Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Voltron, Jun 22, 2004.
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...
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.
considering the source, i shall remain skeptical that clinton admitted anything until i see the exact passage from the book.
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'.
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?
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.
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 to mention rising terrorism, loss of credibility and Osama still at large in underfunded unfinished Afghanistan
Stop the presses!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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...)
Sort of like Bush going back to Crawford TX?
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.
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.
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.
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.