Bill Clinton's mistress's code name: the Energizer

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
I don't want to question Hitchens' integrity (not least because I'm not convinced it exists) but calling Clinton a rapist based on interviewing three random women is weak sauce. Epstein is a sleaze merchant, but not every flight is necessarily about rape or children.

True but we know for a fact that he settled a lawsuit with Paula Jones over sexual harassment and it's been an open secret that he has a history of cheating on Hillary according to those close to both Bill and Hillary.

So while as much as I dislike Hillary's (and Bill's) politics I think if half of what they say about their relationship is true then she really is someone to pity because Bill would be quite the asshole of a human being as a husband if half of those claims are true. Again, that is if these rumors and secondhand accounts are to be believed.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,901
4,927
136
Funny thing about Bill is he was practically waging a one man war against Osama bin forgotten when Republicans chalked up his missile strikes to an elaborate Monica controversy distraction. A couple years later Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 criticises him for seemingly not doing enough to fight the terrorists.
 

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,495
571
136

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
It's not an article, it's an op-ed full of gossip and innuendo. It's sad you don't know the difference.

Of course. Something a bit more factual-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_misconduct_allegations_against_Bill_Clinton

The Paula Jones suit was settled when her attorneys had discredited Bill & when the settlement would pay them what they wanted. Jones didn't get shit. It was trumped up all along, a fishing expedition & a trap that Bill handled poorly. It was greenmail. Pay us & we'll go away. The suit was dismissed as groundless but Clinton paid while it was on appeal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

The facts seem to be that she came to his hotel room, they started fooling around at which point she got cold feet & left unmolested. There is no evidence to suggest that he harassed her in any way thereafter. He should have just admitted it at which point discovery would have ended & falsehoods left unsaid.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
So while as much as I dislike Hillary's (and Bill's) politics I think if half of what they say about their relationship is true then she really is someone to pity because Bill would be quite the asshole of a human being as a husband if half of those claims are true. Again, that is if these rumors and secondhand accounts are to be believed.

If those rumors are true then Hillary isn't some "poor woman to be pitied". She has remained married to Bill for political gain. I'd bet she has some on the side too but she is much more discreet about it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,966
55,358
136
Why does anyone care about their marriage?

It's not like they are some moral crusaders going on about the sanctity of marriage. The people trying to stir this stuff up just embarrass themselves.
 

K7SN

Senior member
Jun 21, 2015
353
0
0
Why does anyone care about their marriage?

It's not like they are some moral crusaders going on about the sanctity of marriage. The people trying to stir this stuff up just embarrass themselves.

Our leader out of the great depression and 'savior of world freedom' in World War II had a mistress and Eleanor was obviously aware. If infidelity was overlooked 80 years ago when marriage was 'till death do them part'; why drag it out today when sex outside of marriage is commonplace in society.

If those rumors are true then Hillary isn't some "poor woman to be pitied".

It is obvious at least two of the rumors are true and Hillary is aware of them; her response to Monica is well documented.

She has remained married to Bill for political gain.

That seems to be obvious conclusion but she might just say don't bring any diseases home and be discreet, long before he ran for Governor. Whatever reason, then political gain might be had by divorcing her philandering husband and demonstrating she is an empowered women. 15% or so of adult women are divorced; that is a lot of votes. We elected Reagan who was divorced; why not Hillary?

I'd bet she has some on the side too but she is much more discreet about it.

I'd take that bet. I suspect her aphrodisiac is power and she gets enough sexual fulfillment from her oversexed husband or isome self induced method.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Yeh, that's why they squeezed a tax cut out of him in 1997- to balance the budget, right?

And that's why they tried valiantly to maintain military spending at cold war levels after the cold war was over, I suppose- to save money.
So, you arguing that Clinton controlled spending yet the Pubbies somehow squeezed a tax cut from him? lol You are nothing if not consistent.

Second point first ... the trade deals Clinton signed into law were deals that multinationals had been pushing for for years by Reagan/Bush but were blocked by Dems that argued the deals would hurt the middle class (workers).

During this time and into the 90's the Dems were in the wilderness in DC and being crushed by Repubs by being outspent in elections 2X, 3X, 4X and more -- the Dems could not compete at the national level. Clinton was part of a Democratic review team to understand how they could get back into the game and become relevant and he found the answer -- become Republicans and support business deals favored by the wealthy.

