🚀 go-pugleaf

Horray, Horray!!!  I love hearing about liars because I am one too!  I
even have a radio show to advance my cynicism.  Keep up the good work
"truth seeker".  By the way, next time, try posting this to an
appropriate news group DUMBSHIT!!!!

Sincerely,
Ollie

Truthseeker wrote:
> 
> This was originally posted to the Town Hall Forum (#3474)
> 
> 
>   TO: MY DEMOCRAT FRIENDS
>   FROM: MARK F. (THOR) HEARNE, II
>   DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1996
>   RE: THE CASE FOR CHARACTER
> 
> 
>   "Bill Clinton would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than stand on
> the
> ground to tell the truth." So said an Arkansas official familiar with
> Clinton on
> CNN during the 1992 presidential campaign. Democrat Senator Bob Kerry
> has
> said,
>   "Clinton's an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize
> that?"
>   Senator Kerry did not make this observation during the heat of a
> primary
>   battle but this past January in Esquire Magazine. Kerry is not only a
> Democrat Senator but is a leader of his party and Chairman of the
> Democrat
> Senatorial Campaign Committee. Senator Kerry knows whereof he speaks.
> 
> 
>   Forget what this says about Clinton - what does it say about us. We
> are
> told that Clinton is leading by a significant margin in his campaign
> to
> be our
> next president. (51% to Dole's 38% according to last week's Wall Street
> Journal/ABC poll.) We are told that "character" does not count. We are
> told that a
>   candidate's "personal life" has no relevance to the office of
> President
> and
>   has no "traction" as a political issue. Indeed, we are even made to
> feel
>   ashamed for raising the issue. (On July 15th Clinton said, "I think
> character is a legitimate issue and I look forward to having that
> discussion." But,
>   whenever the issue of character is mentioned Clinton dodges the
> discussion
> by claiming any question about his character is a viscous, Republican-
> motivated "personal attack.")
> 
> 
>   Consider the current bestseller list. A list which includes an
> astounding
>   number of books about the corruption which is the Clinton
> administration.
> Boy Clinton, Unlimited Access and Blood Sport are only a few. But
> let's
> concede
>   Clinton the benefit of his denials and explanations. Even by this
> analysis,
> in the light most favorable to Clinton and taking only those facts
> Clinton has
>   acknowledged and granting him his spin on these facts, Clinton is
> far
> and
> away the most dishonest president or presidential candidate in the
> history of
> our nation.
> 
> 
>   Assume that only 10% of what these noted authors and a career FBI
> agent
> relate about Bill Clinton is valid. Assume that only 10% of the drug
> use,
> rampant
>   promiscuity, financial fraud and blatant violation of state and
> federal
> law
>   are accurate. Assume only 10% of the Wall Street Journal's four-year,
>   two-volume documentation of Whitewater, Travelgate and FBI Filegate
> is
> not
>   innuendo and conjecture. Assume that Clinton's unlikely explanation of
>   Whitewater is correct. (It wasn't a crooked deal to funnel taxpayer
> guaranteed funds from a Savings and Loan into his political campaign.
> Rather, we are
>   told, Bill and Hillary, naive in matters of money -- notwithstanding
> Hillary's wildly successful commodities speculation -- were duped by
> the
> crafty
>   McDougalls into a foolish real estate investment scheme funded by
> kited
> checks and illegal loans. Frankly, even if valid, I fail to find any
> comfort in
> this explanation. Do we want a sharp crook or a financially
> unsophisticated waif
> in charge of our national economy?)
> 
> 
>   Granted even these assumptions, impeachment should be likely,
> reelection
>   unthinkable. Consider the following:
> 
> 
>   Richard Nixon's administration collapsed, Nixon resigned the
> presidency
> and
>   Chuck Colson was jailed over misuse of one FBI file and the related
> cover-up. By contrast, Clinton and Craig Livingstone spirited away FBI
> files on their
>   political opponents by the hundreds and the cover-up and stone-walling
>   continues.
> 
> 
>   Spiro Agnew resigned the vice-presidency over charges of tax evasion
> stemming from $16,000 he accepted from contractors when he was
> Governor
> of Maryland.
> By contrast, Clinton has conceded that he filed misleading tax returns
> that
> did not properly disclose illegal loans made by a now-defunct S&L the
> proceeds
> of which were used in his campaign for Governor. The reason he is not
> charged
>   with tax evasion is that he released the tax returns after the
> statute
> of
>   limitations had expired. Equally well established is the fact that
> Hillary
>   enjoyed more than $100,000 in "profits" steered to her from
> commodities
> 
>   trading orchestrated by Tyson Foods in exchange for favorable
> treatment
> 
>   accorded Tyson Foods by her husband the Governor.
