[Saul Goode]

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

The weird thing is that NONE of these seem to be impeachable offenses to me...and this comes from a former attorney general?

I especially like this one:

4) Threatening Iraq with proclaimed "pre-emptive", or "first strike" attack and a war of aggression by overwhelming force and military superiority including specific threats to use nuclear weapons while engaged in a massive military build-up in nations and waters surrounding Iraq.

Now THREATENING is impeachable? This guy is looney...

[SupahCoolX]

I always thought that impeaching was (basically) bringing charges against the president. What laws has he broken? Jeez... some people...

At least Bush didn't commit perjury in front of a federal grand jury, like some ex-presidents I know

[AKcrab]

A federal grand jury shouldn't have been asking about his sex life. I would lie, too.

[MikeM33]

Yeah because as we all know Clinton's getting a BJ from an intern had so much to do with his ability to run the country for 8 yrs Sure he lied to the federal grand jury. But he lied over an issue that had no place in any court at all. It had ZERO (0) to do with his ability as a two-term President of the United States. I'd have lied too.

That said, will the dumb****s please stop digging-up that tired crap? No really, please, it's making my head hurt. Bush wants to go on a killing spree and all some idiots can say is "yeah well at least he's not Clinton and gets BJ's from interns in the oval office and then lies about it". Who's ****ing business was any of that in the first place?!?

Let it die already. Bush has proven that he can't run this country and that has everything to do with his job and nothing to do with his personal affairs. I'm sure he's not up for anything as "impeachable" as receiving oral sex from an intern

The next democrat president will likely be harassed again for showering naked or something else stupid.

MikeM

[rampant]

Originally posted by MikeM33:
Yeah because as we all know Clinton's getting a BJ from an intern had so much to do with his ability to run the country for 8 yrs Sure he lied to the federal grand jury. But he lied over an issue that had no place in any court at all. It had ZERO (0) to do with his ability as a two-term President of the United States. I'd have lied too.

That said, will the dumb****s please stop digging-up that tired crap? No really, please, it's making my head hurt. Bush wants to go on a killing spree and all some idiots can say is "yeah well at least he's not Clinton and gets BJ's from interns in the oval office and then lies about it". Who's ****ing business was any of that in the first place?!?

Let it die already. Bush has proven that he can't run this country and that has everything to do with his job and nothing to do with his personal affairs. I'm sure he's not up for anything as "impeachable" as receiving oral sex from an intern

The next democrat president will likely be harassed again for showering naked or something else stupid.

MikeM

[OldManMac]

What Mike M33 said!

[Superchicken]

Wow showering comparable to a blow job... you must have some pretty fun showers.

I think the issue is more than most of his voters would not have wanted a liear/adulter in office.

[Saul Goode]

Originally posted by MikeM33:
Yeah because as we all know Clinton's getting a BJ from an intern had so much to do with his ability to run the country for 8 yrs Sure he lied to the federal grand jury. But he lied over an issue that had no place in any court at all. It had ZERO (0) to do with his ability as a two-term President of the United States. I'd have lied too.

That said, will the dumb****s please stop digging-up that tired crap? No really, please, it's making my head hurt. Bush wants to go on a killing spree and all some idiots can say is "yeah well at least he's not Clinton and gets BJ's from interns in the oval office and then lies about it". Who's ****ing business was any of that in the first place?!?

Let it die already. Bush has proven that he can't run this country and that has everything to do with his job and nothing to do with his personal affairs. I'm sure he's not up for anything as "impeachable" as receiving oral sex from an intern

The next democrat president will likely be harassed again for showering naked or something else stupid.

MikeM

As much as I think Bill Clampett was a do nothing worthless president with zero character, I tend to agree about the impeachment thing. Nevertheless, he did lie. That is a no no for ANYONE, no matter what the reason. We can't give him a pass because we don't like the question. If he wasn't a sleazy low-life hick he wouldn't have gotten himself into that mess in the first place.

And give it a rest about democrats being harassed. All we ever frickin' heard for the first two years of Bush was how he misspoke, and what a retard he was for misspeaking. After the '94 mid-terms the dems literally said that the republicans wanted to "starve your children" and "harm our senior citizens". There is enough filth spewed by everyone to go around.

[daimoni]

.

[Mr. Blur]

Originally posted by daimoni:
He took power in a bloodless coop. He and his goons should be hanged... not impeached.

yeah....he must have learned that trick from the kennedy's in 1960.....

[MikeM33]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
I think the issue is more than most of his voters would not have wanted a liear/adulter in office.

You're passing a judgement based on morality and a (completely justified) lie based on an intrusion of ones privacy and personal life and not on his professional life or on ethics at all, so that argument is moot.

By that standard I think the issue with Bush and the current administration is that they're war mongering whores and are completely blind to thier own countries economic woes.

Now you tell me, who's doing/did a bad job?

Originally posted by Saul Goode:
And give it a rest about democrats being harassed. All we ever frickin' heard for the first two years of Bush was how he misspoke, and what a retard he was for misspeaking. After the '94 mid-terms the dems literally said that the republicans wanted to "starve your children" and "harm our senior citizens". There is enough filth spewed by everyone to go around.

So what?!? Bush isn't a great speaker that's obvious, but that's not even close to turning a sexual indescression into an impeachment trial. That whole thing was rediculous. I mean they treated it like it was friggin Nixon and watergate all over again, except this time it was over oral sex!!! That's ****ing insane!!! Somehow I doubt anyone would go digging into a republicans personal affairs and trying to dig-up dirt. Nor would it reach the level of "impeachment" either. I still feel that whole thing was a republican plot, but that's just me.

MikeM

[Millennium]

Originally posted by MikeM33:
You're passing a judgement based on morality and a (completely justified) lie based on an intrusion of ones privacy and personal life and not on his professional life or on ethics at all, so that argument is moot.