So, Clinton promised the wealthy that he'd be there guy and he was and they gave him the money needed to be relevant -- and he won -- twice.

And now for the first point ... Clinton raised taxes a bit and balanced the budget while the Repubs fought him tooth and nail all the way. In fact, the last three years of the Clinton admin they actually paid down the debt by about $400B. Bush/Cheney had DC all to themselves but never came close to balancing the budget. Reagan before him tripled the national debt. Obama inherited the banking and housing market crisis that cost the nation many trillions of dollars. In addition, millions of Americans lost there jobs as a consequence of the fuckup Bush/Cheney created and dug a hole so deep it took years for Obama to get us out of it.

Put simply ... the last thing you want running the economy is a Republican, sadly, the Dems are now a light version of them.

Brian
So for the second point, we are more or less in agreement that Clinton was neither better nor worse than the Republicans, correct? I have no problem whatsoever condemning him under those terms, only when it isn't mentioned that the exact same thing would have happened under the GOP. The two parties are so often the same, and if we simply condemn each in turn then we simply go tick-tock into ruin.

For the first point, Clinton never balanced the budget, period. His budgets showed deficits as far as the eye could see. Further, after 1996 his budgets were every one DOA. There are many, many contemporary articles about this, ranging from pure anti-Republican rage to pure anti-Democrat glee to pragmatic questions about how Clinton could once again become relevant. Do your research, and remember that Presidents DO NOT "run the economy" or even spend the money. That power is uniquely Congress' for good or ill. Presidents can exercise a good deal of influence (Reagan, Clinton in '93-'94) or have nearly none (Clinton after '94) but Congress crafts our spending.

As far as Bush, largely the same Republican Congress that had exercised fiscal responsibility under Clinton made the Democrats blush after 2000. That tells us either that most politicians lose any sense of fiscal responsibility after six years in D.C. or more likely, that fiscal responsibility is more easily exercised when it limits what the opposing team can do than when it limits what your team can do. But in any case, PRESIDENTS DO NOT RUN THE ECONOMY.

True but we know for a fact that he settled a lawsuit with Paula Jones over sexual harassment and it's been an open secret that he has a history of cheating on Hillary according to those close to both Bill and Hillary.

So while as much as I dislike Hillary's (and Bill's) politics I think if half of what they say about their relationship is true then she really is someone to pity because Bill would be quite the asshole of a human being as a husband if half of those claims are true. Again, that is if these rumors and secondhand accounts are to be believed.
Oh, clearly Clinton is a major sleaze. I'm just saying there is a huge difference between a dude who nails everything that moves and a baby bouncer or rapist. With Paula Jones he clearly had her brought to him for sex and he may have done some inappropriate things depending on whose version you believe, but certainly he did not set up a situation from which she could not escape without delivering.

As far as Hillary being someone to pity, I disagree. Their relationship is based on teamwork to achieve power; she got what she wanted, even if not as smoothly as she would wish.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Couple things here. First, Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into fiscal responsibility by the Republican Congress. Check his spending vetoes, they were only to demand higher spending. Second, I don't know we can read too much into Clinton's trade deals. I too very much dislike them, but no electable Pubby those cycles would have done differently. If something is the prevailing wisdom among both parties, I don't know that the winner deserves much more blame than the opposing party, which in this case might have done worse. I won't pretend I think they were wise, but they might well have been the lesser evil unless he was willing to sacrifice his second term.


George Bush senior would have faced an uphill battle against the unions back then if he was president, the unions were persuaded to go along because a democrat was in office and a democrat president was able to persuade key senators and congressmen to go along, something a republican could not do.

Clinton's pointed criticism of organized labor represents a new tack in the President's uphill campaign on behalf of NAFTA, which would remove trade barriers between the United States, Mexico and Canada over the next 15 years.


In focusing on the unions, whose political strength in presidential races has been declining along with their membership, Clinton is turning on a constituency that was among the most important in his successful political alliance a year ago.


But with only 10 days left until the House votes on legislation that would implement NAFTA, supporters are "30 votes short of having explicit, express commitments" from the 218 members needed to win, Clinton conceded.

With Republicans generally favoring the pact but lacking sufficient numbers to put it over the top, the White House is turning its attention to members of the President's own party, who have been more reluctant to support the deal.


Clinton attributed NAFTA's problems primarily to "the vociferous, organized opposition of most of the unions telling these (House) members in private they'll never give them any money again, they'll get them opponents in the primary, you know, the real roughshod muscle-bound tactics."