> 
> 
>   Gary Hart bowed out of the 1988 presidential race because of one wild
> weekend in the Bahamas and a sleep- over in Washington D.C.. By
> contrast,
> Clinton
> is being sued in federal court for enticing a young woman - against
> her
> wishes
>  -- into his hotel room, dropping his trousers and suggesting she
> engage
> in a
>   lurid sex act. Clinton's known sex-partners could form a single-file
> line
>   longer than the inaugural parade route. (At least JFK was honest
> about
> his
>   philandering. During a 1961 meeting in Bermuda with British Prime
> Minister
>   Harold McMillian Kennedy said, "I wonder how it is with you, Harold?
> If
> I
>   don't have a woman for three days, I get terrible headaches.")
> 
> 
>   Ginsburg is not a member of the U.S. Supreme Court because he used
> marijuana during college. By contrast, during Clinton's term national
> drug use has
>   doubled due to Clinton eviscerating drug enforcement. Remember also
> Josalyn
>   Elders, Clinton's selection for Surgeon General. In addition to her
> crusade
> to distribute condoms (for which she earned the moniker "the Rubber
> Maid") and
> to have mast. taught in public schools, she campaigned for the
> legalization of
>   drugs. During her term as Clinton's Surgeon General, Elders son was
> convicted of felony cocaine and crack distribution. (If she couldn't
> keep
> her own son
>   from pushing crack, how could she be expected to reduce national
> drug
> use?)
> It is simply beyond belief that, with someone of Elder's views as his
> pick for
>   the nation's chief medical officer, Clinton expects us to believe he
> truly
>   wants to battle illegal drugs.
> 
> 
>   On a personal level Clinton acknowledges that he used marijuana but
> claims
> he "didn't inhale". Yet in an MTV interview with high school students
> Clinton
>   states that if he had it do over again he, "probably should have
> inhaled."
>   Roger Clinton described his brother's appetite for cocaine by
> stating,
> "He
>   (Bill Clinton) has a nose like a Hoover." (Referring to the vacuum
> cleaner
> not the president. who preceded Roosevelt.) But, we can discount this
> allegation because Roger Clinton, along with Friend Of Bill Dan
> Lasater,
> have been
>   convicted of felony drug charges for the distribution of cocaine.
> 
> 
>   (As an entry for the "How'd They Do That" file consider this: Roger
> Clinton
>   served only two years for his cocaine distribution charges and Dan
> Lasater
>   served only six months. Roger cut a deal with the prosecutor to
> testify
> 
>   against Lasater. Lasater was convicted but pardoned by Governor
> Clinton.
>   (Clinton says the pardon was so Lassater could qualify for a hunting
> license.)
> 
> However, even as Lasater was being investigated for drug dealing
> Clinton's
>   Arkansas Finance Authority awarded Lasater authority to underwrite a
> $30
>   million bond issue. An undertaking for which Lasater pocketed
> $750,000.
> The
>   purpose of this bond issue for which the state of Arkansas awarded
> $750,000
> to a drug dealer? An Arkansas state police communication facility.
> Clinton's
>   pardon of Lasater raises an interesting point. Why won't Clinton
> promise to
>   not pardon Susan McDougal (who is currently in jail because she
> refuses
> to
>   testify about Clnton's role in the Whitewater scandal) and other
> Whitewater
>   defendants? Clinton has already indicated a willingness to put the
> power of
> a presidential pardon to a personal purpose. Clinton has pardoned Jack
> Pakis
> a Hot Springs, Arkansas bookie and close friend of the Clinton family.
> 
> 
>   Given this, why is Clinton the favored candidate for president? Have
> our
>   standards for the office of president fallen this far this fast?
> What
> does
> it say about us and our esteem for our nation that we would trust Bill
> Clinton
>   with the United State of America.
> 
> 
>   A question should be asked of each vice-presidential candidate in the
> upcoming debate. "Would you want your daughter to marry a man with the
> personal
>   character of your running mate?" Recall the question to Mike Dukasis
> about
> how he would view the death penalty if his wife itty was raped. Well,
> why
> not a
>   similar question to Hillary. How would she feel if Chelsea brought
> home
> a
>   boyfriend with the same character and integrity as Bill Clinton?
> (Some
> may
> be upset with me for bringing Hillary into the discussion. After all,
> they may
>   retort, she is not running for office. Would it have been fair they
> ask
> to
>   deny Lincoln the presidency because Mary Todd was a lunatic? To which
> I
> reply, Yes, if Lincoln had threatened to put Mary Todd in charge of
> the
> Union Army
> as Clinton tried to do with Hillary and health care.)
