Hyping Willey's new book, WorldNetDaily falsely claimed she ID'ed "the person who threatened her just prior to her testimony against" Clinton
In a September 5 article previewing Kathleen Willey's forthcoming book, Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton (World Ahead Publishing), WorldNetDaily.com news editor Art Moore claimed: "Among its revelations is Willey's identification of the person [also known as "the jogger"] who threatened her just prior to her testimony against President Clinton -- a man who turned out to be linked to the Clintons." However, in her book, Willey writes: "I do not know who the jogger was."
As Media Matters for America previously noted, the same September 5 article, headlined "Kathleen Willey: Clintons stole my manuscript," stated: "Kathleen Willey, the woman who says Bill Clinton groped her in the Oval Office, claims she was the target of an unusual house burglary over the weekend that nabbed a manuscript for her upcoming book, which promises explosive revelations that could damage Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Willey told WND little else was taken from her rural Virginia home as she slept alone upstairs -- electronics and jewelry were left behind -- and she believes the Clintons were behind it." But the article did not note Willey's credibility problems, namely that independent counsel Robert W. Ray cited Willey's inconsistent testimony regarding her allegation that Bill Clinton groped her in the Oval Office in a formal report released on March 6, 2002, writing that that "Willey's Testimony to the Grand Jury About the Alleged Incident Differed Materially from Her Deposition Testimony Given in Jones v. Clinton," and noting Willey "said at her deposition ... that [Clinton] did not fondle her." Ray also found that Willey contradicted herself on the issue of whether she had told others about the alleged incident and suggested that a jury was unlikely to believe Willey.
World Ahead Publishing and WND Books, WorldNetDaily's publishing imprint, became partners in October 2006, a partnership the September 5 article noted.
The article further reported that Willey had "said" the alleged theft "reminded her of the widely reported incident 10 years ago in which she claimed she was threatened near the same Richmond-area home by a stranger just two days before she was to testify against President Clinton in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case." The article went on to state that among the upcoming book's "revelations is Willey's identification of the person who threatened her just prior to her testimony against President Clinton -- a man who turned out to be linked to the Clintons."
In the book, however, Willey cites speculation that the so-called "jogger" was Cody Shearer, the brother of a then-White House aide, before concluding: "I don't know who the jogger was." From Willey's book:
A year after the jogger confronted me, Jackie Judd, a reporter with ABC, sent Dan [Gecker, Willey's attorney] a photograph of a man whom she suspected was my "jogger." A lot of people suspected him. His name was Cody Shearer.
Shearer's twin sister, Brooke Shearer, was director of the White House Fellowship Program and she was married to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott.
[...]
Still, after all those months, I looked at the picture and I thought it was Shearer. I had spoken with the jogger for a few minutes, looking into his eyes when he threatened my children. I do not think I would forget such a man's face!
The man in Judd's photo was Cody Shearer, who had direct ties to the Clintons. At some point he had worked for Terry Lenzner, who owned a Washington D.C. investigation firm, Investigative Group International. The FBI investigators looked into it thoroughly. On the one hand, I was told that Shearer had an "airtight" and "ironclad" alibi but another source told me that was "uncheckable." In fact, when prosecutors for the Office of the Independent Counsel questioned Clinton aide Sid Blumenthal on it, he said that Cody Shearer "was in California during the so-called jogging incident, had the documents to prove it." In fact, Blumenthal claimed that Shearer's seatmate on a "trip back from Los Angeles to Washington happened to be former secretary of state Warren Christopher." David Schippers, chief investigative counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, said he did not think it was Cody Shearer. "I think they recruited somebody to come up from Arkansas," he said. So I do not know who the jogger was. All I know is that I was up against the Clinton machine, which had unlimited power and money. With those resources, I figured any alibi -- or any "jogger" -- could be arranged. [Pages 126-128]
As Media Matters documented in response to Willey's allegation that the Clintons were behind the purported burglary, Ray noted that Willey was not consistent in her claims that she had been intimidated near her home, shortly before giving her Jones deposition in 1998. According to the report:
Willey also alleged that in the period immediately preceding her January 1998 Jones deposition, her cat disappeared, her tires were punctured, and a male jogger whom she did not recognize approached her at her rural home, called her by her name, and asked about her tires, cat (which he named), children (whom he named), attorney, and her attorney's children (whom he also named), saying "I hope you're getting the message" or "You're just not getting the message, are you?" Willey 3/6/98 Int. at 18; Willey 3/10/98 GJ at 123-27. At her Jones deposition, however, Willey testified no one had tried to discourage her from testifying. Willey 1/11/98 Depo. at 86-87.