The President's criticism of the labor unions, which have mounted an aggressive campaign to defeat NAFTA, was so pointed that he later remarked that counselor David Gergen had expressed fears off-camera that Clinton was courting negative news headlines.


pixel.gif

"Those guys are my friends," Clinton said, apparently trying to patch things up with the unions even before the interview program ended. "I just don't agree with them on NAFTA."


Thomas Donahue, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, called Clinton's remarks Sunday a "cheap shot" and part of a "desperate effort to capture votes and win passage" of NAFTA.


The President also criticized the business community for failing to rally employees and "rank-and-file people" to express their support of NAFTA.
Supporters argue that by increasing commerce among the three nations, the agreement would promote jobs in the United States as manufacturers and service firms increase their business dealings with Mexico.


Critics, including such major unions as the auto workers, Teamsters, machinists and garment workers, fear that U.S. laborers will suffer through loss of jobs or lower wages as they are forced to compete with Mexican workers.


Clinton held out the possibility, under questioning, that he would pull the United States out of the agreement if it was creating a net loss of U.S. jobs, dragging down wages or creating undue hardship in one sector of the economy.


"If I thought the treaty were bad for the American economy, of course I would do that," he said. "We can get out in six months if it's bad for us, and we can stop anything horrible and unforeseen."


He said that approval of NAFTA would put "enormous pressure" on competitors in Asia and Europe to conclude global trade talks that proponents say offer the greatest opportunity to stimulating the world economy. Similarly, he said, his hand will be weakened if the House rejects NAFTA in a vote set for Nov. 17, just before his meeting with Asian leaders in Seattle.


Clinton has said repeatedly that rejection of the trade agreement would send a signal around the world that the United States is no longer interested in opening its borders to increased commerce. That, in turn, would invite Japan to strike up a partnership with Mexico that would otherwise be available to the United States, he contends.


Clinton, who last week challenged NAFTA opponent Ross Perot to debate Vice President Al Gore in a prime-time confrontation scheduled for Tuesday, has attempted to provide high-level political cover for House members who vote for NAFTA.




pixel.gif

Asked whether he is concerned that his decision to send Gore into a debate with Perot would "re-create a monster" by calling attention to the Texas billionaire and his anti-NAFTA crusade, Clinton said: "Ross Perot's got enough money to elevate himself. He can buy his way on national television and buy his own exposure and have very little accountability."
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
So, you arguing that Clinton controlled spending yet the Pubbies somehow squeezed a tax cut from him? lol You are nothing if not consistent.

Precisely. He compromised. Repubs compromised, too, after he bitch slapped them over the govt shutdown of 1995-96.

He also bumped up military spending like they wanted late in his second term, otherwise he might have actually developed a surplus.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/

Nothing like The Bushistas & the Repub congress did, of course.

You're basically spouting bullshit. How do I know? The first thing GWB called for was tax cuts. The next thing he did was double the national debt. Per Dick Cheney, deficits don't matter, right?

Certainly not when there's a Republican in the White House.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Funny thing about Bill is he was practically waging a one man war against Osama bin forgotten when Republicans chalked up his missile strikes to an elaborate Monica controversy distraction. A couple years later Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 criticises him for seemingly not doing enough to fight the terrorists.
lol You funny girl. Clinton bombed an empty training camp - empty because he warned some of those there about the attack - at which bin Ladin may or may not have ever been. Clinton also refused to accept bin Ladin on a silver platter. That hardly constitutes a one man war.

Did you not read the two articles I posted?

Just in case you missed 'em, here's the one from the Observer.

http://observer.com/2015/03/the-jef...rils-hillary-clintons-presidential-prospects/
I read them, I just wasn't impressed. Clearly Epstein is a major piece of shit who procures whatever rich, powerful men want, be that underaged girls, women to rape, orgies, or just beautiful women without consequences. Clearly Epstein is also a major Clinton donor, including the post-Presidency Clinton foundation, although we don't really know what favors he is buying with both. I'm just saying that those two things do not necessarily equal Bill doing something illegal. (Other than adultery, which isn't really illegal anymore.) Maybe Bill was paying to forcibly rape bound twelve year olds, I don't know, but absent strong evidence I'm going to assume he was there to get laid by beautiful, compliant women who would not contract tell-all books or confront Hillary or otherwise spoil his life of, well, debauchery. So sure, I'll go along with saying that Clinton is a philandering piece of shit, but I'll need to see something far more persuasive to agree that he is likely a rapist or statutory rapist. Note that the former still is astoundingly common among powerful men, whereas the latter two have very much fallen out of vogue in Western society.