There is no justification for lying under oath. None whatsoever. The question was actually quite relevant, if you bother to look at the case surrounding it. There was no excuse for Clinton to lie. That it would have ruined his marriage is utterly irrelevant; if he's going to cheat on his wife then he should be prepared to accept the consequences of that. Had he told the truth, he could have avoided the impeachment entirely, and perhaps gone down in history as a somewhat more decent man than he'll be remembered for being.

You might remember that not long after the Clinton scandals, Jesse Jackson was revealed to have cheated on his own wife. This made the new for maybe a day, and the issue was dropped. Why? Because Jackson did the honorable thing: he owned up to his mistake, admitted his wrongdoing, and life went on. Had Clinton done the same, he would probably have had similar results. It's not like he wouldn't have been saying anything that nobody already knew. But no, he decided to roll the dice, and try lying to save his own arse. And it backfired big time, and justly so. Don't gamble unless you're prepared to lose.

And I'm afraid that while there are plenty of reasons to hate Bush, impeachment can only be brought on in case of "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed while in office. Conspiracy theories aside, Clinton committed one: perjury. Bush, at least thus far, appears to have kept his nose clean.

[AKcrab]

I don't know.. Politicians lie all the time. Perhaps we must require they be "under oath" the whole time they are campaigning.
"Read my lips. No new taxes." Lies, all lies. Instead of impeachment, that helped get him elected.

[Mastrap]

As long as it doesn't affect their ability to do their jobs, who cares about people's personal life? It looks to me like the opposition trying to claim the moral high ground. I'd like to know the skeletons they themselves have hidden away.

W. Brandt was one of Germany's most successful chancellors, initiating the reconciliation between Germany and Poland. He also had been smuggling jews out of Germany into Sweden throughout the war, being a key member of the resistance. Apart from that he was a habitual womanizer and borderline alcoholic. Nobody cared and he was hugely popular for doing a difficult job very well.

[mikithecrackhead]

Impeach Bush;
for supporting the terrorist.
For supporting Pakistan, the only country which still recognizes the Taliban and supports them financially.
Impeach Bush for supplying terrorist with WMD.
Impeach Bush for supplying terrorist with chemical and biological weapons.
Impeach Bush;
For keeping thousands of African Americans from voting in Floridan
Impeach Bush;
For supporting the Saudi Empire where a majority of the Hijackers of 9-11 came from.
Impeach Bush;
For increasing the gap between the rich and the poor
Impeach Bush;
For ignoring the Kyoto treaty
Impeach Bush;
For avoiding the international council on racism
Impeach Bush';
for denying millions of Americans of medical care.
Impeach Bush;
for destroying the US economy
Impeach Bush;
For destroying democracy
Impeach Bush;
For destroying our civil rights, human rights, civil liberties.
Impeach Bush;
for halting our freedom of information, our right to know, our freedom of expression.
AND MANY ARE STILL WORRIED ABOUT A STUPID BLOW JOB THAT CLINTON RECIEVED???
Where are your priorities???
The people of the world know,
most americans know,
It was proven Feb 15. Wake up America, the Devil is on a rampage.
Impeach NOW!!!!

[dillerX]

If you are an elected official that is spending my tax dollars, your personal life IS my business. I own you until you are out of office.

[theolein]

Originally posted by dillerX:
If you are an elected official that is spending my tax dollars, your personal life IS my business. I own you until you are out of office.

I wonder if you don't have a slight misconception of the way it works in reality?

[theolein]

I am constantly amazed and the amount of vitriol still poured on Clinton although he's been out of office for more than two years. I can understand on one level that Americans get upset because he lied in court about having sex. It seems to me that Americans (this is a very broad generalisation) in general, seem to expect very high moral values from their politicians.

That said, it's only called lying when one is caught doing it. Anything else is called allegations.

I don't know why so many worry about this when in truth, so many have no idea who lies about other things. I find the say that the words "politician" and "honest" are to one another as the "oil" and "water" are. Very rare.

If you believe the Bush administration to be any more honest in its dealings with the US public, I would think you are accrediting them with more than they are worth. I would claim that they have never been caught, that is all. I don't know, of course, but that is what I feel. I'm not American, and so my opinions count for what they are worth from that viewpoint, but I don't trust them.

I don't trust them because the baggage they carry from their pasts and some of their present actions indicate to me that they are, if anything, less interested in the public's wellfare than the previous administration was.

Clinton had many faults, one of them being his sexual life, and another being his ignoring of early activity on Al-Qaida. That alone could have led to the whole tragedy of recent years not happening if it had been taken seriously. However, the evidence is that even after Bush had taken office the interest in suspected activities did not increase until after 9/11.

Clinton seemd at least to try his best, for whatever reason, perhaps even out of common sense, to bring the Israelis and Palestinians together to agree on peace. It failed, but he tried much harder than the Bush regime ever did. His trying may have won him some friends in the Muslim world, although I doubt it, to be honest.

His intervention via Nato in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo were remarkable in that there were no material gains to be made there, and it had the effect of shaking the Europeans up into forming their own rapid reaction force to face such crisis in future. This is not to say he was an angel in foreign politics. His administration is partly responsible for the Taleban coming to power in Afghanistan in the first place, as he saw it as an opportunity to create stability so that pipelines could be laid there from central asia.

He seemd at least to manage the US economy in a much better fashion than the current administration is doing, and was responsible for keeping the budget defecit down. Huge budget defecits are an incredible strain on any economy and I truly wonder how the Bush administration is going to cope with it's $300 billion defecit in the face of increased military spending and lowered taxes.

He seemed at least to have the public interest more at heart in his DOJ's dealings with Microsoft. Ashcroft's DOJ seems more intent on muzzling opposition to government dealings and restricting private freedoms.