Willey told the grand jury that even though she was "terrified for my safety" because of these incidents, "I did give consideration to maybe not -- maybe not being very truthful in [her Jones v. Clinton] deposition because I thought that my -- that people close to me were in jeopardy." Willey 3/10/98 GJ at 170-71. Despite the threats, Willey told the grand jury, she "decided that I had to tell the truth" at her deposition. Willey 3/10/98 GJ at 127. As noted below, see infra p. 92 and notes 50-52, there were material differences between Willey's deposition testimony and what she told the grand jury about the incident between her and President Clinton.
Ray also wrote, "This Office investigated whether [Nathan] Landow [a Democratic fundraiser and Clinton supporter] or others had engaged in any criminal acts such as obstruction of justice or witness intimidation with respect to Willey, and determined there was insufficient evidence to support the filing of criminal charges."
From the September 5 WorldNetDaily article:
Kathleen Willey, the woman who says Bill Clinton groped her in the Oval Office, claims she was the target of an unusual house burglary over the weekend that nabbed a manuscript for her upcoming book, which promises explosive revelations that could damage Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
Willey told WND little else was taken from her rural Virginia home as she slept alone upstairs -- electronics and jewelry were left behind -- and she believes the Clintons were behind it.
The break-in, she said, reminded her of the widely reported incident 10 years ago in which she claimed she was threatened near the same Richmond-area home by a stranger just two days before she was to testify against President Clinton in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.
The theft of the manuscript early Saturday morning was suspicious, she told WND, coming only days after the first mainstream media mention of her upcoming book, which is expected to include accusations of campaign finance violations and new revelations about harassment and threats by the Clintons and their associates.
"Here we go again; it's the same thing that happened before," Willey told WND. "They want you to know they were there. And they got what they wanted. They pretty much managed to terrorize me again. It scared me to death. It's an awful feeling to know you're sound asleep upstairs and someone is downstairs."
The book, "Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton" by World Ahead Publishing, WND Books' partner, is due for release in November. Willey said the stolen manuscript was not the book's final copy.
Among its revelations is Willey's identification of the person who threatened her just prior to her testimony against President Clinton -- a man who turned out to be linked to the Clintons.
Willey believes the break-in and theft were prompted by teasers of the book's contents published last week in U.S. News and World Report's "Washington Whispers" column and the New York Daily News.
Willey said she is writing the book because of persistent misunderstanding about what happened 10 years ago.
"There is so much misinformation out there, and I had been so badly maligned in the press," she said. "I had the opportunity to set the record straight.
"And frankly," she added, "Hillary Clinton is running for president, and it's a story a lot of people should hear."
Willey points out her story was deemed credible by the FBI, Independent Counsel Ken Starr and CBS "60 Minutes" producers who allowed her to recount it in front of 29 million viewers.
Longtime Clinton lawyer David Kendall was not available for immediate response to Willey's new claims, and Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign has not responded.















according to this time magazine story, willey's husband had embezzled 275.000 from a client. when her husband committed suicide, willey called the client several times and accused him of "killing her husband". the client then got a warrant to stop willey from calling.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988050,00.html
the client's name was anthony lansa. [second page of link]
Bashing the Clintons just doesn't ever get old for the fundie freaks.
Who would waste their time on this hit piece about a worn our story that has been hashed and rehashed to death? Who cares? Hillary has nothing to worry about with drivel like this, people are so over it.
not according to world net daily.
They are a right wing website who salivates over this type of thing. What gets them going is irrelevant to me.
to you? so end of story?
To me? No, to the whole world. (eye roll)
well, that's not what you said. you said to you. and if only that were true about the whole world. but, these are the things that the right wing continually brings up, and which a lot of people believe.
