Clinton admits to perjury in his book.

[Voltron]

In his new book, President Clinton's account of when his sexual relationship began with Monica Lewinsky conflicts with his grand jury testimony.

The disparity is significant because independent counsel Kenneth Starr's prosecutors had accused Clinton of lying about the date to avoid admitting he had a relationship with an intern, the Washington Post reports.

In his August 1998 grand jury testimony, Clinton said the relationship began in "early 1996," after Lewinsky had been hired for a paying job.

Lewinsky testified it began Nov. 15, 1995, during a government shutdown.

Clinton's memoir, without explanation, conflicts with his grand jury testimony and corroborates Lewinsky's version.

"During the government shutdown in late 1995, when very few people were allowed to come to work in the White House, and those who were there were working late, I'd had an inappropriate encounter with Monica Lewinsky and would do so again on other occasions between November and April, when she left the White House for the Pentagon."

The Post said Clinton aides could not explain the discrepancy. The former president's attorney, David Kendall, was traveling and did not return a call to the paper.

In a recorded interview to be broadcast online today by the BBC, Clinton reacted angrily to questions about his affair with Lewinsky.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39090

[blackfox]

Look, I liked Clinton as President although he certainly wasn't the best of one, but he was a charismatic personality and I enjoy that trait in a leader. As far as the Lewinsky matter, personally I did not care about his sexual proclivities, and certainly did not like the Republicans' overzealousness reaction and did not feel it to be an impeachable offense, especially in light of his successors' actions. I did take some offense to his lying about it, however, although I am not sure it should have come to that in the first place. As far as all the buzz surrounding Clinton again with the release of his book, I am not a big fan of it either, although he was perhaps at least as deserving of praise as Reagan, who was elevated to God-like status. Although Clinton's presidency was relatively unremarkable politically, it certainly is better than Bush's or Reagan's. Either way, I do not understand why the Right continues to harp on about Clinton and his perceived failings, and especially those events which were not political in nature (ie Lewinsky)...get over it already, Clinton is certainly not the only politician to have abused his power to get women and/or to cheat on his spouse...there is a long list of Presidents and Senators alike who are guilty of equal or more serious moral lapses...both republican and democrat. It has been 6-7 years for Christ's sake. I do not feel that GW fairly won the election in 2000, nor do I think Reagan was adequately scrutinized for his potential involvement in various scandals during his administration, but I have let it go...time marches on, and they have become private citizens again and deserve to get along with their lives. I was sick of coverage of this scandal the first time around, and have even less patience to listen to it rehashed...As far as his testimony not matching with his book, so what? Who cares? It was not an incident that holds repercussions for the country at large or for the world, nor does it necessarily reflect poorly on the Office any more. Cheney recently contradicted himself in reference to the Al Qaeda - Iraq linkage, and Bush has done the same with other public positions...and since these are related to policy decisions which are related to war and American lives, I tend to take these more seriously than a man, an intern and a cigar...

[socbyset]

Well I think the point is that now Clinton has basically admitted to being guilty of perjury, which weakens the "it's just about sex" arguments. But it should come as a surprise to no one.

[zimv20]

considering the source, i shall remain skeptical that clinton admitted anything until i see the exact passage from the book.

[patrick0brien]

-All

Actually, this admission would constitute a second count of perjury. Perjury, is by the count, not the subject. This constitutes perjure testimony regarding dates, the famouse one was denial of the whole thing at all - well, being 'less than truthful'.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Give it a rest. The neo-cons have won that battle, while ignoring the criminal acts of your "anointed one". Or even though he is dead, what about the sins of Reagan and Iran_contra among others?

[mactastic]

If he's lying in his book, is that perjury? Can you do anything if he lied in his book?

Oh wait, you believe Clinton when he says things you want to damage him with, but otherwise you say nothing he says can be believed. Which is it?

BTW, you right-wingers obsessed with Clinton would sleep a lot better at night if you'd build a bridge and GET OVER IT. :D

[wwworry]

Clinton could lie about having sex with a goat and it still would not make a difference in anyone's life besides his family. It has nothing to do with running the country. The republicans were determined and had the power to prosecute a meaningless lie.