It could perhaps be said that the current administration is suffering from left overs from the Clinton years, I don't know. What I do know is that the Enron collapse revealed some very susupicious dealings between the government in the form of Dick Cheney and Enron officials, although the scale of the Enron collapse means that it has been going on for longer than the Bush administration is in office.

What is also puzzling is that the FBI investigation into the Anthrax attacks in 2001 have never gotten further than when the FBI started searching for clues from within the military labs at Fort Detrick. There are suspicions that the CIA blocked the investigation because it was leading too far up the chain. I find it incredibly puzzling that all sorts of "evidence" can be collected on a foreign country such as Iraq, yet that a domestic investigation on highly dangerous substances, pointing to a domestic suspect gets nowhere.

What I find even more puzzling is that people in the USA don't seem to care or have forgotten that. It seems more important to wage war on a foreign country based on the accusation of WMD than it does to find out who is responsible for real bioweapon abuse within the US. Especially since it seems that the perprtrator had to have knowledge of the workings of security within Fort Detrick, since that is where the Anthrax spores stem from.

I have my own suspicions, based on certain persons' history in the current administration with respect to biowarefare and suppression of investigations, but of course I'll never know.

It seems to me that foreign policy can be a powerful weapon in silencing internal dissent in a country.

To sum up, I think Clinton was no hero, but he did his job fairly well, and demonizing him while simultaneously blindly following the current administration's policies perhaps says more about the people doing the demonizing than it does about Clinton and his term as President.

Perhaps it's more about fear and personal lack of self esteem than it is about morals and good leadership.

[snotnose]

when the whole bush/gore ballot crap was going on, i didn't want either of them to win. i really had nothing to like either of them for. but i am fully behind bush now. regardless what so many people say, i really think he is the best man for the job. i haven't felt like i have had a real leader my whole life. and now even though us getting terroristically attacked seems inevitable, i still feel extremely safe.

[theolein]

Originally posted by snotnose:
when the whole bush/gore ballot crap was going on, i didn't want either of them to win. i really had nothing to like either of them for. but i am fully behind bush now. regardless what so many people say, i really think he is the best man for the job. i haven't felt like i have had a real leader my whole life. and now even though us getting terroristically attacked seems inevitable, i still feel extremely safe.

Why not try to do some of the leading yourself?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Saul Goode:

The weird thing is that NONE of these seem to be impeachable offenses to me...and this comes from a former attorney general?

LOL! Yes, and speaking of waging wars without proper congressional approval and election rigging, didn't Ramsay Clark work for LYNDON JOHNSON?

Unfortunately, the kids Ramsay Clark hangs out with these days are too dumb to know their history.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by theolein:
I am constantly amazed and the amount of vitriol still poured on Clinton although he's been out of office for more than two years. I can understand on one level that Americans get upset because he lied in court about having sex. It seems to me that Americans (this is a very broad generalisation) in general, seem to expect very high moral values from their politicians.

well, to clarify, its very partisan. REPUBLICANS are the ones really still carrying a torch for Clinton's johnson, and wanting to hand direct its use. When their own politicians were caught with their hands in the honey jar, they cried foul and said "stop this sexual witch hunt". So, it really is a function of being judgemental only when its convenient to do so. Most everyone I know who is not a republican (and many who are republicans) could care less about Clinton's indiscretions. After all, I voted for him knowing all about Gennifer Flowers. I don't care as long as he does a good job. Which he did, both domestically and abroad.

Originally posted by theolein:
That said, it's only called lying when one is caught doing it. Anything else is called allegations.

right. this is the partisan element of it I mentioned earlier.

Originally posted by theolein:
I don't know why so many worry about this when in truth, so many have no idea who lies about other things. I find the say that the words "politician" and "honest" are to one another as the "oil" and "water" are. Very rare.

Partisan again. Although, in general, I think americans unfortunately want their politicians like their prostitutes to lie to them so they feel better. "You're so BIG! You're the best I've EVER had!" "No new taxes!" "I singlehandedly ended communism in russia, the russians had no control over it...because I made a speech that one time"....and so on.
I hope that on SOME level people realize their own politicians would lie to them at every opportunity to get elected. I think its that people blindly overlook that in exchange for political team loyalty.

Originally posted by theolein:
If you believe the Bush administration to be any more honest in its dealings with the US public, I would think you are accrediting them with more than they are worth. I would claim that they have never been caught, that is all. I don't know, of course, but that is what I feel. I'm not American, and so my opinions count for what they are worth from that viewpoint, but I don't trust them.

I"m an american, I trust Bush and his entourage as much as I can throw them....read: not at all.

Originally posted by theolein:
I don't trust them because the baggage they carry from their pasts and some of their present actions indicate to me that they are, if anything, less interested in the public's wellfare than the previous administration was.

correct-a-mundo

Originally posted by theolein:
Clinton had many faults, one of them being his sexual life, and another being his ignoring of early activity on Al-Qaida. That alone could have led to the whole tragedy of recent years not happening if it had been taken seriously. However, the evidence is that even after Bush had taken office the interest in suspected activities did not increase until after 9/11.

I must correct you here. Clinton DID try to handle Al Queda, and got mercilessly accused of trying to "wag the dog" at the time to distract from Lewinsky. I think there is a great deal of revisionist history on that account. In fact, much of the policy to prosecute more vigorously Al Queda operatives began in his administration, but the republican propaganda machine has really suceeded in distorting Clinton's role in that.

Originally posted by theolein:
Clinton seemd at least to try his best, for whatever reason, perhaps even out of common sense, to bring the Israelis and Palestinians together to agree on peace. It failed, but he tried much harder than the Bush regime ever did. His trying may have won him some friends in the Muslim world, although I doubt it, to be honest.

Bush could care less about peace, period.