It is my opinion that this guttersnipe crap is meaningless to most, at least it is to me. If some lap this up, so be it. If others want to spend time fighting every allegation, so be it.
For me.
thanks for your permission. everyone got it? tommy says you can refute this stuff.
What part of "for me" did you miss? You are free to get all excited over this stuff if you're so inclined, you don't need my permission.
a little sarcasm there. the point being that we have heard from you 1000 times saying that there is no need to refute this kind of stuff because no one cares. but the question to you would be why do you care? if pointing out all the things pointed out here is so useless, because no one believes them anyway, why do you spend the time repeating that point? who are you trying to convince?
To see what makes you and many here tick, and I see it everyday.
and? that's it?
Doesn't that get old after a while? You know... seeing the same thing over and over? Or do you enjoy 'sameness'?
Any other hobbies in your repertoire, perhaps?
It will be interesting to see if Willey ends up all over the tube peddling her book.
Chances are she'll get some face time on FOX.
But if folks don't harp on this it may just fade away. Right now it's just a Right-Wing website writing about this book. But keep giving it publicity...it will become MSM news.
Case in point:
Several weeks ago a few Right-Wing sights were all excited about an alleged affair between Edwards & someone involved in his campaign. Hell the tabloid paper Enquirer claimed they had the goods.
Now unless I'm having selective memory loss I don't recall MMFA highlighting a thread here about the media writing about Edwards. Nor do I recall, with a few obscure exceptions, anyone making a huge deal about this.
It faded away without much fanfare.
Wanna make sure the Willey story lives, then start with about 40 threads here, then have Keith name WorldNetDaily or Art Moore as a worse person. Give the story legs, & it will grow.
Ignore it, it will likely die.
baloney.
Nice jov of refuting Jeter's post. Typical.
job, not jov.
it's just your talking points all over. there was no site like this in the 90s and these stories did not die. they live on.
Then why don't you comment on the example given regarding the Edwards' story?
Because it absolutely contradicts your "theory", that's why.
so the one and only reason that the edwards story faded away is that mmfa did not mention it? that's what jeter claimed. or is it the fact that it was in the enquirer? it's nonsense to think that these right wing fairy tales are going away if this site does not mention them.
It is 'baloney'. WND has been on Bill Clinton's ass ever since its inception. They will never let it go as long as their site exists and you can be guaranteed that if Hillary gets the keys to the WH they will ramp up their BS even more.
Perhaps Joseph Farah is another one of those jealous 'boys' who wish they had Monica instead of who they have now... assuming they even have anyone in the first place. What else could explain his rabid insane obsession over Clinton?
Rabbit,
Then those that read WorldNetDaily will be able to follow it there on that site.
But keep giving WND publicity, which leads to legitimacy...& the story will quickly leap from that website to the MSM.
IF this story gets MSM coverage, that's when you tackle it. So why help it reach there?
Sounds like biting off your nose to spite your face to me...
But that's just it - it NEEDS to hit the MSM so that it can be 'tackled' and ultimately destroyed. I say let those extremist sites be exposed for the scum they are.
Jeter, I tend to have some agreement with you on that. I believe MMFA should discuss them but there is a possibility a lie like this that MMFA is reporting could be funnelled to the msm and then reported on as truth. Case in point that George Soros funds this site, MMFA is always telling us he does not yet the msm always filters out a story that he does.
right. no one knows about willey's book except from this site.
Doris,
MMFA could spend most of their day combing through obscure Right Wing sites & find more vile stories about the Clintons than we could probably imagine. But to highlight them here in order to refute them or point out the mis-information would be counter productive because it would only serve to introduce these otherwise little known stories to the general public.
WND may be well known to the far Right, but I can't imagine the MSM quotes them often, or ever. Certainly the Wiley book will be discussed elsewhere, FOX for almost certain, but somehow I doubt you'll see Wiley being interviewed on the Today Show...unless this story explodes-- thanks to publicity from MMFA & other sites that will literally push it to the forefront by paying too much attention to it.