Now our current president has "mis-stated" reasons for sending troops to Iraq:
between 9,000 and 11,000 Iraqis dead
over 800 American soldiers dead

His inept planning has led to cost skyrocking to over $100 billion dollars. Wasn't the original estimate $20 billion?

10,000 people dead
$100 billion dollars
let's talk about the big lie

[wwworry]

not to mention rising terrorism, loss of credibility and Osama still at large in underfunded unfinished Afghanistan

[IJ Reilly]

Clinton could lie about having sex with a goat

Stop the presses! :D

[LeeTom]

Who didn't know that Clinton lied under oath? I thought we found this out 4 years ago. I would've lied too, in the same situation.

Lee Tom

[Chip NoVaMac]

Clinton could lie about having sex with a goat and it still would not make a difference in anyone's life besides his family. It has nothing to do with running the country. The republicans were determined and had the power to prosecute a meaningless lie.

Now our current president has "mis-stated" reasons for sending troops to Iraq:
between 9,000 and 11,000 Iraqis dead
over 800 American soldiers dead

His inept planning has led to cost skyrocking to over $100 billion dollars. Wasn't the original estimate $20 billion?

10,000 people dead
$100 billion dollars
let's talk about the big lie

Not too mention that he won by just 516 votes in Florida. This is not mentioned as travesty of justice. It it mentioned that there were NO voting irregularities truly mentioned in the Clinton vote of 1996 or 2000. Republicans take the "victory' of Bush to be a mandate of their beliefs.

Now Republicans are blind to the reasons that Bush should be held to impeachment for his various lies.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Who didn't know that Clinton lied under oath? I thought we found this out 4 years ago. I would've lied too, in the same situation.

Lee Tom

You raise a strong point. Whether we as males want to admit it or not, we are about ourself preservation of our "family" unit.

I say this from the standpoint if I had cheated on my lover (I am Gay and have no chance under the Republicans of having our relationship legally recognized), I am not sure how i would answer private and publc accusations of sex outside of the 'relationship".

I know that my partner admitted just before 9-11 that he "cheated". Maybe it was 9-11, but I forgave him for it. He and I did not make the news because neither of us held public life.

For Clinton, some took Monica's tryst as a mantle to take away what the public gave him not once., but twice. As Governor, he may have had the same issues. But why wait till he is president to make an issue of if it?

For myself the Republican Party lost any sense of m oral responsibility when they turned their backs on the lies about the Iran-Contra affair. Or how they turn their backs on the truth why 800+ men and women of the US military and countless Iraqi civilians have lost their lives over lies?

[Voltron]

If he's lying in his book, is that perjury? Can you do anything if he lied in his book?

Oh wait, you believe Clinton when he says things you want to damage him with, but otherwise you say nothing he says can be believed. Which is it?

BTW, you right-wingers obsessed with Clinton would sleep a lot better at night if you'd build a bridge and GET OVER IT. :D
obsessed would be the wrong word.
Ignoring him when he's on tv every day promoting himself would be stupid. He is the one that keeps himself in the limelight. If he would just shut up and dissappear into the sunset he wouldn't keep coming up as a issue.
For example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3829799.stm

[Chip NoVaMac]

obsessed would be the wrong word.
Ignoring him when he's on tv every day promoting himself would be stupid. He is the one that keeps himself in the limelight. If he would just shut up and dissappear into the sunset he wouldn't keep coming up as a issue.
For example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3829799.stm

Maybe the conservatives should learn a lesson here.

No they are unwilling to accept that a TRUE MAJORITY of people wanted Clinton as President for not just one term, but two. Newt is dead by ideological standpoint. Their revolution only produced a more divided nation.

[Taft]

No Way!!!

You mean to tell me that Clinton wasn't 100% honest about the Lewinski affair? I'm shocked, I say. Shocked!!

This is old news. And news, I may add, that the people of this country didn't really care about. At least in the context of their view of Clinton as a president, anyway.

By many accounts, Clinton shouldn't even have been questioned under oath over these matters. The American people agreed and gave Clinton nearly unprecidented support until the very day he left office.

The only people that really cared were conservative idealogues, like your buddy Boortz. They pushed the issue. They gave Starr his backing. They attacked the man, not the crime.

There are plenty of things Clinton can be attacked on. Policy decision, ideology, etc. Conservative extremists should have learned by now that attacking him on morality, DOES NOT WORK! Silly extremists...