Originally posted by theolein:
His intervention via Nato in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo were remarkable in that there were no material gains to be made there, and it had the effect of shaking the Europeans up into forming their own rapid reaction force to face such crisis in future. This is not to say he was an angel in foreign politics. His administration is partly responsible for the Taleban coming to power in Afghanistan in the first place, as he saw it as an opportunity to create stability so that pipelines could be laid there from central asia.

Actually, this was a continuation of plans laid in a previous administration, IIRC.

Originally posted by theolein:
He seemd at least to manage the US economy in a much better fashion than the current administration is doing, and was responsible for keeping the budget defecit down. Huge budget defecits are an incredible strain on any economy and I truly wonder how the Bush administration is going to cope with it's $300 billion defecit in the face of increased military spending and lowered taxes.

Word up. With Clinton we had the first surplus in recent memory, which Bush immediately frittered away in his attempts to buy favor.

Originally posted by theolein:
He seemed at least to have the public interest more at heart in his DOJ's dealings with Microsoft. Ashcroft's DOJ seems more intent on muzzling opposition to government dealings and restricting private freedoms.

Notice how the tobacco companies, who are the largest republican spending lobbyists, are in a better position now that Bush is in and no longer pushing against them? coincidence?

Originally posted by theolein:
It could perhaps be said that the current administration is suffering from left overs from the Clinton years,

That could be said, sure, but it would be a bald lie.

Originally posted by theolein:
What is also puzzling is that the FBI investigation into the Anthrax attacks in 2001 have never gotten further than when the FBI started searching for clues from within the military labs at Fort Detrick. There are suspicions that the CIA blocked the investigation because it was leading too far up the chain. I find it incredibly puzzling that all sorts of "evidence" can be collected on a foreign country such as Iraq, yet that a domestic investigation on highly dangerous substances, pointing to a domestic suspect gets nowhere.

I also find this puzzling, but have no clue why.

Originally posted by theolein:
What I find even more puzzling is that people in the USA don't seem to care or have forgotten that. It seems more important to wage war on a foreign country based on the accusation of WMD than it does to find out who is responsible for real bioweapon abuse within the US. Especially since it seems that the perprtrator had to have knowledge of the workings of security within Fort Detrick, since that is where the Anthrax spores stem from.

Don't confuse the "people" of the USA with the administration. (I know its a natural inclination to do so).

Originally posted by theolein:
I have my own suspicions, based on certain persons' history in the current administration with respect to biowarefare and suppression of investigations, but of course I'll never know.

It seems to me that foreign policy can be a powerful weapon in silencing internal dissent in a country.

To sum up, I think Clinton was no hero, but he did his job fairly well, and demonizing him while simultaneously blindly following the current administration's policies perhaps says more about the people doing the demonizing than it does about Clinton and his term as President.

Perhaps it's more about fear and personal lack of self esteem than it is about morals and good leadership.

yes, yes, yes and yes.

[climber]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
As long as it doesn't affect their ability to do their jobs, who cares about people's personal life? It looks to me like the opposition trying to claim the moral high ground. I'd like to know the skeletons they themselves have hidden away.

W. Brandt was one of Germany's most successful chancellors, initiating the reconciliation between Germany and Poland. He also had been smuggling jews out of Germany into Sweden throughout the war, being a key member of the resistance. Apart from that he was a habitual womanizer and borderline alcoholic. Nobody cared and he was hugely popular for doing a difficult job very well.

It is perfectly apropriate to hold the private morality of the man charged with leading the most powerfull military in the world to a VERY HIGH standard.

Bush or Clinton, to deny that, is just plain stupid.

[Saul Goode]

Originally posted by theolein:
I am constantly amazed and the amount of vitriol still poured on Clinton although he's been out of office for more than two years. I can understand on one level that Americans get upset because he lied in court about having sex. It seems to me that Americans (this is a very broad generalisation) in general, seem to expect very high moral values from their politicians.

That said, it's only called lying when one is caught doing it. Anything else is called allegations.

I don't know why so many worry about this when in truth, so many have no idea who lies about other things. I find the say that the words "politician" and "honest" are to one another as the "oil" and "water" are. Very rare.

If you believe the Bush administration to be any more honest in its dealings with the US public, I would think you are accrediting them with more than they are worth. I would claim that they have never been caught, that is all. I don't know, of course, but that is what I feel. I'm not American, and so my opinions count for what they are worth from that viewpoint, but I don't trust them.

I don't trust them because the baggage they carry from their pasts and some of their present actions indicate to me that they are, if anything, less interested in the public's wellfare than the previous administration was.

Clinton had many faults, one of them being his sexual life, and another being his ignoring of early activity on Al-Qaida. That alone could have led to the whole tragedy of recent years not happening if it had been taken seriously. However, the evidence is that even after Bush had taken office the interest in suspected activities did not increase until after 9/11.

Clinton seemd at least to try his best, for whatever reason, perhaps even out of common sense, to bring the Israelis and Palestinians together to agree on peace. It failed, but he tried much harder than the Bush regime ever did. His trying may have won him some friends in the Muslim world, although I doubt it, to be honest.

His intervention via Nato in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo were remarkable in that there were no material gains to be made there, and it had the effect of shaking the Europeans up into forming their own rapid reaction force to face such crisis in future. This is not to say he was an angel in foreign politics. His administration is partly responsible for the Taleban coming to power in Afghanistan in the first place, as he saw it as an opportunity to create stability so that pipelines could be laid there from central asia.

He seemd at least to manage the US economy in a much better fashion than the current administration is doing, and was responsible for keeping the budget defecit down. Huge budget defecits are an incredible strain on any economy and I truly wonder how the Bush administration is going to cope with it's $300 billion defecit in the face of increased military spending and lowered taxes.

He seemed at least to have the public interest more at heart in his DOJ's dealings with Microsoft. Ashcroft's DOJ seems more intent on muzzling opposition to government dealings and restricting private freedoms.