Now I expect MeFirst will reply to this...but as he knows, he's on my *Ignore List*...but I am getting a kick out of his sputtering & fuming...& misinterpreting my words. Which got him ignored in the first place LOL.
show me where I misinterpreted anything you said? which is the same charge you made to someone else yesterday? they "put words in your mouth"? no one needs to. you write them yourself.
Jeter
He is on my ignore list too, too many times I have seen him smear fellow posters and take things out of context and off topic.
who did i "smear" here?
Unless your going to cite specifics on the reasons why you've all decided to ignore M, I think it's kind of sleezy to gang up on him without evidence.
I'm getting this strange sense of Déjà vu...
it really doesn't bother me. jeter does not like the fact that i have called him mr. "i didn't say what i said". [like here] but as you say, it's "strange" that it's always this same little group that have pledged to ignore me, while taking shots at me at the same time. says more about them than about me, though.
MHK,
I really hate getting drawn into this *personal* off topic silliness but I'll happily give you my explanation since MeFirst once again misinterprets everything.
Here's what I wrote:
Now unless I'm having selective memory loss I don't recall MMFA highlighting a thread here about the media writing about Edwards. Nor do I recall, with a few obscure exceptions, anyone making a huge deal about this.
It faded away without much fanfare.
Did I suggest that the story faded away ONLY because MMFA didn't highlight it? Or did I also mention that only a few others mentioned it as well?
The result, with few mentioning the story... it faded away.
But here's what MeFirst claimed I said:
so the one and only reason that the edwards story faded away is that mmfa did not mention it? that's what jeter claimed.
And that is why I ignore MeFirst. This is chronic behavior on his part & I just finally got sick of it.
except in the very next paragraph, you did claim exactly that. you said the way to make sure the willey story "lives" is to start 40 threads on this site and it will have "legs". "ignore it, and it will die". your exact words.
Mefirst,
You are being deliberately disingenuous, and you know it. Jeter's point, and you know it, was that sometimes highlighting negative stories more gives them legs - by ignoring it, they fade away.
He gave a perfect example of that with Edwards. You twisted his words to act as though this website is solely responsible, and that is not what he meant.
I don't blame him, or anyone, from ignoring you considering the way you behave sometimes.
i know what his point was. the same as yours and i disagreed with it. and i did not twist anything. he said what he said.
Thanks Tommy,
Note MeFirst is now trying to change the argument.
He got blown out of the water claiming I said ONLY MMFA, now he's crying that I said starting with 40 threads, which has nothing to do with his claiming I said ONLY MMFA.
Ah I've had enough with the twirp. Thanks for your backing on this. You explained it better than I did. But it'll fall on deaf ears.
Some folks here just aren't worth bothering with...
but you clearly made a claim that the edwards story did not go anywhere because mmfa did not have a thread on it. and you clearly said the willey story will have "legs" if mmfa starts with "40" threads. otherwise it would disappear.
He most certainly did not, apparently you cannot admit your deliberate misrepresentation so you cling to this, you are just looking foolish now. Jeter never said that the Edwards story didn't go anywhere because MMFA didn't highlight it......he said it went nowhere because it was largely ignored by everyone, including MMFA. Which he rightly came to the conclusion that you won't admit.......that ignoring these types of things means many will fade into an unnoticed abyss.
But you keep promoting the myth that highlighting them makes them go away, even though sensible people know differently.
the general theme of his post was that a lot of these stories start out here on mmfa. if he had not followed the edwards comments by then saying that the willey story will have legs if mmfa starts it with 40 threads on here, then he might get the benefit of the doubt. and i don't make any claim that "highlighting" them will make them go away. that is your misinterpretation. what i did say is that you do not ignore them, expecting them to go away. they won't and all the evidence of the past few years backs that up. there is nothing that supports your contention.
Ignore button off
IF youre gonna quote me..then include the entire quote. Here's the part you left out:
...then have Keith name WorldNetDaily or Art Moore as a worse person. Give the story legs, & it will grow.
You were wrong to say I only said MMFA. Which was proven in the quote I highlighted for MHK..But you can't let it go.
You really disgust me.
Ignore button back on
you said "start with about 40 threads here". your words.