Of course. Something a bit more factual-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_misconduct_allegations_against_Bill_Clinton

The Paula Jones suit was settled when her attorneys had discredited Bill & when the settlement would pay them what they wanted. Jones didn't get shit. It was trumped up all along, a fishing expedition & a trap that Bill handled poorly. It was greenmail. Pay us & we'll go away. The suit was dismissed as groundless but Clinton paid while it was on appeal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

The facts seem to be that she came to his hotel room, they started fooling around at which point she got cold feet & left unmolested. There is no evidence to suggest that he harassed her in any way thereafter. He should have just admitted it at which point discovery would have ended & falsehoods left unsaid.
lol What a tool. Bill Clinton the victim, story at 11:00!

Absolutely no one outside the voices in your head have ever believed that narrative.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
George Bush senior would have faced an uphill battle against the unions back then if he was president, the unions were persuaded to go along because a democrat was in office and a democrat president was able to persuade key senators and congressmen to go along, something a republican could not do.
I agree that a Republican President would have had a much more difficult time passing NAFTA and like-minded agreements. I just don't see why I would particularly blame the Democrat when both parties' cores are in it together. That sort of team thinking is why each can get away with things like this, because we each accept in our team things we viciously oppose when done by the other team. I understand the rationale and the justification, and would not claim to be completely above it myself. But I do recognize how this tick tock team behavior allows them to do things that most of us oppose while paying no political price for doing so. So I take pains to try to minimize that way of thinking, and refusing to blame a Democrat President for what a Republican President would also do is part of that. Now, you have a point that a Republican President might not have been able to do that, so in some sense my refusing to hold accountable the Democrat for doing it might not make sense. But personally, I believe that recognizing how the parties work together against us is more important than the chance that had Clinton not done it, it would never have been done. That is my opinion though, YMMV.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,874
33,939
136
Hunter Thompson
Its amazing what some politicians will do to be successful.

Its also amazing what some people tolerate in order to identify with a politician that they perceive as successful.

Uno
The Willy Loman of Generation X? What is Hunter Thompson smoking this week? Bill's just another self indulgent baby boomer.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The Willy Loman of Generation X? What is Hunter Thompson smoking this week? Bill's just another self indulgent baby boomer.
Screw that, ask the really important question: Who else knew Hunter Thompson was still alive?
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,797
572
126
Understandable if married to Hillabeast.

Anyone who holds this opinion obviously logically holds the Congress members who actively participated in President Clinton's impeachment as idiots... to do otherwise would be, well idiotic.

.....
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,257
6,443
136
Why does anyone care about their marriage?

It's not like they are some moral crusaders going on about the sanctity of marriage. The people trying to stir this stuff up just embarrass themselves.

I didn't think anyone cared, but it does make Hillary look foolish.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,359
47,618
136
lol You funny girl. Clinton bombed an empty training camp - empty because he warned some of those there about the attack - at which bin Ladin may or may not have ever been. Clinton also refused to accept bin Ladin on a silver platter. That hardly constitutes a one man war.


Sure, your view of Clinton in those days doesn't constitute a 'one man war,' but that doesn't mean OBL wasn't an important issue for him and, like it or not, pretty much the entire GOP ridiculed him for it. Cut to months after 9/11, and everything was Clinton's fault, just as Sonniku said. And that was while Cheney and Rove were moving mountains to white wash their admin's first 9 month on the job regarding terrorism. That was funny. Still is!

It's pretty amazing that Bill can decline to take out OBL when there is a substantial risk of wiping out 200-300 innocent city dwellers, then take shit from it from the same people who later decided to let OBL escape Tora Bora because they didn't want to run the risk of killing civilians... by mining a remote pass 14,000ft up in a mountainous warzone. Maybe someone told Bush Afghan goats only eat snow? That they migrate up to the mountains en masse with sherpa-like goat-herders or something?

Link on Clinton tipping AQ off? Seems like false attribution to me, and Hamid Gul and the ISI would no doubt approve. The "silver platter" wording must be a favorite with this topic for some, it's still used to describe the very same notion all these years later. Heh. Richard Clarke said they never got anything "credible," and the 9/11 Commission couldn't find evidence of the offer at all - so Clinton didn't resort to extraordinary rendition or assassination, over a bogus offer, because he couldn't see into the future. I have a hard time holding that against him.