Taft

[patrick0brien]

Give it a rest. The neo-cons have won that battle, while ignoring the criminal acts of your "anointed one". Or even though he is dead, what about the sins of Reagan and Iran_contra among others?

-Chip NoVaMac

Are you speaking to me when you refer to 'your "anointed one"'?

I certainly hope not. If you reread my passage, it was a legal view, not indicative of political support.

[Stelliform]

Who didn't know that Clinton lied under oath? I thought we found this out 4 years ago. I would've lied too, in the same situation.

Lee Tom

The difference between you lying under oath and Clinton lying under oath is that you would go to jail for at least a short period of time, and have a felony on your record. Why didn't Clinton refuse to answer the question?

[3rdpath]

The difference between you lying under oath and Clinton lying under oath is that you would go to jail for at least a short period of time, and have a felony on your record. Why didn't Clinton refuse to answer the question?

if i may call BS...

the difference is that no one cares about clinton's sexual habits except people with a political agenda. therefore, no one else would've been subjected to this "salem"esque witch hunt which put clinton under oath for something that was truly a personal family matter.

who was starr trying to protect( and from what...) during this monumental waste of time? is the world safer? is marriage sanctified for the masses?
spare me...

i certainly don't admire clinton's behavior but i'm exceedlingly aware that it had no bearing whatsoever on my life and/or the political well-being of the u.s.

[Stelliform]

There are countless times when a married man can be asked under oath if he had an affair. (Particularly during a divorce.) I am just pointing out the fact that the situation for you would not be the same if you were asked the same questions and you lied under oath.

I am not commenting on how he got under oath. I am saying a simple refusal to answer the question is not a felony while committing perjury is a felony. And if you or I commit a felony there are consequences.

Now the next question would be is perjury an impeachable offense? I guess not. (However it is an offense that can get you disbarred as Clinton found out...)

[Chip NoVaMac]

obsessed would be the wrong word.
Ignoring him when he's on tv every day promoting himself would be stupid. He is the one that keeps himself in the limelight. If he would just shut up and dissappear into the sunset he wouldn't keep coming up as a issue.
For example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3829799.stm

Sort of like Bush going back to Crawford TX?

[3rdpath]

I am not commenting on how he got under oath.

though i don't disagree with what you're saying...i think it IS of the utmost importance to address why clinton was under oath. this was a witch-hunt and not a divorce proceeding. it was politically motivated. and unlike a divorce...it served no constructive purpose whatsoever.

[Chip NoVaMac]

-Chip NoVaMac

Are you speaking to me when you refer to 'your "anointed one"'?

I certainly hope not. If you reread my passage, it was a legal view, not indicative of political support.

No it was reference to the Supreme Court giving the election to Bush, despite the majority of people wanting Gore. And the truly impeachable lies that Bush has given the American people. I am sick of Republicans that try to hide behind the illegal acts of their President.

[Chip NoVaMac]

No Way!!!

You mean to tell me that Clinton wasn't 100% honest about the Lewinski affair? I'm shocked, I say. Shocked!!

This is old news. And news, I may add, that the people of this country didn't really care about. At least in the context of their view of Clinton as a president, anyway.

By many accounts, Clinton shouldn't even have been questioned under oath over these matters. The American people agreed and gave Clinton nearly unprecidented support until the very day he left office.

The only people that really cared were conservative idealogues, like your buddy Boortz. They pushed the issue. They gave Starr his backing. They attacked the man, not the crime.

There are plenty of things Clinton can be attacked on. Policy decision, ideology, etc. Conservative extremists should have learned by now that attacking him on morality, DOES NOT WORK! Silly extremists...

Taft

I wonder how many Americans would want Bush and Cheney to testify under oath about 9-11 and Iraq?

I know I would. Much more important than a blow-job.

But neo-cons wouldn't see that if it hit them against the head.

[IJ Reilly]

if i may call BS...

I'm going to push the BS button too, but for a different reason. The allegations of perjury against Clinton were based upon disallowed testimony in a dismissed trial. The chance of anyone being prosecuted for this in the real world is zilch, zero, nada -- let alone, convicted. Of course this isn't real world we're talking about here, it's the Republican political world, where the opposition must be neutralized in any way possible.