Jeter, disgust is too kind a word for this person. The out of context and smear monger that he is. He makes Bill OReilly look like Mother Theresa.
hmmm. is that like when you said you wondered why david brock and george soros were "desperate" to stop the abc movie "path to 9-11"? not that you were smearing anyone, right?
ignore button still on however Smear Alert.
Another example of someone smearing me and making things up.
Ignore button remains on.
are you denying you said that about brock and soros being desperate to stop the 9-11 movie? i will await your answer.
Ignore button off
Are you denying that you said Democrats should go on FOX? I await your answer. If you go back to that post and that day you will also see how I had stated the movie was a lie, and had called for a boycott throughout that month yet even back then you choose to spew your personal attacks, hate and take something i said out of context. As Jeter said you are disgusting. You are a liar. Instead of commenting on anything that I discuss that sadly you may agree with, you choose to start conflict with silly things. Why do you just grow up , and why post here if all your motive is to argue, smear and take things out of context?
Ignore button back on
you might just go ahead and stash the ignore button. see, if you keep.... anyway, i said that the democrats should boycott fox for the debates, but go on otherwise. the exact position of almost all democratic senators and house members.
and your exact quote was: "however, there are more issues in america than this stupid movie....makes you wonder why george soros and david brock are so desperate to shut off a movie that i doubt most americans will watch anyway". so i paraphrased you accurately. and, unless i miss my guess, you were trying to hint that there might actually be some truth to the movie, so brock and soros [why you mentioned him, i don't know] were "desperate" to "shut off" the movie.
and as far as personal attacks, you did on this thread what you have done on others. you claim to want a discussion, but you just jump in out of the blue to attack me.
J you have zero credibility on this subject. You have been rude and obnoxious many times. I think compared to Mefirst you ARE Bill O'Reilly.
Solon
This is childish but mefirst had even attempted to smear me throught the past year. I find him to be represhensible. Your outrage toward JLyons would be accepted if you had it toward others who play the games on here that they do.
Outrage? I am not outraged. She can post what she wants. I am pointing out the hypocrisy. I DO defend conservatives here when I feel they are being unfairly attacked. I have done so many times. I dont see an unfair attack by Mefirst. If you do make your point. I didnt really see much of a point just a pileup attack on him.
Solon
There is hypocrisy, as I said I have a victim of his games and attempted smears. I just wish you were more consistant.
I am consistant. I just see it differently than you.
Jeter,
Just making an observation.
This isn't the first time a the same group of people has ganged up on a poster that they don't agree with in what I can only assume is an attempt to stifle or marginalize thier comments.
I don't think it's fair to state something like "I'm going to ignore poster X" without citing specific examples of thier past behavior.
MHK,
I have my reasons as I stated in my post to you. I think they are valid. The others have their own reasons, but it's up to them to explain if they wish to.
MHK, I believe people are free to ignore whomever they want to, without explaining it or clearing it through you first.
that is fine with me. but when someone says they will "ignore" me and then say i'm "misinterpreting" them, i will answer.
MHK, Yesterday it was that loon, and hell yes I called her a freaking loon, Sueeld, Tommy and Jeter about Solon calling Sueeld a moron. Today Jeter and Mfirst have issues and of course JLyons has to add her zero cents along with Tommy.
WE ARE FREAKINGS ADULTS! YOU DON'T LIKE SOMEONE DON'T FREAKING RESPOND!
WTF, enough already!
Thanks Pearlene for bringing me into the argument when I have nothing to do with it. As you said we are all adults. Take your own advice. Nothing like taking a topic about Wiley and her lying book and completly changing the subject for your own personal hate. Nice I hope half the posts on this thread are deleted as they are all off topic.
And I really appreciate your support on that thread Pearlene
J,
Your Edwards example is perfect. And your thoughtful and insightful post is as well. Thank you.
Thanks Tommy.
But common sense is often ignored here ;-)
so "common sense" is just ignore all the swill that the right wingers put out?
Actually it isnt that compelling when put up against all the zombie memes without a SHRED of validity that never die and keep on going, and going, and going, no matter how often refuted like that demented pink bunny. One example really doesnt show a trend. Unless you are using it to refute someone who said it NEVER happens. Still, just because it hasnt gone anywhere yet doesnt mean it wont be dredged up and reported as GOSPEL by Drudge or cited by Limbaugh and resurected like so many other pointless rightwing smears at some later point.