It could perhaps be said that the current administration is suffering from left overs from the Clinton years, I don't know. What I do know is that the Enron collapse revealed some very susupicious dealings between the government in the form of Dick Cheney and Enron officials, although the scale of the Enron collapse means that it has been going on for longer than the Bush administration is in office.

What is also puzzling is that the FBI investigation into the Anthrax attacks in 2001 have never gotten further than when the FBI started searching for clues from within the military labs at Fort Detrick. There are suspicions that the CIA blocked the investigation because it was leading too far up the chain. I find it incredibly puzzling that all sorts of "evidence" can be collected on a foreign country such as Iraq, yet that a domestic investigation on highly dangerous substances, pointing to a domestic suspect gets nowhere.

What I find even more puzzling is that people in the USA don't seem to care or have forgotten that. It seems more important to wage war on a foreign country based on the accusation of WMD than it does to find out who is responsible for real bioweapon abuse within the US. Especially since it seems that the perprtrator had to have knowledge of the workings of security within Fort Detrick, since that is where the Anthrax spores stem from.

I have my own suspicions, based on certain persons' history in the current administration with respect to biowarefare and suppression of investigations, but of course I'll never know.

It seems to me that foreign policy can be a powerful weapon in silencing internal dissent in a country.

To sum up, I think Clinton was no hero, but he did his job fairly well, and demonizing him while simultaneously blindly following the current administration's policies perhaps says more about the people doing the demonizing than it does about Clinton and his term as President.

Perhaps it's more about fear and personal lack of self esteem than it is about morals and good leadership.

Most presidents can come out looking pretty good after 8 years of no crises and a good economy. He spent most of his time doing things that LOOKED good but really accomplished nothing. What were his accomplishments? Where is his legacy?(besides pushing the largest single tax increase in history...) The economy? He had NOTHING to do with that. He basically spent two terms campaigning.

You say:

Clinton seemd at least to try his best, for whatever reason, perhaps even out of common sense, to bring the Israelis and Palestinians together to agree on peace. It failed, but he tried much harder than the Bush regime ever did.

That is really unfair. Clinton had 8 years, Bush has had 2 so far.

Bush has had a tremendous load dumped on him since he has been in office. People seem to think that he can magically fix the economy overnight and pull Bin Laden out of a a hat but it just doesn't work that way.

Clinton had the most scandal-ridden administration in history. Everyone whines about how unfair it was to impeach him, but what about travelgate? Whitewater? Vince foster's mysterious death? Convicted druglords sleeping in the white house? Treating the whitehouse like a high-priced hotel by selling nights in the lincoln bedroom?

Some CLinton records:

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

I guess he was just a victim of circumstance!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
correct-a-mundo
I must correct you here. Clinton DID try to handle Al Queda, and got mercilessly accused of trying to "wag the dog" at the time to distract from Lewinsky. I think there is a great deal of revisionist history on that account. In fact, much of the policy to prosecute more vigorously Al Queda operatives began in his administration, but the republican propaganda machine has really suceeded in distorting Clinton's role in that.

This is not quite true. The accusations about wag the dog actually weren't about the missile attacks on Al Queda. Those attacks were in response to the bombing of the US embassies. The "wag the dog" accusations were made when Clinton launched four days of bombing of Iraq (not al Queda) in response to Iraq tossing the UN inspectors out. It did all happen when the Lewinsky matter was comuing to a head. Nevertheless, I think the wag the dog charge was unfair. I would criticize the Desert Fox campaign for it's inadequacy, but he was acting properly as commander in chief. And for the record I never cared about Clinton's affairs and don't particularly see any point in bringing them up now.

The Clinton Administration was well aware of the al-Queda threat, and they did a great deal that people aren't aware enough of to prepare the country for the inevitable attacks. What they didn't do was go out to meet the threat. When you used the word "prosecute" you hit the nail on the head. The Clinton Administration saw terrorism as a criminal matter, not a war matter. The lead anti-terrorist agency was this the FBI. That is why Clinton refused the Sudanese offer to let the US capture Bin Laden in 1998. The FBI said they didn't have enough information about his involvement in attacks against the US (such as the Khobar Towers) that would stand up in court to convict. I don't have to tell you what a mistake that was in hindsight.

It took another year and the embassy bombings in Africa before Clinton got to the point of lobbing missiles at al-Queda. And it took Sept. 11th before a US president of either party was ready to swing the full force of the US military behind really fighting terrorist groups as a war matter. So I don't blame Clinton to the degree that some do. Even though in hindsight it was insufficient, I don't think any other president would have done differently uinder the circumstances. I see his policy as being consistent with the bulk of US administrations since international terrorism first started being a threat, and it is unfair to judge it through a post-9/11 lens.

[MacGorilla]

Bush hasn't committed any "High crimes or misdemeanors" as far as I know. Being a dumbass isn't grounds for impeachment.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by climber:
It is perfectly apropriate to hold the private morality of the man charged with leading the most powerfull military in the world to a VERY HIGH standard.

Bush or Clinton, to deny that, is just plain stupid.

wow...hate to break it to you...politicians are not boy scouts. The ones you think hold high moral standards just haven't been caught yet.

The nature of american politics is basically engineered to let the most corrupt rise to the top like pond scum.

If you don't realize this, you really have on rose-colored glasses.

The best you can do is elect someone whose platform on the issues more closely matches your own. If you're waiting for saints to run for office, you'll be waiting a long time.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is not quite true. The accusations about wag the dog actually weren't about the missile attacks on Al Queda. Those attacks were in response to the bombing of the US embassies. The "wag the dog" accusations were made when Clinton launched four days of bombing of Iraq (not al Queda) in response to Iraq tossing the UN inspectors out. It did all happen when the Lewinsky matter was comuing to a head. Nevertheless, I think the wag the dog charge was unfair. I would criticize the Desert Fox campaign for it's inadequacy, but he was acting properly as commander in chief. And for the record I never cared about Clinton's affairs and don't particularly see any point in bringing them up now.