[Sayhey]

Ahh, the power of the "Clenis" strikes again!

Why O Why are the right wing nuts so fascinated by Clinton's sex life?
I'm much more interested in the abuse of money, power, and lies that went into trying to trap Clinton in a lie about his sexual escapades than the trysts themselves. Now, trying to undo an election, tantamount to a coup d'etat, with the combination of a fanatical prosecutor, a vengeful Congress, and low-lifes in the media & think tanks of partisan nuts, that's a story!

The Hunting of the President (http://www.thehuntingofthepresident.com/)

[patrick0brien]

No it was reference to the Supreme Court giving the election to Bush, despite the majority of people wanting Gore. And the truly impeachable lies that Bush has given the American people. I am sick of Republicans that try to hide behind the illegal acts of their President.

-Chip NoVaMac

I see. Well good point then - if laced with a little bias.

In my communications here, I try to boil down to facts, and in the new case you bring, the asterisk next to Bush's presidency, it galls many that it happened, but I think what really galls people is that is was legal, and actually a direct function of the way our system of government was set up to perform. With three separate, but equal branches the Executive, Judicial, and Legislaive. In the constitution(s) that governed that, were right in keeping with what happened, as questionable as the results may have been.

Again, if we don't want that to happen again, we need to change some laws - or at least, better define the ones that exist. Personally, as healthy as it is to spew our feelings here to each other, I question if it is really serving the greater good, versus venting.

[patrick0brien]

Ahh, the power of the "Clenis" strikes again!

Why O Why are the right wing nuts so fascinated by Clinton's sex life?
[/URL]

-Sayhey

Because if the right had their way, we'd all have to adhere to a strict moral code that includes such things as no premarital sex, no skirts shorter than ankle, not even a hint of violence in the media. Etc.

So being so foreign to them, they are fascinated, and being so violating of their fundaentals, so apalled.

Oo. I think I see a similar, but more extreme example of this coming out of Al Qaeda. Jeez, you want to talk about right wingers! They are so on the right, they're (insert snappy simile here - can't think of one).

Personally, I try to be in the middle (right/Left) myself.

[Chip NoVaMac]

-Chip NoVaMac

I see. Well good point then - if laced with a little bias.

In my communications here, I try to boil down to facts, and in the new case you bring, the asterisk next to Bush's presidency, it galls many that it happened, but I think what really galls people is that is was legal, and actually a direct function of the way our system of government was set up to perform. With three separate, but equal branches the Executive, Judicial, and Legislaive. In the constitution(s) that governed that, were right in keeping with what happened, as questionable as the results may have been.

Again, if we don't want that to happen again, we need to change some laws - or at least, better define the ones that exist. Personally, as healthy as it is to spew our feelings here to each other, I question if it is really serving the greater good, versus venting.

Given the attitude that "conservative is good and best for the nation", I truly wonder. Given the neo-cons desire to rewrite history over the last few years, you can understand the concern.

I was really bothered that a "private" affair was made so public. Not with standing any other issues that the Clinton Presidency had, there were many other examples in which to try and bring down Clinton. As an example we had Reagan that lied about his knowledge of Iran-Contra. We had his own people lie about his capability to run the country. Bush is much worse. Where are the Republicans on Bush?

The Republicans want lesser government. Yet they want marriage between two consenting adults against the Constitution. They are all for "lower" taxes. As long it is for those with incomes to invest, not those that it would matter most too. And certainly not for less spending.

I wish I could find the post, but some pointed out the impeachable items from Bush. Save the Democrats. no Republicans have called for impeachment so far. Hypocritical IMO.

[zimv20]

So being so foreign to them, they are fascinated, and being so violating of their fundaentals, so apalled.

i suppose some would like us to think so, but it seems to me there's more GOP scandals than dem. most recently (big story in IL, not sure how much play it's getting nationally), IL GOP senate candidate Jack Ryan.

the resignation of the gov of CT, just a day or two ago, is another recent example.

in neither of these cases do i see the GOP attack dogs rearing their heads, and i don't see the dems doing much of that either. in the ryan case, i'm glad, because i think the hup-to-do (sp?) is rather pointless. i certainly don't care what sort of kink he tried to get his wife to do, that's their business, not mine.

of course, now the stink is over his lying about it, so i wanna see the usual holier-than-thou suspects make a big deal about it. because they haven't, it leads me to believe (gasp :-) there's partisan politics involved.

iow, it's not the crime, it's who commits it.