"They are a right wing website who salivates over this type of thing. What gets them going is irrelevant to me."
What effect does MMFA's salivary material have on you?
I don't really know what your point is, or your question. Sorry.
The irony was my point.
What gets WND going is irrelevant to you, yet what gets MMFA going...IS? After all, you spend your fair share of time commenting on almost every item.
Granted, I haven't bothered to compile statistics, but a vast majority of the time, by your declaration on item after item, MMFA does not make a convincing case for conservative misinformation.
If MMFA's work is so incredibly shotty, why is it more relevant, and thus more worth your time, than that of WND?
Pete
Why do you and that lowlife who i will not name always seem to care about what Tommy thinks? why not debate the issues, instead you spend more time with "tommy' this and "tommy ' that . The threads get lost and we lose the essence of the topic.
Thank you JLyons.
Those that wonder why I am here needn't respond to any of my posts if that is the case. I certainly don't to those unworthy.
But it's the same ole, same ole' for many. Any dissenting voice or alternate opinion disrupts the liberal train of thought and they just can't stand it!
For to debate the relevancy of a topic, or it's worthiness demands topic scutiny and evaluation, and when it's automatically reflexive that all topics posted here are justifiably exposing the evil rightwing then any deviation is just well, bothersome.
We get it.
scrutiny, not scutiny.
what is your "alternate opinion"? you didn't offer any, except for the fact that everyone should ignore this story because no one cares. talk about same ol, same ol.
That's not an alternate opinion to yours?
and one we have heard a thousand times. we get it. you think that this site should not bother posting a lot of these articles because no one cares. the evidence suggests otherwise, because these stories keep getting repeated as truth among the right wing.
Please tell us from where you draw your conclusion that 'no-one cares'?
"Any dissenting voice or alternate opinion disrupts the liberal train of thought and they just can't stand it!"
Uh, the same thing can be said for your side - even more so.
What about dissenting alternate opinions to your opinions??? Are your opinions not subject to scrutiny as well?
They absolutely are. Have at them, they are only my opinions.
Tommy said something that I found ironic. I made by point and kept my question short, but it was lost on him, so more explanation was necessary. You did a great job creating a diversion for him though.
Your point wasn't lost, it was just the same old question, why are you here then? If you think it was fresh or new, it wasn't.
"same old question"
That's downright funny coming from you.
Tommy, I think the bottom line is that you are not allowed to have an opinion that differs from the masses. But it amazes me how much power they give you, they talk about you all the time.
Mostly, I talk to him, not about him.
if there was a little reality to his opinion, it might be taken seriously. thinking all these stories will go away by themselves is ludicrous, and not supported by any evidence.
Tommy, I think the bottom line is that you are not allowed to have an opinion that differs from the masses. But it amazes me how much power they give you, they talk about you all the time.JLyons
Everyone is allowed THEIR own freaking opinion. We can and will disagree and we can and will debate our differences! This is not freaking CAMP!. We are all adults and we will disagree! What would be the point of debate if we all agreed?. We ALL get upset and say things out of character but IT'S NOT THE END OF THE WORLD!
WRONG J, no one here told tommy he couldnt say something. They told him what they THOUGHT about him saying the same thing over and over and over and OVER again. See that is the way it works. No one called for arresting tommy for what he said but once he says it THAT comment is fair game for US to comment on. This is fairly simple.
"I don't really know what your point is, or your question."
"Your point wasn't lost"
LOL.
Pete,
This is beneath you, and ridiculous. I had no clue what your original point was when you talked about "salivary" something or other.........then when you clarified it, it was clearer.
Sorry you disingenuously made it look like I was responding to the same post.
Pete in reading this posts this is another example of how one poster has targeted Tommy because he has a different view that we do and the topic is now derailed. I think Jlyons said it best , why the topic turns to Tommy this and Tommy that?
Ok, I get it.
Tommy's the victim and this thread is my fault.
I'm done.
Pete I did not say that. Tommy is not a "victim" i am sure he can handle himself, but its amazing how posts are hijacked by other posters about Tommy.