> 
> 
>   Two responses, and only two responses, are possible. One, all the
> charges
>   against Clinton are false and Clinton is, in truth, a noble and
> honest
>  -
>   though much maligned - man. (This is the official White House
> position.)
> Two, the charges are, in whole or part, true but it just doesn't matter.
> Clinton's character is irrelevant to his fitness to serve as president.
> 
> 
>   If you opt for option number one, "Clinton is a wrongly- maligned
> honest
> man", than you probably also thought O.J. Simpson was framed. Halley
> Barber's
> line, "Clinton may not believe anything but his friends have
> convictions
>  - for
> bank fraud, embezzlement, conspiracy..." resonates because it is true.
> 
> 
>   Two-thirds of the Rose law firm, the source of Clinton's closest
> colleagues
>   including his wife, are either dead under suspicious circumstances
> (Vince
>   Foster), in jail after serving in the Clinton administration (Webster
> Hubble) or under indictment or investigation by a special prosecutor
> (William
>   Kennedy). A similar fate has befallen many of Clinton's other top
> advisors.
>   Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros and Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy
> subject to independent counsel investigation; former Commerce
> Secretary
> Ron Brown
>   subject to an independent counsel investigation prior to his death;
> Clinton
>   understudy and friend Arkansas Governor Guy Tucker and Clinton
> business
> 
>   partners Jim and Susan McDougal jailed for 24 count conviction for
> bank
> fraud and conspiracy. Clinton testified on behalf of the McDougals and
> Governor
>   Tucker. After the trial, jurors told reporters that they did not
> believe
>   Clinton's testimony and several jurors stated that, based upon the
> evidence
>   they considered, Clinton was definitely involved in the wrongdoing.
> 
> 
>   It is simply not possible to consider the incredible number of
> Friends
> Of
> Bill who are under indictment, under investigation by independent
> counsel, in
> jail or awaiting sentencing and conclude that all the charges against
> Clinton
> are false.
> 
> 
>   Clinton apologists reply that it is unfair to paint Clinton with the
> same
>   brush as his jailed colleagues. Democrat Senator Chris Dodd claims
> that
> to
>   view Clinton in light of his friends is to engage in "guilt by
> association".
>   These defenders argue that Clinton has just suffered the misfortune of
> being surrounded by dishonest people and is not, himself, dishonest.
> This
> 
>   explanation, even if credible, is of little comfort. Do we want as
> president a man so lacking in judgment that he has a profoundly
> uncanny
> ability to
> choose as his closest advisors a collection of crooks and felons.
> 
> 
>   Bluntly put, Bill Clinton is an unmitigated, dissembling liar. What
> Clinton
>   says is meant to deceive not to inform. During an interview on
> September
> 23rd with PBS's Jim Lehrer Clinton said, "There is not a single
> solitary
> shred
> of evidence of anything dishonest that I have done in my public life."
> Most of
> us hearing this proclamation would understand it to be a blanket
> denial
> of any
>   wrongdoing. Clinton clearly intended to communicate this
> understanding.
> 
>   However, reread Clinton's statement. "There is not a single solitary
> shred
> of evidence...." Clinton does not deny dishonestly, rather he denies
> that
> there is any evidence of his dishonesty. Quite a different proposition.
> Continuing with a further qualification Clinton said, "...that I have
> done in my
> public life." The injection of "public life" presumes a distinction
> with
> Clinton's
>   private life. Given the mountainous evidence of Clinton's
> dishonestly,
> we
> can only conclude that Clinton believes using drugs, funding his
> Arkansas
> 
>   gubernatorial campaigns, funding his presidential campaign, managing
> the
>   WhiteHouse travel office and FBI files and formulating national
> policy
> are
> all part of his private life.
> 
> 
>   Option Two, "Clinton is dishonest but character doesn't count when
> choosing
>   the President", is equally untenable. Consider the purpose of the
> election.
>   For starters, this November we will decide who will take the
> constitutionally prescribed oath next January. A candidate for
> president
> does not become
>   president by winning the election. The candidate must also take the
> oath of
>   office and does not become president until he does so. (Recall the
> photograph of Lyndon Johnson taking the oath of office in Air Force
> One
> on the tarmac
> in Dallas standing next to a blood- splattered Jackie Kennedy.)
> 
> 
>   We do not make much of oaths now days. Yet, the men who crafted our
> form of
>   government, founded our nation and authored the Constitution placed
> great
>   significance on oaths and, correspondingly, the integrity of the
> individual
>   taking the oath. A man's honesty and integrity were vitally
> important
> to
> our founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democrat party,
> wrote,
> "We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred
> Honor."
>   Of what value is Bill Clinton's "sacred honor" and to what cause
> would
> he
>   pledge it? (Obviously not his wife, nor his country when called to
> military
>   service.) More importantly, would you believe him if he did?