Foreign policy hawks love to harp on how to treat foreign leaders, particularly when their political rivals are doing it wrong in their eyes. Can we agree that killing foreign royalty/heads of state with TLAMs is counter-productive? Clinton knew if OBL wasn't there, making more enemies by turning some Arab princes into fingerpaint would be, again, counter-productive.

If Cheney and Rumsfeld had been as intent on getting OBL as Clinton came to be, I don't think the job would have been finished by Obama. Richard Clarke talking about Clinton studying OBL and AQ, even on his time off, and wanting to take the guy out with a swarm of choppers dropping 'ninja types in black' points to a different Clinton then the distant, uncaring philanderer the 'wag the dog' accusers in the GOP see.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I didn't think anyone cared, but it does make Hillary look foolish.
Why would it make Hillary look foolish? She obviously doesn't care what he does with whom.

Sure, your view of Clinton in those days doesn't constitute a 'one man war,' but that doesn't mean OBL wasn't an important issue for him and, like it or not, pretty much the entire GOP ridiculed him for it. Cut to months after 9/11, and everything was Clinton's fault, just as Sonniku said. And that was while Cheney and Rove were moving mountains to white wash their admin's first 9 month on the job regarding terrorism. That was funny. Still is!

It's pretty amazing that Bill can decline to take out OBL when there is a substantial risk of wiping out 200-300 innocent city dwellers, then take shit from it from the same people who later decided to let OBL escape Tora Bora because they didn't want to run the risk of killing civilians... by mining a remote pass 14,000ft up in a mountainous warzone. Maybe someone told Bush Afghan goats only eat snow? That they migrate up to the mountains en masse with sherpa-like goat-herders or something?

Link on Clinton tipping AQ off? Seems like false attribution to me, and Hamid Gul and the ISI would no doubt approve. The "silver platter" wording must be a favorite with this topic for some, it's still used to describe the very same notion all these years later. Heh. Richard Clarke said they never got anything "credible," and the 9/11 Commission couldn't find evidence of the offer at all - so Clinton didn't resort to extraordinary rendition or assassination, over a bogus offer, because he couldn't see into the future. I have a hard time holding that against him.

Foreign policy hawks love to harp on how to treat foreign leaders, particularly when their political rivals are doing it wrong in their eyes. Can we agree that killing foreign royalty/heads of state with TLAMs is counter-productive? Clinton knew if OBL wasn't there, making more enemies by turning some Arab princes into fingerpaint would be, again, counter-productive.

If Cheney and Rumsfeld had been as intent on getting OBL as Clinton came to be, I don't think the job would have been finished by Obama. Richard Clarke talking about Clinton studying OBL and AQ, even on his time off, and wanting to take the guy out with a swarm of choppers dropping 'ninja types in black' points to a different Clinton then the distant, uncaring philanderer the 'wag the dog' accusers in the GOP see.
Methinks you need to do some reading on this. The entirety of Clinton's supposed infatuation with getting UBL came from Clinton and his team AFTER 9-11. He did bomb an empty training camp at the height of the Lewinsky scandal. It was empty because one of the regular guests was a member of the Saudi royal family, and Clinton did not want to blow him up. Unfortunately it is impossible to warn one person at a terrorist trainng camp without warning them all. In any case, there was never any clear Intel that bin Laden had ever been at this camp, much less at that particular point. Clinton did pass up another chance to hit bin Laden because of potential civilian casualties, but again, consider the nature of Intel; bin Ladin might not have been there either.

The "silver platter" line comes from Clinton being offered bin Laden by Sudan. When bin Ladin was kicked out by Saudi Arabia, he moved to Sudan. However, by 1998 Sudan was tired of being a pariah and wanted to get back on good terms with the West. Clinton himself talked about them making the offer, saying he did not accept it because Saudi Arabia refused to take him and Clinton did not think the FBI had enough to convict him for the first Twin Towers attack.

Note that I am not necessarily faulting Clinton for any of these moves. In 1998 there was little to differentiate bin Laden from other terrorist leaders, many of whom were much worse. I am just pointing out that his claim to have been engaged in a one-man war with the man is ludicrous and completely self-serving.
 
Last edited: