave be said to truly have consensual sex with her putative master? By her own definition, then, it would seem that him raping her was a highly probably event, in that sex within marriage tends to be quite common while vacationing in Bermuda.

Their denials can only mean one thing – that she raped him! He apparently is the slave in the relationship, which explains why he stays in it. And with Juanita Broderick, that makes both Clintons rapists. Do we really want to subject ourselves to another Clinton presidency, wherein Bill finally spills this fact out in a teary-eyed interview with Dan Rather? Why don't we let these two be the highly disfunctional people they are in private, perhaps in a trailer park somewhere?

8 Comments:

Blogger pbryon said...

C'mon, I think you're really stretching things here. If Bill really wanted to go to India for some lovin, he surely would have went to Bollywood!

Slate's "juicy bits" on the Klein book--all the good parts, without having to read all that boring filler: http://www.slate.com/id/2121218/

And at some point I should tell you about the wedding I attended in Chappaqua several years back. I was seated at a table with a woman who made her living as a Hillary-lookalike. Or it really could have been Hillary for all I know--she was that good. (She was a friend of the bride's family.) I have visions of her being swooped into the Senate, "Dave"-style, when Hatcher finally lets his emotions get the best of him and takes out Hillary. (Probably just like she "took out" that Vince Foster, right?)

And a question to my fellow lefties: Is there a conservative out there that you viscerally despise as much as Hatcher seems to despise the Clintons?

7:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I nominate Karl Rove!!

Although I hate Karl Rove, I am not obsessed about his sex life like most conservative obsess on the Clinton's escapades in the bedroom (oval office, whatever!!!). However if he turned out to be a pit bull raper like that young fella in Oklahoma it would be something to talk about, wouldn't it?

12:58 PM  
Blogger Hatcher said...

I am as obsessed with the Clinton's sex life as Elliot Ness was with Al Capone's tax records; it's just the only thing we could really pin their corrupt asses to the wall with. A pit bull raper - now that is really something!

1:33 PM  
Blogger Incredible Dirigible said...

I'm not obsessed with Bill Clinton's sex life, but if he really did rape Juanita Brodderick, the world should know. The only reporter ever to question him on it was Sam Donaldson, & curiously, Bill dodged the question.

If you thought Clinton did a good job as President, & he sexually harrassed your wife, or your daughter, or your sister, or your mother, would you still vote for him?

If you were accused of sexual harrassment, & lied under oath in your testimony, & went to jail for perjury, would you approve of Clinton's behavior on the grounds that "he's a good president & his sex life is none of our business?"

(BTW, these are rhetorical questions, not directed to any poster in particular.)

6:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll answer the rhetoricals.

1. No
2. Yes

All politics are personal aren't they?

It much like if Karl Rove raped a pit bull that belonged to me I would be very angry but if he raped someone elses pit bull it would be very funny.

7:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lefties hate Rove for his words and deeds, which they believe damage their country( although everyone should just relax regarding his latest outburst. This is, what, the thousandth example of GOPers using 9/11 for political gain. Isn't everyone used to it by now? And it's important to note that he's a political hack by trade ( not necessarily a pejorative); if he actually put the interests of the republic ahead of W's, he could be fired for not fulfilling the requirements of his job). Anyway, this interpretation of Rove's effect on the nation's laws naturally morphs into hatred of Rove the person.

It's not as clear to me that conservatives' hatred of the Clintons is so closely tied to their effect on policy. Bill contributed to some things that principled conservatives should have found acceptable ( actually ending welfare as we knew it, pushing free trade, eliminating the deficit while concurrently cutting taxes for significantly more Americans than for whom they were raised), yet the hatred was unrelenting. In the 90's , I used to ask my Clinton-hating friends to name 3 policy changes ( i.e., differences with Reagan and/or H.W.) that they disagreed with; in the admittedly small and possibly non-representative sample, no one could do it ( although I'm sure that Hatcher could rise to the challenge). They instead seemed fixated on his private morality. At the time, I gave them the benefit of the doubt, figuring that maybe conservatives just harbored a stronger belief in the importance of private morality ( e.g., elected officials are role models who have an impact on the norms regarding acceptable behavior throughout all of society), but then , in 2000, they preferred W ( who, taking his adult life in its totality, seems to be a man of rather low moral character) over McCain. So that can't be it. I'm still puzzled.

9:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And even when considering the instance where Bill's private morality clearly spilled over into the public arena ( lying under oath), there's the issue of conservatives' rather selective use of this card.

Consider :

- Governor G. W. Bush probably lied under oath in 1999
( he claimed, in a sworn deposition, that he had not had a
" conversation" with a particular funeral services industry executive, who was looking for changes in the regulatory regime. Three witnesses have since come forward to state that they saw W talking to him ( the witnesses describe different occasions; i.e., he had multiple conversations with him).

- Vice President G.H.W. Bush told Justice Department investigators that he had no prior knowledge of the Reagan Administration's illegal conspiracy to provide weapons to the terrorist regime in Tehran. The Weinberger notes/ diaries prove that this was a lie. This seems similar to lying to the police. I'm not sure if that's the legal equivalent of lying under oath, but it's certainly the moral equivalent.

- President Reagan testified three times to the Tower Commission ( not sure if he was technically under oath, but their status as an investigative body, representing the people of the United States, makes the need for truth-telling implicit). He once claimed that he knew nothing of Iran-Contra beforehand; another time he said that he had signed off on it in advance. We can rule out that both "A" and " Not A" were true. To be fair, it's possible that his third story ( that he couldn't remember) was accurate ( although that contradicts literally hundreds of White House/ GOP operatives of the time, who until that point were claiming that the President's mental faculties were intact. The internal allusions to senility didn't start until the Iran-Contra story broke).

So, there's compelling evidence that the last 3 GOP Presidents all lied under oath, or its equivalent, while holding high public office
( and we all know about Nixon; someone do some research on the Ford Presidency). I'm perfectly willing to state that we thus have compelling evidence that the last 4 Presidents lied under oath. But most conservatives seem to ignore 3 of them. To quote the esteemed senator from Kansas :
" Where's the outrage ?!?".

2:02 PM  
Blogger Hatcher said...

Anonymous, you raise an interesting question, one that I plan to answer tomorrow. Stay tuned.

7:19 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Sign up for my Notify List and get email when I update!

email:
powered by
NotifyList.com