The Clinton Administration was well aware of the al-Queda threat, and they did a great deal that people aren't aware enough of to prepare the country for the inevitable attacks. What they didn't do was go out to meet the threat. When you used the word "prosecute" you hit the nail on the head. The Clinton Administration saw terrorism as a criminal matter, not a war matter. The lead anti-terrorist agency was this the FBI. That is why Clinton refused the Sudanese offer to let the US capture Bin Laden in 1998. The FBI said they didn't have enough information about his involvement in attacks against the US (such as the Khobar Towers) that would stand up in court to convict. I don't have to tell you what a mistake that was in hindsight.

It took another year and the embassy bombings in Africa before Clinton got to the point of lobbing missiles at al-Queda. And it took Sept. 11th before a US president of either party was ready to swing the full force of the US military behind really fighting terrorist groups as a war matter. So I don't blame Clinton to the degree that some do. Even though in hindsight it was insufficient, I don't think any other president would have done differently uinder the circumstances. I see his policy as being consistent with the bulk of US administrations since international terrorism first started being a threat, and it is unfair to judge it through a post-9/11 lens.

thanks for the correction. and for the fine post.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by mikithecrackhead:
Impeach Bush;
for supporting the terrorist.

Show evidence.

For supporting Pakistan, the only country which still recognizes the Taliban and supports them financially.

...and, (paradoxically?) is also providing us with much-needed assistance in hunting them down. Last I checked, they did not recognize the Taliban anymore, by the way.

Impeach Bush for supplying terrorist with WMD.
Impeach Bush for supplying terrorist with chemical and biological weapons.

He has done no such thing. You may be thinking of previous administrations, which Bush had nothing to do with. You cannot blame a man for the sins of those who came before him.

Impeach Bush;
For keeping thousands of African Americans from voting in Floridan

Bush has done no such things.

Impeach Bush;
For supporting the Saudi Empire where a majority of the Hijackers of 9-11 came from.

Ooh; letting prejudices show here? Not all Saudis are terrorists...

Impeach Bush;
For increasing the gap between the rich and the poor

Bush has done no such thing.

Impeach Bush;
For ignoring the Kyoto treaty

Irrelevant.

Impeach Bush;
For avoiding the international council on racism

Because it would punish people for what they believe, and ban the most fundamental of human rights: free speech? Bush had no choice but to avoid that.

Impeach Bush';
for denying millions of Americans of medical care.

He has done no such thing.

Impeach Bush;
for destroying the US economy

The one that was already dead in the water before he came to office, then kept down by multiple badly-timed events totally beyond his control, such as 9/11? Sorry; it's a terrible thing, but I fail to see how he can be blamed.

Impeach Bush;
For destroying democracy

He has done no such thing.

Impeach Bush;
For destroying our civil rights, human rights, civil liberties.

Blame Ashcroft for that one; he's the one who wrote the law.

Impeach Bush;
for halting our freedom of information, our right to know, our freedom of expression.

He has done no such thing. The closest anyone in his administration has come to that one are a few exceptionally creepy remarks from Fleischer, who is a scumbag but hasn't acted on those words.

AND MANY ARE STILL WORRIED ABOUT A STUPID BLOW JOB THAT CLINTON RECIEVED???

No one cares about the blojob. They care that the man lied under an oath sworn to the government that he had, in turn, sworn to uphold. That man betrayed us.

Most of your accusations are utterly baseless, and even the ones where you have at least one leg to stand on are easily knocked over.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
No one cares about the blojob. They care that the man lied under an oath sworn to the government that he had, in turn, sworn to uphold. That man betrayed us.

yeah, now see, this is what I don't get...how did he betray YOU? Why do you feel personally betrayed? Honestly?

In previous administrations you had people actually lying to congress under oath about iran-contra...but you don't feel betrayed by that?
The present administration is destroying our civil liberties right and left, tearing up the environment, etc, etc....but you don't feel betrayed by that?

Instead you feel betrayed and still harbor resentment over a man's sexual indiscretions? ya, ya, you say "but its because he lied under oath"..to that I say bullsh@t. it was not a matter of national security.

No offense, but if you feel personally betrayed, I'd like to know under what parameters you take thes e things personally? Are you upset because YOU didn't get to blow him, or that Lewinsky didn't blow you? what?

[Spliffdaddy]

nothing sounds dumber than someone trying to defend Clinton's lies.

[putamare]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
nothing sounds dumber than someone trying to defend Clinton's lies.

No, nothing sounds dumber than getting your panties all tied up in knots over them. So freakin what? Iran/Contra & Watergate, now those were lies.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
nothing sounds dumber than someone trying to defend Clinton's lies.

Or the fact that Mr. Bill Clinton has been jetting all around Europe conjuring up opposition to our Iraq plan. When I hear this, it just makes me cringe.

I can see it now: Clinton's sitting in an office with Chirac watching UN proceedings - laughing as that Dominique de Villepin of France calls Colin Powell a liar.

And the liberals here in the U.S., cheering loudly as support for their security dwindles. And this leads me to what I hope is preventable...another U.S. Civil War (betw. conservatives and liberals). If liberal opposition to a security measure should result in mass US casualties, we may see a blood bath.

The greatest threat to US Security could very well be our own liberal population.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yeah, now see, this is what I don't get...how did he betray YOU? Why do you feel personally betrayed? Honestly?

In previous administrations you had people actually lying to congress under oath about iran-contra...but you don't feel betrayed by that?
The present administration is destroying our civil liberties right and left, tearing up the environment, etc, etc....but you don't feel betrayed by that?