[Sayhey]

-Sayhey

Because if the right had their way, we'd all have to adhere to a strict moral code that includes such things as no premarital sex, no skirts shorter than ankle, not even a hint of violence in the media. Etc.

So being so foreign to them, they are fascinated, and being so violating of their fundaentals, so apalled.

Oo. I think I see a similar, but more extreme example of this coming out of Al Qaeda. Jeez, you want to talk about right wingers! They are so on the right, they're (insert snappy simile here - can't think of one).

Personally, I try to be in the middle (right/Left) myself.

You mean like covering the breast of a statue of blind justice? Hmmm... I think you maybe on to something here. Perhaps in our fear of the extreme Islamic fundamentalists we can reconstruct our nation into a mirror image, but with a "Christian" twist?

[Chip NoVaMac]

-Sayhey

Because if the right had their way, we'd all have to adhere to a strict moral code that includes such things as no premarital sex, no skirts shorter than ankle, not even a hint of violence in the media. Etc.

So being so foreign to them, they are fascinated, and being so violating of their fundaentals, so apalled.

Oo. I think I see a similar, but more extreme example of this coming out of Al Qaeda. Jeez, you want to talk about right wingers! They are so on the right, they're (insert snappy simile here - can't think of one).

Personally, I try to be in the middle (right/Left) myself.

But is that not what they want?

Marriage being only between a man and woman? Even though the concept of marriage is a religious one? If they had their way, slaves would still be allowed. And only "land owners" would be able to vote.

[Voltron]

if i may call BS...

the difference is that no one cares about clinton's sexual habits except people with a political agenda. therefore, no one else would've been subjected to this "salem"esque witch hunt which put clinton under oath for something that was truly a personal family matter.
Except for his rape victim. Wasn't he being tried for rape when he committed perjury?

[Voltron]

But is that not what they want?

Marriage being only between a man and woman? Even though the concept of marriage is a religious one? If they had their way, slaves would still be allowed. And only "land owners" would be able to vote.
Excuss me but it was the Republicans who voted to free the slaves. Gore's own father voted against it.

[Chip NoVaMac]

i suppose some would like us to think so, but it seems to me there's more GOP scandals than dem. most recently (big story in IL, not sure how much play it's getting nationally), IL GOP senate candidate Jack Ryan.

the resignation of the gov of CT, just a day or two ago, is another recent example.

in neither of these cases do i see the GOP attack dogs rearing their heads, and i don't see the dems doing much of that either. in the ryan case, i'm glad, because i think the hup-to-do (sp?) is rather pointless. i certainly don't care what sort of kink he tried to get his wife to do, that's their business, not mine.

of course, now the stink is over his lying about it, so i wanna see the usual holier-than-thou suspects make a big deal about it. because they haven't, it leads me to believe (gasp :-) there's partisan politics involved.

iow, it's not the crime, it's who commits it.

Thank you! You have a point in that the attack dogs of the GOP would have been all over this. That is what I do have to admire about the Dems, they choose not to be slime like the GOP.

[blackfox]

I wish I could find the post, but some pointed out the impeachable items from Bush. Save the Democrats. no Republicans have called for impeachment so far. Hypocritical IMO.
Chip, is this the post you were referring to?
...Maybe Bush will start looking at facts in an even handed way. Maybe Bush admit some of the many many mistakes he has made. If he does, well hats off to him. But so far:

weapons of mass distruction
monies earmarked by Congress to Afghanistan diverted to Iraq *
the outing of CIA agent Plame *
the break-in of democratic party computer files *
the pre-approval of Halliburton contracts by the office of the Vice-President *
editing out scientific opinion in govt. science reports
refusing to disclose who was at the energy policy meetings
"$400 billion over 10 years to implement this vision of a stronger Medicare system"
promoting dubious connections between Iraq and Al Qeada to the American people
"we will be greeted with flowers"
"Mission Accomplished"
"Mission Accomplished" banner posted by soldiers
Niger Uranium claim
"we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits"
"In terms of who will have their life changed the most by a tax cut, it's clearly the people at the low and middle end of the income scale, because this represents a huge surge in their income."
"Our military went to Afghanistan, destroyed the training camps of al Qaeda, and put the Taliban out of business forever."
“I’ve asked the American people to foot the tab for $20 billion of reconstruction…Others are stepping up as well, 13 billion out of the Madrid Conference…The Iraqi oil revenues – excess Iraqi oil revenues, coupled with private investments, should make up the difference.”
claiming he was for the 9/11 inquirery when he was originally against it
total inept lack of post-conflict Iraq planning

