Vince Foster...
Posted By: Observer on 2006-12-14
In Reply to: Conspiracy theories about Vincent Foster...sm - Democrat
You are right...I was not there. But I have read the public records, and it is pretty obvious to me the man did not commit suicide. The ME at the site said he had a big wound in his neck, not in the back of his head. The *official* autopsy mentions no neck wound, and says he had an exit wound in the back of his head. I have seen the picture they took of his hand holding the gun at the scene. No blood on the gun, his hand, or his sleeve. Not massive amounts of blood at the scene like you would expect if he was shot where they found him. You tell me how someone shoots himself through the roof of the mouth and gets no blowback on the hand, gun, or sleeve. Physically impossible. I guess you also don't remember that *someone* cleaned his office out before the Park Police could get there, and documents from his office were later found in the White House private residence with Hillary's fingerprints on them...even though she swore she had not been there nor had the documents...and the fact that her aide showed the park police Vince Foster's briefcase, they all thoroughly searched it including dumping it upside down, no suicide note; two weeks later one miraculously appeared in that same briefcase. The whole thing just reeks. If he was really their friend (and he had been with them during the Arkansas days) and they were NOT involved in it, they should have pushed to have it investigated. They did not.
The only thing Vince Foster had to do with Juanita Broaddrick was the fact that knowing what happened to him, would you blame someone for not wanting to cross the Clintons? I was making a comparison, not saying Vince Foster had anything directly to do with the sex scandal. What Vince Foster had to do with was Whitewater and that mess, because he had been a partner with Hillary in the Rose Law Firm. Vince's problem was he knew too much. All that was about to hit the fan when he so conveniently *committed suicide.*
As to Juanita Broaddrick, like I said...you don't know her. I do. And I believe her. There are women every day who do not press rape charges for many, many reasons. This would have been very high profile, he was the governor of Arkansas and no one much wanted to cross him and more importantly his wife. In that part of the country they had a lot of power, and yes, there are a LOT of people who have turned up dead around them. You say coincidence, I say you gotta be kidding to say that.
It is easy for you to say it is just her story about Juanita. You didn't see how it affected her and affected her family, good people who did not deserve what happened to them. And everything Clinton did afterward just proved to me again and again he was exactly what she painted him as and worse. God willing nothing like that will ever happen to you and someone will never minimize an already horrible thing by saying your story is just, well, your story.
Time to stop beating this dead horse. You cannot be objective about it, because as you said, you are more likely to trust your party. You are incapable of looking at it objectively. Well, my friend, I have no party. Especially one that will make me take leave of my common sense. And saying you are sure that if it is Bush, or Reagan, under these accusations I would defend them...you could not be more wrong. If you would take off your liberal party hat and think about it objectively...there are way too many stories involving Bill, way too many stories involving Hillary, sex scandals, dead bodies, you name it. For you to be able to pass that off as coincidence....again I say it, that is why people look at Democrats and call them Kool-aid drinkers. Whatever the party says...becomes the truth. It's like you join and relinquish common sense.
Trust me in this...if Bill Clinton were a Republican I would be saying the same things I am saying now. I am talking about a man who happens to be a Democrat. The man is morally bankrupt and as I said and will say one more time, that is not because he is a liberal Democrat. But BECAUSE he is a liberal Democrat, his party not only enables but encourages his behavior by making excuses for him no matter what he does. And the fact that none of you seem to be able to see that and blindly defend him is just freaking amazing to me.
I have criticized Republicans; I criticized Foley. He was a deviant and he should have resigned. I would never defend him. What I did point out was that several years early a Democratic congressman admitted to actually having sex with an underage page, but publically said it was consensual and had nothing to do with his job in Congress. And what did his Democrat colleagues do? Agree with him. Censure him? No. What did his constituents do? Re-elected him. Do you see what I am talking about? Burn Mark Foley at the stake but let the Democratic congressman who actually had sex with an underage male page go right on about his business. It is a nasty, nasty double standard. The big problem is, NONE of you seem to see that it is a double standard.
By the way, I am not a registered Republican. I registered Independent, and only registered as that because you have to register as SOMETHING to vote in this country. I vote my convictions, I don't care what party he or she belongs to. However, over these last years, I have to admit, I have not seen a Democrat I could vote for in good conscience, because of this seeming inability to think for themselves outside their party. Finally you admitted it when you said *we tend to believe our party.* Except it is more than tend...it is 99.9% of the time.
I worry for all of you. Not that you care if I worry...but I do. God bless!
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Vince Foster....
THat is your side. This is mine...go to this site and read....documents, pictures are there. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/foster.html
And yes, I believe Ken Starr could have been induced to be part of a coverup. Perhaps guilt over that is what drove him after Clinton in later years. Who knows? But what is at that site is certainly enough for me to have very serious doubts about Vince Foster committing suicide. I think the picture of the gun in his hand is the most damning myself. There is absolutely no blood on the gun, his hand, or his sleeve, and his fingerprints were not on the gun. Come on now...he shot himself in the head and then wiped his fingerprints off the gun???
I never said international hit men killed him. I don't believe they did. I lean more toward some of the Arkansas contingent myself. Probably some of those who later ended up dead. We will just agree to disagree. I believe the evidence on the site I posted is much stronger than Snopes, who is presenting the *government* side of it.
I wouldn't talk about *conspiracies if I were you...remember Hillary and her *vast right wing conspiracy* theory? Hillary obviously believes in them and no wonder....she has probably been in the heart of several.
