Last updated at 20:13pm on 25th May 2007 Comments (6)
Bill Clinton was ready to divorce Hillary to be with one of his lovers, according to a book out next month.The marriage crisis is said to have ended with his wife talking him out of the move, telling a friend “there are worse things than infidelity”.
The story is among a string of revelations in two books detailing Mrs Clinton’s rise to the U.S. Senate and her push for the presidency.
Scroll down for more
Bill Clinton planned to divorce Hillary to be with one of his many lovers, claims Carl Bernsten’s book on the couple
Both works document her husband’s many affairs when he was governor of Arkansas.
Carl Bernstein claims in A Woman in Charge that the love of the former president’s life was business executive Marilyn Jo Jenkins.
According to the Watergate journalist, Miss Jenkins was spirited into the governor’s mansion for a final, furtive meeting with him the day he left to claim the White House.
Miss Jenkins is said to have played such a “pivotal role” in Mr Clinton’s life that in 1989 he offered to divorce Hillary to be with her.
The ensuing crisis apparently led to Betsey Wright, Mr Clinton’s chief of staff, taking him to see a therapist.
Mrs Clinton later told her best friend Diane Blair that she believed the presidency would help her marriage because her husband’s “sexual compulsions would be tempered by the White House and the ever-present press corps”.
As Mr Bernstein makes clear, in light of the Monica Lewinsky scandal that turned out to be “a flawed assumption”.
In the 640-page book, Bob Boorstin, who
worked for Mrs Clinton when she was trying to restructure the nation’s healthcare system, blamed her for the collapse of her own plans.
“I find her to be among the most self-righteous people I’ve ever known,” he told Mr Bernstein. “It’s her great flaw.”
Mark Fabiani, who defended the Clintons as White House counsel, said Hillary was “so tortured by the way she’s been treated that she would do anything to get out of the situation.
“If that involved not being fully forthcoming, Mr Fabiani said she would say: ‘I have a reason for not being forthcoming.'”
The second book, Her Way by New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr, claims that Mrs Clinton hired a private detective to investigate one of her husband’s mistresses.
According to the book, she ordered the detective to undermine Gennifer Flowers “until she is destroyed”.
The incident took place when Mr Clinton was running for president in 1992.
Her Way looks in detail at Mrs Clinton’s Senate vote in support of the Iraq war, suggesting she may have been motivated by a desire not to abandon her husband’s toughon-Iraq policy and a need “to prove that she was tough”.
Both books were leaked to the Washington Post yesterday ahead of publication next month.
The Post said Mrs Clinton emerges as a “complicated, sometimes compromised figure who tolerated Bill Clinton’s brazen infidelity, pursued her policy and political goals with methodical drive”.
The New York Senator, it said, had “occasionally skirted along the edge of the truth along the way” to power.
It said the books posed “a number of assertions and anecdotes that could confront her campaign with unwelcome questions”.
Last night political analysts said the books would damage Mrs Clinton in the eyes of some voters. They added, however, that most would find little to surprise them in the allegations.
One of the most unsettling charges in Her Way is that the Clintons made a “secret plan” when they were in Arkansas in which they would each have two terms as president.
The authors said that even before the pair married, they formulated a “secret pact of ambition” aimed at the White House.
Mr Bernstein said that both Clintons went to great lengths to “keep the lid on his infidelities”.
On one occasion Hillary personally interviewed one of her husband’s lovers and helped persuade her to sign a statement saying she had never had sex with him.
Mrs Clinton’s Senate office dismissed the books as offering no new material.
Her spokesman Philippe Reines told the Washington Post: “Is it possible to be quoted yawning? If past books on Mrs Clinton were cash for trash, these books are nothing more than cash for rehash.”
Her campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told the paper: “The news here is that it took three reporters nearly a decade to find no news.
“Two overwhelming Senate victories in the toughest media market in the country demonstrated that voters have put these issues behind them.”
Would Iran’s Mullahs Use the Bomb?
By: Amil Imani
There is so much smoke around the Iranian Mullahs’ bomb that makes
Tehran’s smog feel like a fresh ocean breeze, by comparison. Here is a partial list of views about the Mullahs, their capabilities and intentions about the bomb affair.
* Will never dare to use the bomb, even if they had it. To do so would be suicidal.
* Are years away from anything resembling a credible bomb, in any quantities.
* They lack the technological skills needed to make a workable bomb.
* Don’t have the means of hitting
Israel with the bomb, their professed favorite target.
* Want the bomb for defensive purposes only.
* Would never hand the bomb over to proxy terrorists.
* Are using this whole bomb thing as a ploy to rally the populace and survive.
* Are visionary patriots planning for a future when the oil dries up.
* Are environmentalists aiming to curb global warming caused by the use of fossil fuel.
* Are striving to join the nuclear club for its prestige.
And on, and on, and on, goes the litany. I believe, based on facts rather than wishful thinking, that every one of the above assertions, as well as all other similar dismissive arguments are both false and fraught with danger, because all the above arguments are confounded by various amounts of denial.
Psychological denial is a common quirk of the human mind. People use denial to distort, even refute reality, when accepting it is too threatening to them. Alcoholics are habitual users of denial, a major tranquilizer of the mind. The alcoholic will adamantly deny having any problem with alcohol and continues to drink, even in the face of irrefutable contrary evidence. Denial is resorted to by both individuals and groups, and can be just as deadly for both.