(* impeachable)

I could post all day on his lies and coverups, or, to make you happy, on how our president is so "dramatically misinformed".

[Chip NoVaMac]

Excuss me but it was the Republicans who voted to free the slaves. Gore's own father voted against it.

Lincoln hangs his head in shame over the bastardization of the Republican Party that the neo-cons have created today. in fact our founding fathers are twirling in their graves in how the Republicans have perverted the Constitution. And Hitler and Stalin ar smiling.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Chip, is this the post you were referring to?

Yes it was....

[Sayhey]

Excuss me but it was the Republicans who voted to free the slaves. Gore's own father voted against it.

Al Gore Sr. voted against freeing the slaves? I think something in the space/time continuum is out of whack in Tennessee. :eek:

[IJ Reilly]

Al Gore Sr. voted against freeing the slaves? I think something in the space/time continuum is out of whack in Tennessee. :eek:

Or on Plant Voltron.

[skunk]

Or on Plant Voltron.
Shurely shome mishtake?

[zimv20]

Shurely shome mishtake?
actually, i think it was the Roger Moore Bond who wanted to put the liberal media clause in the Constitution.

[IJ Reilly]

Shurely shome mishtake?

Wash you mean?

[patrick0brien]

But is that not what they want?

Marriage being only between a man and woman? Even though the concept of marriage is a religious one? If they had their way, slaves would still be allowed. And only "land owners" would be able to vote.

-Chip NoVaMac

No, I'd have to disagree with what you wrote here, but then, what's the point of even discussing impossible hypotheticals?

But I do see where you are going in spirit. And I think we agree there. But remember, we need to have discussions like this. It's the very basis of the system of our governance, and it is the part that has save our country again and again. Large groups of people squabble and bicker, but when a point comes clear, it's obvious and quickly actioned.

Also remember, we only hear of the 'exciting' stuff that happens in politics. Not the day to day stuff, and that's too bad, because the media leads us to believe politicians do nothing but bicker. They don't show us that these folks no matter what side of the aisle they are from spend most of their time side by side, working together.

And when Bush is out, the next president will be bickered over.

Every president has been a lightning rod while in office - I think it's part of the job description.

[Chip NoVaMac]

-Chip NoVaMac

Also remember, we only hear of the 'exciting' stuff that happens in politics. Not the day to day stuff, and that's too bad, because the media leads us to believe politicians do nothing but bicker. They don't show us that these folks no matter what side of the aisle they are from spend most of their time side by side, working together.

And when Bush is out, the next president will be bickered over.

Every president has been a lightning rod while in office - I think it's part of the job description.

There is some working together, otherwise the government would grind to a halt. The stuff that we do hear about is sometimes sickening. On both sides to be sure.

I do really wonder why anyone would want to be president any more. I doubt that Mother Teresa would be able to pass muster with either party.

[takao]

i would rather have an politician who have the guts to say "i made an error/was wrong" than a politician who just keep repeating a lie...but hey thats just my opinion...feel free to choose

[Agathon]

Clinton was well within his rights to lie about something that was no one else's business except his and his wife's. It was painfully obvious that Starr was a politically motivated hack out to destroy Clinton by any means possible.

One's sex life is a private matter unless one chooses to fornicate in the middle of the street or with an non-consenting partner. The majority of Americans and the rest of the world understand this: that is why the whole affair was treated with contempt.

In any case, if the report was correct, the sex was lousy. Why punish him any more, and why further embarrass Miss Lewinsky who didn't do anything wrong?

[Voltron]

Clinton was well within his rights to lie about something that was no one else's business except his and his wife's. It was painfully obvious that Starr was a politically motivated hack out to destroy Clinton by any means possible.