Instead you feel betrayed and still harbor resentment over a man's sexual indiscretions? ya, ya, you say "but its because he lied under oath"..to that I say bullsh@t. it was not a matter of national security.

No offense, but if you feel personally betrayed, I'd like to know under what parameters you take thes e things personally? Are you upset because YOU didn't get to blow him, or that Lewinsky didn't blow you? what?

Ahmen, part II!

It sometimes seems to me that some people in your country (I won't say Americans because you're right about generalisations) have this feeling that the President is someone they personally own, as in "my boy in Washington". Try having an argument with him , or even calling him to tell him what you think of him and one might be astounded by how he reacts.

I find the same people who are shocked by Clinton's sexual endevours, very split in some form. The principles of the Iran-Contra affair, fall boy Oliver North and Pointdexter never spent time in jail and Pointdexter is now heading the Total Information Act database thing. The F-14 spares that Poindexter and co sold to Iran caused some F-14's in the US-Navy to get grounded, thereby limiting the ability of the very military they are so proud of to act, and in the same act, being culpable of high treason. Why a man's sexual escapades and his lying about it (They've always been honest to their partners, have they?) are more important than that escapes me.

btw, Simey. Good post on Sudan and Bin laden. I didn't know that many people knew about that one.

[theolein]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Or the fact that Mr. Bill Clinton has been jetting all around Europe conjuring up opposition to our Iraq plan. When I hear this, it just makes me cringe.

I can see it now: Clinton's sitting in an office with Chirac watching UN proceedings - laughing as that Dominique de Villepin of France calls Colin Powell a liar.

And the liberals here in the U.S., cheering loudly as support for their security dwindles. And this leads me to what I hope is preventable...another U.S. Civil War (betw. conservatives and liberals). If liberal opposition to a security measure should result in mass US casualties, we may see a blood bath.

The greatest threat to US Security could very well be our own liberal population.

Do you realise what you're say there? It makes you sound like you want to kill someone at any cost. If you can't kill Iraqis, you'll settle for "liberals" although I wonder how you'll be able to tell who they are.

Could you perhaps explain why you so desperately want to see people die?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is not quite true. The accusations about wag the dog actually weren't about the missile attacks on Al Queda. Those attacks were in response to the bombing of the US embassies. The "wag the dog" accusations were made when Clinton launched four days of bombing of Iraq (not al Queda) in response to Iraq tossing the UN inspectors out. It did all happen when the Lewinsky matter was comuing to a head. Nevertheless, I think the wag the dog charge was unfair. I would criticize the Desert Fox campaign for it's inadequacy, but he was acting properly as commander in chief. And for the record I never cared about Clinton's affairs and don't particularly see any point in bringing them up now.

Oh he certainly was accused of wagging the dog after bombing Afghanistan and the Sudan (example). It was just days after he first came out and admitted the affair on TV, right when the videotape of his testimony was released. The Iraq bombing was a few months later, and was during the actual impeachment process, and yes, the accusations were made then, too.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by theolein:
Could you perhaps explain why you so desperately want to see people die?

because he's a terrorist?

[dillerX]

Originally posted by theolein:
I wonder if you don't have a slight misconception of the way it works in reality?

Nope. Not any more ****ed up than the rest of you.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Oh he certainly was accused of wagging the dog after bombing Afghanistan and the Sudan (example). It was just days after he first came out and admitted the affair on TV, right when the videotape of his testimony was released. The Iraq bombing was a few months later, and was during the actual impeachment process, and yes, the accusations were made then, too.

Sorry, but you have the timeline wrong. It was Desert Fox, not the Al Shifa plant incident, where Clinton was first accused of wag the dog. The specific reason people charged it was because the operation included manned aircraft, thus putting the lives of US service people at risk. That was much more like the polt of the movie than an attack involving only unmanned cruise missiles. Notice the title of the page you link to: "'Wag the Dog' Back in Spotlight." You are linking to a later charge from a later attack.

But in any case, we are agreed that it was a stupid charge, both times.

[Buck_Naked]

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
. . . I think americans unfortunately want their politicians like their prostitutes to lie to them so they feel better. "You're so BIG! You're the best I've EVER had!" . . .

She was lying?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sorry, but you have the timeline wrong.

No I don't.

Sudan/Afghanistan attacks: Aug., 1998

Desert Fox: Dec., 1998

The date on that linked article is August 1998, before the Iraq Attack. The reason Wag the Dog was back in the news is that it was a year-old movie that was now being talked about again.

It's not a big deal. You said that Clinton wasn't accused of "wagging the dog" after his Afghanistan/Sudan Tomahawking, but he actually was, that's all. Lerk did have it right to begin with.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yeah, now see, this is what I don't get...how did he betray YOU? Why do you feel personally betrayed? Honestly?

In previous administrations you had people actually lying to congress under oath about iran-contra...but you don't feel betrayed by that?

That was somewhat before my time, to be honest; I was too young to understand then, so it isn't really fair to ask me about that.

However, last I checked, there was a lot of taking the Fifth Amendment, but virtually no lies told. That was the big thing about Iran-Contra: technically it was actually legal, though it certainly violated the spirit of the law.

The present administration is destroying our civil liberties right and left, tearing up the environment, etc, etc....but you don't feel betrayed by that?

I don't see this man "tearing up the environment". Kindly show some examples, please.

As for civil liberties, the more I look at Bush, the more I see him as a rubber stamp. The people who are really betraying us here are the people who write this legislation -particularly Ashcroft- and the people who vote for this legislation. I have serious doubts that Bush even knows what he's signing.

Instead you feel betrayed and still harbor resentment over a man's sexual indiscretions? ya, ya, you say "but its because he lied under oath"..to that I say bullsh@t. it was not a matter of national security.