Rationalizing and minimizing...excuse me. Try the truth. It is well documented that the woman who accused Bush (and also said she was gang raped by Bush and two FBI agents, who also raped her husband) was, to put it kindly, off her rocker. Kitty Kelley is the one who accused Reagan in a book about Nancy Reagan, and the actual accuser never did come forward. I have no way of knowing whether or not Reagan forced himself on that woman. I can look at the facts of the Bush case and I would highly doubt that he and two FBI agents gang-raped that woman and her husband....
gimme a break. All of Clinton's accusers knew him personally and contact with him and he paid one of them off to hush. Then there was Monica. That is a pattern of behavior, Democrat. Not anything similar to an isolated accusation made from a sick mind and someone wanting to get rich on a tell-all salacious book. Again you prove my point. To you they two are the same, and they are absolutely NOT the same. What you don't get is if it were reversed, and Clinton had the one accusation from a lunatic and Bush had women coming out of the woodwork accusing him of sexual harrassment and rape, I would be castigating Bush just like I am castigating Clinton. You have, however, proven that you WOULD NOT do so. And the majority of Democrats won't. I have NEVER heard a Democrat take Clinton to task for what we KNOW he has done, much less for what we SUSPECT he has done. And THAT, as I have said a gazillion times, IS MY POINT.
No, I have not checked out the Bush body count, was not aware there was one. Can't believe if there was anything credible it was not trotted out during the last presidential election. Are you talking about the executions while he was governor of Texas or what?
and more on Vince Foster...answers to some of your questions ala Ken Starr...
CLINTON’S LAST PHONE CALL TO FOSTER
All these inconsistencies in the Foster cover-up involve Bill Clinton’s conflicting versions of his final conversation with Foster. When first asked, Clinton said he couldn’t remember when he last spoke with Foster or what was discussed.
Number 1 version:
Date of call: Unknown
Purpose of call: Unknown
When he was asked a second time he claimed he spoke with Foster Sunday night, 2 days before his death.
Number 2 version:
Date of call: Sunday, July 18
Purpose of call: Invite Foster to movie
Clinton redrafted his story a third time, changing the date of his call to Monday, the night before Foster’s death. According to Time Magazine, at this point Clinton still maintained he was unaware of Foster’s depression.
Number 3 version:
Date of call: Monday, July 19
Purpose of call: Invite Foster to movie
When the White House Press Office announced depression as the reason behind Foster’s suicide, Clinton then redrafted a 4th version claiming the purpose of this call was to cheer up his friend.
Number 4 version:
Date of call: Monday, July 19
Purpose of call: To cheer up Foster
The question becomes, not if Clinton lied, but why he lied.
Excerpt Below: The Secret Life of Bill Clinton - Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:
I once asked a gathering of thirty Washington journalists what they considered to be the most compelling evidence that Vincent Foster committed suicide. There was a brief silence, then somebody said: ‘Well, he was depressed.’
It was a very good answer. The depression is all they have, and by ‘they’ I mean Fiske, Starr, the Justice Department, the White House, The Washington Post, the governing class. Take that away, and there is nothing left to sustain the ruling of suicide. Nothing.
‘Pontius Pilate of the Potomac’ –is how Starr was described in a blistering denunciation by James Davidson, the editor of the newsletter Strategic Investment. ‘Starr will fade, but he will not be forgotten. Historians will certainly have something to say about him. ‘When The Decline and Fall of the United States’ is written, Starr will merit a chapter. He will be seen as a weak, temporizing man who lacked the force of character to confront a corrupt system.’
Foster her belief?????
His campaign has actually admitted they "overlooked" that information and failed to report it. Now you're saying his own campaign is a lie?
An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. -- a subsidiary of ACORN -- worked in "get-out-the-vote" projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary.
yea, to foster relations.........uh, huh, that's right
xx
You are the one who put forth the site to foster your belief. It ...sm
was a dead end.
Conspiracy theories about Vincent Foster...sm
Vincent's death will always be a mystery. I wasn't there, you weren't there, so who is to say what actually happened? Personally, I don't believe the Clintons are murderers, or at the top of some killing machine as some wing nuts suggest. That's not a small accusation, and to make the claim there should be lots of evidence to back it up.
If the Clintons were smart enough to have so many people murdered w/o a trace, then why in the world would he allow himself to be drug through the mud on a sex scandal and ML still alive to tell her story? Another mystery. And what does Vincent Foster have to do with the sex JB scandal anyway? Most of what I read is s-p-e-c-u-l-a-t-i-o-n. I had to say that slow because somebody going to miss it. Anyway, I have no doubt right wingers would give Regan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr the benefit of the doubt with these type of accusations flying around. I've seen it done, over and over.
Check out the link below. I don't buy any of it, but it's tit for tat since right-wingers are so sure Clinton has a stack of dead bodies somewhere. The psychology of it all is that we are more likely to trust (give the benefit of the doubt or assume innocence until proven guilty) our party.
Albeit nearly 30 years after the fact, Juanita's story is the only one that makes me say *hmmmm, maybe.* I've seen her on interviews and she seemed genuinely distraught. It is unfortunate that she waited 20 years to speak out and did not press charges (that I know of). Now her story is just, well, her story.
The rest of the women, who *claimed* Clinton raped or harrassed them turned around then and took benefit from their claims in some monetarily or fame seeking fashion. Sorry if I think their stories hold little to no merit.
to foster relations with the Muslim voters...
both campaigns are needing those votes - not just Obama. There are Muslims in this country that are American citizens and they do get a vote too.
|