One's sex life is a private matter unless one chooses to fornicate in the middle of the street or with an non-consenting partner. The majority of Americans and the rest of the world understand this: that is why the whole affair was treated with contempt.

In any case, if the report was correct, the sex was lousy. Why punish him any more, and why further embarrass Miss Lewinsky who didn't do anything wrong?
Even though the original lie, ie perjury statement, occured as an attempt to cover up possibly related evidence in a rape trial against him?

[wwworry]

Even though the original lie, ie perjury statement, occured as an attempt to cover up possibly related evidence in a rape trial against him?

You keep bringing up the rape allegation. Aside form the right-wing echo chamber. You should know that lawyers have been looking into this for years and have come away with nothing. In fact:

But the story is not new. The Broaddrick allegation has been traveling in right-wing circles at least since Clinton ran for president in 1992. In 1994, attorneys for Paula Jones tried to confirm it, but Broaddrick denied it, submitting an affidavit swearing that the allegation was untrue.

The 5 year $70,000,000 came up with nothing on Clinton as well. All it takes with Bush is 10 minutes and a 50 cent newspaper to know he has broken the law.

[Voltron]

Some of this stuff is funny.

Bill Clinton also claims that The Hildabeast was named after Sir Edmund Hillary (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200406/s1138966.htm), who climbed Mt. Everest 7 years after Hillary was born. Oops.

[3rdpath]

a little something about the "do as i say, not as i do" GOP party...

remember newt balthering about how morally corrupt clinton was during the witch-hunt? and then come to find out he was diddling a congressional aide 23 years his junior. and his divorce that followed. some poster boy...

and rush who salivated at the chance to gloat at clinton's horribly outed private life while he was just developing a taste for drug abuse and felonious prescription fraud? oh, and his divorce. gosh, what a hero.

howsabout william bennett's book of virtues that conveniently omitted a chapter about blowing large sums of cash on the gambling tables of vegas?

everyone is human and has the foibles to prove it. the distinction of the GOP is that they see no hypocrisy in condemning a person while doing far worse in private.

and now hillary's a senator and a future presidential candidate, bill clinton's a well-liked figure across the globe with possibly one of the largest selling books of all time...and they're still married. sweet ain't it.

newt is gone, bennett's a ghost and rush is descending into a delusional state. karma baby...sweet karma.

[Taft]

Even though the original lie, ie perjury statement, occured as an attempt to cover up possibly related evidence in a rape trial against him?

I call BS!!!

What rape allegation are you referring to? The perjury this thread charges happened during the grand jury hearings on Paula Jones' allegations of "sexual harassment and assault", which were NOT criminal charges. Rather, they were civil charges demanding financial restitution.

Some facts about that "case":

1) Paula Jones' legal representation was entirely funded by known conservative enemies of the Clintons.
2) Starr was appointed to be the special prosecuter to investigate Clinton's Whitewater dealings. WHITEWATER. Somehow, he was able to convince the judges overseeing him to EXPAND the CLINTON WHITEWATER investigation to find out whether Clinton "coached" Lewinski into lieing under oath. How are the two charges related?
3) Starr used the threat of prosecution to force testimony from people who were not legally obliged to testify.
4) The Jones suit was eventually thrown out and called "meritless" by the judge.

By almost all accounts, the Jones suit was a sham. Also, Starr should not have been allowed to expand his investigation into COMPLETELY unrelated charges.

There are many accurate accounts of this process online. Start here:

http://www.law4u.com.au/lil/ls_clinton.html

Taft

[zimv20]

Some facts about that "case":
since when have facts mattered to sly?

[Taft]

since when have facts mattered to sly?

OK, I admit it. I'm an idiot.

I just don't know when to give up. :p

Taft

[Chip NoVaMac]

Some of this stuff is funny.

I wonder if Sir Hillary had done anything of note just prior to Hillary Clinton's birth, that would explain this?

Why don't you try and discredit the many foibles of Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II?

[Chip NoVaMac]

OK, I admit it. I'm an idiot.

I just don't know when to give up. :p

Taft

I know what you mean. As much as i try to ignore it, he says things that just sometimes need to be answered since some are so willing to accept the neo-con's revision of history.