> 
> 
>   This is a more troubling question for my principled liberal friends.
>   (Especially for those who make so much of Republican scandals
> whether
> it be
>   Watergate, Iran- Contra or the Teapot Dome.) The most outrageous
> Republican
> is a piker compared to the mythomaniacs, miscreants and poltroons which
> populate the Clinton administration. (Will someone please tell me George
>   Stephanopoulos's job description and how whatever it is he does
> furthers
> the legitimate business of the presidency.)
> 
> 
>   Those Democrats who support Clinton (and their allies in the media who
>   overlook the Clinton scandals) have lost the right to ever again
> mention
>   Watergate, Iran-Contra or any other allegation of Republican
> corruption.
> 
> 
>   Most liberals acknowledge Clinton's fundamental dishonesty. However,
> they
>   appear willing to tolerate or overlook his moral failings because they
> believe Clinton will advance a liberal ideology and Bob Dole will
> oppose
> the
> liberal's agenda. But, in choosing Clinton as their standard bearer,
> what
> are
> liberals saying about their own integrity and the validity of their
> ideology?
> 
> 
>   How can the noble ideals proffered by the liberal be reconciled with
> the
>   tawdry and untrustworthy reputation of their candidate? What does is
> say
> about the validity of liberalism that the adherents chosen advocate is a
> consummate fraud? In choosing Clinton as their candidate (a candidate
> who
> liberals
>   support because they believe he will govern with a liberal bent even
> though
> he publicly campaigns as a conservative) aren't liberals saying that
> their
> agenda is best advanced by disguising and concealing their ideology
> and,
> by
>   implication, recognizing that if American voters truly appreciated the
> liberal agenda they will reject the ideology?
> 
> 
>   If I believed I had a worthy policy to advance I would not choose an
> unworthy spokesman to advance the policy lest the message be sullied
> by
> the
> messenger. If I was trying to sell a drug to cure cancer I wouldn't
> choose Jack
> Kavorkian to be my spokesman.
> 
> 
>   Indeed, Clinton's failure to keep the faith even with political
> bed-mates
> is why two high-ranking administration officials resigned when Clinton
> signed
> the Republican welfare reform bill. A bill that Clinton had previously
> promised
> to veto. Abandoning Clinton is the only rational response available to
> honest
>   liberals who truly believe in the merits of their ideology.
> 
> 
>   Others don't defend Clinton but disparage us. They argue:
> 
> 
>   "So what if Clinton lies, uses drugs and cheats on his spouse, most
> American's behave this way and it is hypocritical to hold a leader to
> a
> standard
> higher than the standard by which we measure our own behavior."
> 
> 
>   While I don't agree that Clinton's behavior is characteristic of the
> typical American, I will grant this point for the sake of argument.
> Granted even
> that assertion, I dispute the central premise. Americans aspire to
> greatness and
>   have always been an optimistic people. Our leaders should be the
> best
> from
>   among us not the worst.
> 
> 
>   A far sadder event than a second Clinton term will be a second
> Clinton
> term
>   because a majority of Americans believe a man of Clinton's integrity
> is
> 
>   representative of the character of our nation.
> 
> 
>   It has been said that hypocrisy is vice's tribute to virtue. Well,
> if
> so,
>   Clinton should be Master of Ceremonies hosting a Telethon for Virtue.
> Within hours of being elected president Clinton proclaimed that his
> administration
>   would be the most ethical ever. This promise was made in the context
> of
> 
>   Clinton's campaign attacks upon the Bush administration for, what
> Clinton
>   claimed was, unethical behavior such as the State Department
> official
> who
>   allegedly tried to pull Clinton's visa file and document Clinton's
> trip
> to
> the Soviet Union during the time Clinton was leading anti-American
> rallies
>   overseas. Clinton was "shocked" at the Bush campaign's "outrageous"
> use
> of
>   official personnel and records to gain an advantage on a political
> adversary. Clinton can not understand, however, why everyone seems so
> exercised about
> the hundreds of FBI files on Republican opponents he and Craig
> Livingstone have
>   squirreled away in the White House.
> 
> 
>   What does it mean when the victor of this fall's campaign will take
> the
> oath of office to lead our nation into the next millennium? For me I
> want
> to
>   believe the man who places his hand on the Bible and says, "I do
> solemnly
>   swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the
> United
>   States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and
> defend
> the Constitution of the United States."
> 
> 
>   November 5th is national examination day. The question is one of
> character.
>   Not Clinton's character but our character; our character as a nation
> and as
>   individual voters. And, if the answer is Bill Clinton, we all fail.
> 
> 
>   Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II