Tommy- FYI - no offense but are you are not that important that your opinions result in the post being hijacked by others because your opinion is different.
Doris, No offense taken whatsoever, of course my opinions are no more important than anyone else's. They are mine, and mine alone. Why they bother some so much is their business.
Exactly Doris, I offered my personal opinion on what I thought trash like this book and WND are.....and I was immediately taken to task by mefirst who acted as if I spoke for the world or some such nonsense. He couldn't leave it alone, or even agree with me that this garbage is garbage.....instead he tried to make it about me and how he thinks I ram my opinions down everyone's throat around here. Ridiculous.
Your direction to return to the topic at hand is appreciated, thank you.
please show me where i "wouldn't agree" that this stuff is garbage. and what i pointed out was exactly what you said: that it's best to ignore this kind of stuff.
and you clearly did say that to most these charges are "meaningless".
Because the crux of my original post was this garbage was indeed garbage. You went right over that in order to provoke an argument about whether I am somehow demanding this be ignored.....you specifically said "to you? so end of story? That was a deliberate provocation as if I said it's the end of the story.......which was absurd, I simply offered my opinion.
And this is getting ridiculous, and boring for everyone else. Play with yourself.
oh come on. word parsing at it's finest. i did not claim you "demanded" anything. but you did claim that it would be best to ignore the story. i disagreed. you are allowed your opinion with no challenge to it? and you did claim to "most" the story was "meaningless". obviously i agreed it was garbage. that's just more of your deflection to suggest otherwise.
It's the old, "They're running for president now, so here's what people need to know about."
It's what the Swiftboaters claimed, to explain their 20+ year silence.
And it DOES explain renewed vigor, because certain publishers will pay big bucks for "tell-all" political smear manuscripts, and NO evidence or verifiable facts are needed. Emotional "feelings of fear" and paranoia is all the "substance" the rightwing needs to run the presses.
I'm reminded of Ann Coulter's book on "The Case Against Bill Clinton" ... a lawyer laying out the "case". Page after page after page of speculation, innuendo, unsupported uncorroborated instances, and when it finally came to actually making a CHARGE ... the Weasel Words began. As a Clinton supporter, I was very scared when I picked up the book; surely, I thought, this information will sink the President. I needn't have worried. After I'd read the book, I knew that the rightwing had NOTHING.
And that's the way it will always play, in the end. Those who SMEAR will make a small splash, and when it becomes clear they have nothing to back up their claims, they are relegated to the ash-heap of liars.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I have daughters, just daughters!
I say this because if Bill or anyone were to grope, or impose themselves on one of my daughters they would need to fear more than a lawsuit!
This woman should have dropped to her knees like Monica, and saved her deposit for all the ground this lady has made over a man taking a peek at her cleavage! Get over it, and stop making up details that she has to back away from when ever she is challenged.
The Arkansas Project is over, get over it, try winning on issues instead of innuendo!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I can't wait to see how the Flying Monkey Liars play this one. Here is one person making scandalous claims against a former president. Essentially a he-said/she-said situation. Maybe she's telling the truth, maybe not. However, the Wingnuts will treat it as gospel. On the other hand, we have numerous witnesses who have spoken on the record about the various excesses of the Bush administration...from the exaggerating of WMD intelligence to the firing of Federal prosecutors for purely political reasons. The same people who accept Willey's word as "proof" will turn around and claim that there is no case against Bush and Cheney.
Go figure.
MEMORANDUM
TO: WORLDNET DAILY/FOX NEWS/RUSH LIMBO/BILL O/SEAN/NEAL/ANNIE AND THE REST OF THE RIGHT-WING NUT JOBS
FROM: PEOPLE LIVING IN THE REAL WORLD
WHAT YEAR IS IT? WHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S NAME? HOW LONG HAS HE BEEN PRESIDENT?
WorldNetDaily is an absolute waste of bandwidth. You can hear the exact same trash over the airwaves. Just like Rush... WND has a HUGE Clinton obsession.
World Net Daily is a hate forum.
Check, a hate site filled to the brim with so-called 'Christians' and paranoid survivalist types. Oh, and Ann (Adam's Apple) Coulter to entertain the not-so-well endowed male bunch.