[zimv20]

since i've used the ignore feature, my mood has improved, the sun has come out, women whistle at me and money has fallen from the sky.

[Sayhey]

since i've used the ignore feature, my mood has improved, the sun has come out, women whistle at me and money has fallen from the sky.

OK, now I can corroborate the first two, but what are you doing that warrants the last two? It's the High Karate cologne, right?

[Chip NoVaMac]

since i've used the ignore feature, my mood has improved, the sun has come out, women whistle at me and money has fallen from the sky.

there is a ignore feature here?

[zimv20]

there is a ignore feature here?
yep. go to the user's profile and it's there. it's a little hard to find, fyi.

[Sayhey]

there is a ignore feature here?

Under your user CP there is a link to "Buddy/Ignore lists" - just add Voltron to the ignore list and you won't have to see his posts anymore.

[zimv20]

It's the High Karate cologne, right?
me smell pretty!

[Sayhey]

me smell pretty!

I knew it! I'm going to have to change my after shave. I've been getting laughter and small rocks thrown from high buildings.

[IJ Reilly]

I knew it! I'm going to have to change my after shave. I've been getting laughter and small rocks thrown from high buildings.

You've been using English Laughter? No wonder!

I wanted to be a standup comic, until I found out my aftershave was funnier than I was.

Badda-boomp!

[Chip NoVaMac]

Under your user CP there is a link to "Buddy/Ignore lists" - just add Voltron to the ignore list and you won't have to see his posts anymore.

Who said that i wanted to ignore Voltron? :D

[Dale Sorel]

President Clinton was/is a lying SOB. What else is new?

There's nothing to see here, move along :rolleyes:

[Chip NoVaMac]

President Clinton was/is a lying SOB. What else is new?

There's nothing to see here, move along :rolleyes:

And Reagan or Bush I or II are no different? The difference is that Reagan and the Bush's lied about things that truly matter to the well being of this nation.

[Thomas Veil]

Excuss me but it was the Republicans who voted to free the slaves.
Man, people who want to make the Republican party sound progressive cling to this factoid like a drowning man to a life preserver. Don't forget, that was in the VERY earliest days of what is now known as the Republican party. Things sure changed, didn't they?


You keep bringing up the rape allegation. Aside form the right-wing echo chamber. You should know that lawyers have been looking into this for years and have come away with nothing.
Vince Foster. Don't forget that Clinton murdered Vince Foster. ;)

[Chip NoVaMac]

Man, people who want to make the Republican party sound progressive cling to this factoid like a drowning man to a life preserver. Don't forget, that was in the VERY earliest days of what is now known as the Republican party. Things sure changed, didn't they?


Much like the Republicans might want to make a saint of Harry S Truman for dropping the bomb on Japan in order to save American lives.

The point is that each party is not without the sitting President making a choice that made sense at the time.

[Dale Sorel]

And Reagan or Bush I or II are no different? The difference is that Reagan and the Bush's lied about things that truly matter to the well being of this nation.

You're out of your freakin' mind :mad:

[zimv20]

aaaaaaaaaaand ignored

[3rdpath]

aaaaaaaaaaand ignored

yeppers....buh bye.

wish there was some sort of sound effect for the ignore button.

[Stelliform]

If I ignored everybody here who had a different opinion than mine, I would never see any posts. ;) :D

[blackfox]

If I ignored everybody here who had a different opinion than mine, I would never see any posts. ;) :D
There is a difference between a different opinion constructively argued, and a vague personal/emotional attack/response...I believe most here enjoy the former, have no patience for the latter...(not that this is a secret...) :)

[zimv20]

If I ignored everybody here who had a different opinion than mine, I would never see any posts. ;) :D
:-)

i only ignore those who are here to stir up trouble and have nothing to say that resembles informed opinion and/or reasoned debate. note that i still see your posts :-)

[Neserk]

I thought we found this out 4 years ago. I would've lied too, in the same situation.

Lee Tom


As I"m sure would have most people.

In the words of a child "takes one to know one."

I'm sure the reason most people assumed he had had some kind of sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky is because they, too, knew that they would lie under the same exact circumstances.

The real question: Who really cares?

[Voltron]

I wonder if Clinton would allow me to have Chelsea as my intern? :p