Exactly. No excuse for lying. I personally find his sexual indiscretions distasteful, but I don't particularly care that he did them. I do, however, feel betrayed that in a system founded on justice and personal responsibility, he lied under oath rather than face the consequences of his actions.

And how many oaths did he break? Of course, there was the immediate oath, the one to tell the truth. Then there was the oath he swore at his inauguration, to uphold the law of the land; he broke this as well. And let us not forget the oath he swore when he married Hillary; this is often considered one of the most serious oaths one can take in virtually every culture.

A man who can't even keep his word in matters such as these is not fit to lead.

No offense, but if you feel personally betrayed, I'd like to know under what parameters you take thes e things personally?

Did I ever say I took it personally? No, I did not. But the man did betray the people he was sworn to. He is not the first, and he won't be the last. But for crying out loud, out of all the Presidents who have done things like this, we were finally about to actually bring one to justice, and his party ruined that with their over-sensationalization of the case, distracting people to think it was about sex -it wasn't; that just happened to be the backdrop and was more a coincidence than anything else- rather than about integrity.

We could finally have started a precedent for leaders being brought to justice, having to take responsibility for the things they do. And he ruined that. That, I take personally.

Are you upset because YOU didn't get to blow him, or that Lewinsky didn't blow you? what?

I'm straight, and I don't find Lewinsky attractive in the least. The infamous blowjob is basically irrelevant to the real issues here; it may have been the first link in the chain, but it was unimportant once the lies were told and the damage was done.

You swear to tell the truth, you tell the truth. How hard is this?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
No I don't.

Sudan/Afghanistan attacks: Aug., 1998

Desert Fox: Dec., 1998

The date on that linked article is August 1998, before the Iraq Attack. The reason Wag the Dog was back in the news is that it was a year-old movie that was now being talked about again.

It's not a big deal. You said that Clinton wasn't accused of "wagging the dog" after his Afghanistan/Sudan Tomahawking, but he actually was, that's all. Lerk did have it right to begin with.

Oh, then my mistake and I apologize to Lerk. I recalled them being the other way around. Either way, it was a stupid charge. It's a good example of the kind of idiocy when people ascribe political motives to national security matters. Presidents don't start wars for personal benefit. There are just too many people watching, and too many other people involved in the decision.

Incidentally, the Wag the Dog charge was repudiated by most responsible Republicans - e.g. Bob Dole, John Lugar, John McCain. It was just a few hotheads who spread it.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by theolein:
. . . If you can't kill Iraqis, you'll settle for "liberals" although I wonder how you'll be able to tell who they are . . .

That's easy for spacefreak - anyone watching CNN!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Did I ever say I took it personally? No, I did not. But the man did betray the people he was sworn to. He is not the first, and he won't be the last. But for crying out loud, out of all the Presidents who have done things like this, we were finally about to actually bring one to justice, and his party ruined that with their over-sensationalization of the case, distracting people to think it was about sex -it wasn't; that just happened to be the backdrop and was more a coincidence than anything else- rather than about integrity.

We could finally have started a precedent for leaders being brought to justice, having to take responsibility for the things they do. And he ruined that. That, I take personally.

I think that's a noble idea, but it opens up a huge can of worms and could potentially disable and add further corruption to the system. Because the system is so politicized, every word that every politician speaks would be scrutinized to death and you'd have people screaming "Impeach!" all the time over even trivial matters. Again, a noble idea, but not very workable IMO. Reserve the process for truly high crimes and misdemeanors.

An argument can be made that Clinton's lie was a high crime/misdemeanor, but I don't think it's a very good one (actually, valid arguments can be made that it wasn't a lie in the context of current sexual parlance, but for the sake of argument I'll accept that it was).

I disagree that it was the Democrats who "sensationalized" the issue - if it were up to them, the issue would've disappeared.

The public was sensible enough to see through the rhetoric on both sides and reject the idea that it was a high crime/misdemeanor worthy of impeachment. They could see that even if it was, as Republicans claimed, about lying rather than sex, it was more about politics than either.

When it was happening, I predicted that history would view it as a silly, trivial matter, and I believe that to be the case already. We can't afford to cry impeachment every time a politician lies or we'll never get anything done.

[Usama's Carcase]

Mullah Omar has been banned! Curses! For what, I do not know.

But I know that you won't see my terrorist arse around here again for some time.

Look for me at dawn, infidels! At dawn, in late August, you will find me coming to enlighten and redeem your left-wing infidel souls.

Roger that. Usama's Carcase out.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And the liberals here in the U.S., cheering loudly as support for their security dwindles. And this leads me to what I hope is preventable...another U.S. Civil War (betw. conservatives and liberals). If liberal opposition to a security measure should result in mass US casualties, we may see a blood bath.

The greatest threat to US Security could very well be our own liberal population.

let me get this straight....you think if terrorists attack, then the conservatives will slaughter their own citizens, the peace-loving liberals, and then blame the peace-loving liberals for allowing themselves to be slaughtered?

doesn't this make you the friend of bin laden? you're accomplishing his goals for him. And you have the temerity to call liberals traitors, when you're essentially threatening to kill your own countrymen.

of course, I'm extrapolating or reading between the lines here, but its not buried all that deep.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Oh, then my mistake and I apologize to Lerk. I recalled them being the other way around. Either way, it was a stupid charge.

hey, no problem, you had argued so effectively I was thoroughly convinced I had it wrong.

but, like you say, the timeline doesn't matter. The point is that a lot of people lambast Clinton NOW for characterizing Clinton as having done nothing THEN, when in fact he DID do something THEN and was thoroughly lambasted for doing so at the time...

[MindFad]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
A federal grand jury shouldn't have been asking about his sex life. I would lie, too.

I'm sure you got flamed in the thread, but I have always said the same thing. Sometimes things can't just be that simple for some reason.