So let me get this straight, she believes the Clintons arranged the break in to her home? Please Wiley get real and get a life.
"Kathleen Willey ... was the target of an unusual house burglary over the weekend that nabbed a manuscript for her upcoming book, ... little else was taken ... electronics and jewelry were left behind
I'm sorry if this has already been posted (have read all of them yet) but WTF? What, did she type it? Did she hand-write it? Doesn't this woman own a computer? It would be physically impossible to steal any of my "manuscripts," and leave behind any & all "electronics" as all of my manuscripts would be on my PC.
I'm sorry this always struck me as... really... odd.
they did however take her goose quill pen and her ink well.
Kathleen Willey seems to be a habitual liar, as this CNN article from back in 1998 attests:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/23/time/willey.html
She's just a worthless drama queen.
Honestly, if I was Bill or Hillary, I'd sue her so bad that she would be reduced to the point of having to get her meals from restaurant dumpsters... but that's just me. Same thing applies to WorldNetDaily.
All the trash books and blather about HRC just makes all the Democrats\leaning folk start defending her. That's what happens with an unfair attack.
There are real issues with Clinton's positions that should be discussed. This freak show justs diverts everyone away from it.
Worldnetdaily is already trying to profit off the war on christmas too.
[link to www.worldnetdaily.com] face="Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times">It's coming!
You know it's coming.
Like clockwork, the American Civil Liberties Union grinches will be out in force punishing those erecting Nativity displays, extending Christmas greetings and otherwise exercising their God-given, First Amendment-protected rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
But now you can fight back – and you don't need a lawyer to do it.
Just check out WND's online store for your personal "Christmas-defense kit." What you'll find are three choices of bumper stickers:
They're all magnetized for seasonal use. Buy them separately or all together. Use them this year, next year and for many years to come.
In addition, there's the "Reason for the Season Auto Magnets," also perfect for your refrigerator or office file cabinet or desk. Part of every purchase goes to Christian charities.
It's the perfect way to make your statement this Christmas – that Jesus is the reason for the season. Buy one, buy 25, buy 50!
Thanks for the heads-up, AHiddenSaint. Looks like the Christofascist extremist insurgents are being emboldened by the shopping malls promoting of their agenda.
We may need to start planning our WOX surge a bit earlier than planned. Let's see how their "Tidings of Comfort and Joy" stack up against some "S-P Shock and Awe".
If anyone has read "Case Closed" a book about the Kennedy assasination which debunks many of the conspiracy theories, the author points out how several of the "eyewitnesses" that are propped up by the conspiracy theorists have actually changed their stories over time because they have become minor celebrities to the conspiracy buffs. The author compared their original statements to the statements they now make at different "conspiracy forums" where they are asked to speak, and their most recent statements refer to things that they never said right after the assasination. It appears to be the same with Ms. Willey and also Miss Brodderick. During the Clinton administration, both these women came forward with salacious accounts of Clinton depravity, but the testimony changed over time so much that the most partisan special prosecutors in history deemed their stories would not hold up under any kind of cross-examination. But both these women are still trotted out by the right-wing to smear the Clintons whenever the right-wing feels the necessity to so so. Before the election, every single rumor, innuendo and outright fabrication against the Clintons will be trotted back out by the right-wing, and the press will "dutifully" report it all over again. And then many voters will sit back and say "with all these allegations there must be some truth to something alleged against the C;intons" and they will hold it against Hillary. Unfortunately, ignoring this will not work, but neither will attacking it. Once agin, these despicable tactics will be used, and, for many people, they will work.
"Willey also alleged that in the period immediately preceding her January 1998 Jones deposition, her cat disappeared, her tires were punctured, and a male jogger whom she did not recognize approached her at her rural home, called her by her name, and asked about her tires, cat (which he named), children (whom he named), attorney, and her attorney's children (whom he also named), saying "I hope you're getting the message" or "You're just not getting the message, are you?"
Willey makes an unverifiable claim that an unknown man talked to her? She ascribes nefarious meaning to:
1) her outside cat vanishing in her rural neighborhood (oh yeah, that never happens)
2) a flat tire?
If there were one iota of contemporaneous evidence - such as a police report - it might go a long way to proving her claim.