Perhaps the most compelling dismissive argument is that the Mullahs would never dare to use the bomb, since it would be suicidal to do so. This argument is just as flawed as the rest. The “mutual deterrence” argument may work in state-to-state confrontations. It apparently has worked in the past and the hope is that it will work in the future. However, the mutual deterrence argument fails when a non-state entity is the adversary. The Mullahs don’t have to lob a bomb at
Israel or at anyone else to inflict huge harm. They can pursue their cause of death and destruction by simply providing their killers with dirty bombs in a suitcase. Given the Mullahs’ fanaticism and Machiavellian nature, they would come up with a myriad of clever schemes to achieve their objectives.
Consider dirty bombs. They are easy to make, are portable, can kill as well as make a city uninhabitable, without leaving a “finger print.” The Mullahs can go to work then turn “innocently” to the international community for help them- to find a group of rogue radicals, so they claim, who had penetrated their facilities and have made off with a loot of radioactive stuff.
It is not as if events like this have never happened in the past. Deadly stolen radioactive materials have found their way to the black market on a number of occasions. The world would respond in panic, yet with its usual arthritic sluggishness searching for the miscreants. Given how clumsy and disorganized the world’s intelligence community is, the prospect of acting expeditiously, much less apprehending the “thieves” is not very encouraging. This is particularly the case when the Mullahs themselves would have a short leash on the “thieves,” to hide them and deploy them only with the greatest of care.
Iran’s ruling Mullahs are clustered around major factions such as the conservatives, the moderates, and the so-called reformists. Yet, the differences among these factions are tactical rather than strategic. One and all share the same overarching goal of defeating the “Crusader-Zionists” by any and all methods possible; bringing about the “end of the world” Armageddon; and, thereby creating the requisite conditions for the appearance of the Hidden Imam, the Mahdi, to assume his rule of the world.
Therefore, it is “Cartrisque” (foolish risk-taking a la Jimmy Carter’s throwing the nation’s lot with the Mullahs during the 1979 Iranian Revolution) to overlook the fact that it is Islam, irrespective of any and all considerations, that poses a deadly threat to the world. Choosing one faction over another is no choice at all.
What is the likelihood that the ruling Mullahs will actually use the bomb? If they remain in power long enough to have it, they are very likely to use it, in one form or another. At the very least, they use the bomb for blackmail and intimidation in the region. Not even the all-out nuclear exchange can be ruled out. Islam is a religion centered on death with the faithful eyes fixed on the afterlife and its promised eternal pleasures. If the faithful kills, he goes to Allah’s paradise; if he gets killed, he goes to Allah’s paradise.
The Mullahs’ claim that they are pursuing the nuclear program to meet the country’s energy need could only fool the most gullible-denial type. Why is it that the Mullahs invest nothing at all in stopping the leak of more than six percent of the precious oil they pump out? For every 100 barrels, six barrels of
Iran’s irreplaceable national treasure dissipates at the wellhead. Yet, they spend billions of dollars to harness nuclear energy. Just as troubling is the fact that
Iran sits on one of the world’s most dangerous earthquake fault lines. Building nuclear plants on sites such as the one in Bushehr is absolute insanity.
Speaking of insanity, Ahmadinejad, the Monkey, comes to mind. He is dismissed as being a zany fanatic who shouldn’t be taken seriously for his bomb-rattling threats. But this type of dismissiveness can prove deadly. Recall that even a multi-billionaire former president of Iran Rafsanjani, a man seen by many as moderate and a shrewd live-let-live type, has publicly announced that a single bomb would finish off
Israel while the Muslims would suffer a setback from which it can easily recover.
The Mullahs are proven vicious mass killers. They summarily executed tens of thousands of Iranian dissidents. They had no qualms at sending thousands of children to clear the minefields ahead of their tanks during the 80-89 war with
Iraq; and, they have thousands of “martyrs” brainwashed and prepared to serve as bomb mules to be dispatched to any place in the world.
Sadly, once again it is the peak of “Me First” time with American politicians. Like sharks, they are circling the “bleeding” lame President, busily snipping at him and hoping to take his place. In the meantime the real enemy, Islamofascism is forging ahead toward its goal of dominating the world.
I have been warning that it is a deadly miscalculation to engage in infighting, and sit and wait this emerging catastrophe out. It is little more than an exercise in denial to believe that nothing bad will happen, and that the corrupt inept Mullahs will likely shoot themselves in the foot instead of wreaking havoc on the world. I also keep pleading that we should forthwith help the Iranian democratic oppositions send the death-bearer Mullahs back to their mosques. It is the free world’s best and urgent option.
What sane person would want to take a chance to wait and see if the mad Mullahs, once they have the bomb, would use it or not?
Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the
United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and an essayist, who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land,
Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com
If ever you think your life is so bad you can’t possibly continue, think of Dr. Kellie Lim,
who lost both legs and an arm as a child [and] is poised to become a doctor for children. Kellie Lim, who became a triple amputee at age 8 because of bacterial meningitis, is to graduate from UCLA’s medical school on Friday, and she plans to focus on childhood allergies and infections disease. . . .
The Michigan native, 26, does not use a prosthetic arm and manages to perform most medical procedures – including giving injections and taking blood – with one arm. She walks on a pair of prosthetic legs.
Obviously she didn’t have an easy childhood because in addition to the triple youthful amputations she was
Raised by a blind mother in suburban Detroit, Lim went through years of wheelchairs and painful therapy after toxic shock from the meningitis claimed her limbs and three fingertips on her remaining hand.
Lim recently saw her childhood medical file, and learned that doctors had given her an 85 percent chance of survival. Just five months after the amputations, Lim returned to a normal school. Born right-handed, she learned to write and work with her left.
“I hate failing,” she said. “It’s one of those things that’s so ingrained in me.”
Words cannot express my admiration at her persistence, her lack of victimhood, her creativity, everything.