It’s a moot point. Clinton admitted, “Sure I lied. I lied to protect my family.”
Well, yeah, that’s a pretty terrifying combination if you ask me.
Arrest and punish the actual perpertrators instead of bombing, invading, occupying and trashing unconnected countries? That’s just crazy talk. It’s no wonder the Dems keep ‘losing’ elections.
Yes, which means that since it’s not a sin to be gay but only to have gay sex, and you can’t have gay sex because sex can only be between a man and a woman, all gays (whether male or female) are absolutely saintly.
I just love the look on the faces of idiots while I watch them digest that line. Priceless.
FWIW and I’ve explained it other times whenever Miss Hoover comes up, myself and a bunch of other Hispanics in Miami once had to explain very slowly to an all-american student why giving a BJ to a Hispanic guy on their first date (because she didn’t want to have sex, you know, because she’s a good girl, you see) had gotten the guy completely smitten with her. She and her friends didn’t have a clue that in many places, BJs are considered “more advanced” than coitus.
Oh dear god, MUST we go through this yet again?
Dude, let it go. Please.
I’ll jump on the “Gore losing wasn’t Clinton’s fault” bandwagon. I respect Gore much more now than I did when he ran (and I voted for him), but, much like Jummy Carter, he’s a great advocate (and, I beleive, a decent human being) but a shitty politician.
I was always struck by how eloquent and articulate Clinton is (especially compared to GW, but also compared with Bush I and Reagan, whose “Great Communicator” label always had me scratching my head), and politically I think he was (mostly) impressive, but I do hold him to task for at least one debacle: Rwanda. We should - and could - have done something to intervene (and by “we”, I don’t just mean America, but the entire Western world), and there’s been no compelling reason offered for why we didn’t; basically, if you listen to Madeline Albright or the leaders in Belgium or the UN the whole thing comes down to “My bad”. Much as, I fear, the handling of Darfur will be in ten years’ time.
Still, yeah, I’d vote for him again in a second.
Okay, Guin, I absolutely agree, but I need Exy to 'splain something to me.
Hon, where I come from, the one who has the orgasm is the one who had the sex. They obviously disagreed. Now, I’m not saying you personally are espousing this opinion, but could you explain the court’s reasoning behind it? Please tell me it’s something more than just a bunch of uptight old men calling a woman a whore.
That pretty much sounds like what it boils down to, to me.
IIRC, Clinton gave an interview in which he agreed with what you said about Somalia. He said he should have handled it better, and it’s his one major regret that he didn’t. I realize it’s a minor thing, but I miss leaders who are willing to accept and admit to their mistakes.
Rwanda was an incredible failure. Clinton knows it, and apparently his direct apologies do mean something to the people over there. It sounds like it’s a motivation behind his AIDS work.
I’ve seen an interview with him where he said that was the biggest mistake he ever made. All the western leaders at the time should be ashamed including my guys. The population of those countries also. There should have been massive public pressure on the people in charge. There wasn’t.
Shameful in the extreme.
Airman Doors, USAF, I am a Republican that hates the Bush Admin and outright loathes Cheney. I was very uncomfortable with Clinton’s apparently constant indiscretions. I would also gladly have Clinton back in office.
I will even be happy if Hillary somehow won. (Though McCain orRudy would be better)
I have been in favor of UHC as I believe it is not only the right thing, but also a big help to small business.
I was fine with all the social issues, the DADT, etc. I liked his admin and policies, I was not a huge fan of the man, but an excellent Presidency. I also believe the investigation and impeachment were grossly over the top and out of control.
I was ashamed of my party and the next 7 years have not improved my impression.
As far as the whole Monica things goes, he lied for all intents and purposes, but the question never should have been asked and the offense was not one that should have led to impeachment. It was a sad, sad joke.
Jim
I dont believe they really got into the “reasoning” behind it. They just had to establish a concrete specific definition for the term. I’m sure they didn’t realize, at the time, the escape route it would give Clinton. All the parties involved were given the same document (a page from a dictionary or something IIRC), that had all the definitions of “Sexual Relations”.
Only one of them was circled. And it was that specific definition that the court used throughout the hearing. Without looking it up, I believe the loophole had something to do with giving pleasure to someone vs receiving it or something. Like it said “actions intended to sexually gratify the partner” or some crap. And since Clinton was not the gratifyer, but the gratifyee, his conduct did not fit the definition.
That’s why Clinton Specifically said to America “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lawinksi”.
He wasn’t lying. It was Lawyer Speak. I read all the transcripts and looked at the documents several years ago. And I have to agree with him.
I hated Clinton and still dont like him all that much, but I approached that whole thing with an open mind and decided he wasn’t lying. I even saw what he was getting at with the whole “definition of is, is.” thing.
And later, he admitted to the world “Indeed I did have relations with Ms Lawinski that were not appropriate.” He never said "yea, I lied. I had sexual relations with her.
Anyway, yea we should let it rest. But I just wanted to say that once presented with all the facts, even a person who hated Clinton can see he didn’t lie. Mislead is more like it. But hey, he’s a politician AND a lawyer, what the hell can you expect??
Arrest and punish the actual perpertrators - I will fully support that, 100% of the time.
However, 5 years ago, the perpertrators committed suicide in their acts. The people ultimately responsible for that attack, and the 1993 attack, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, were hiding in a country with the approval of that country’s ‘government’.
Of course, I’m talking about Afghanistan. Iraq is a national shame. If we used 1/2 the resources wasted in Iraq rebuilding Afghanistan, we might have actually had an impact on poppy and terrorist production, plus the political capital worldwide to lead an effort to help those in Darfur.
Obviously I’m not “espousing this opinion.” I’m pointing out that - at least according to my understanding of the definitions established in that court case - the dude wasn’t lying. Frankly, I have no trouble with someone “getting off on a technicality” when it’s a matter that should never have been brought into a court in the first place. As I recall, the definition of “sex” was something like contact with the genitals or anus of another person with the intent to arouse them. I’m certain that’s not precisely correct, but if Bill stuck his penis in Monica’s mouth, he didn’t come into contact with her genitals.
Use drug enforcement as an analogy. Not only to we just arrest the dealers, but we use information about the dealers to track down the suppliers. We bust them to go after the producers. You dont just stop at the superficial level.
Gack. Okay. Between what you and BearNapples have said, I’m getting a better picture of it. I still don’t agree with it, but I see the tortured logic they used to get there.
Because that’s worked so well…
If The War Against Terror is run half as well as The War On Drugs, we should be able to declare victory somewhere around 2150…
I think he did make that argument, hence the oft-parodied “It all depends on what your definition of is is”, yes?
Jim,
I’m curious as to why you consider yourself a Republican and why you would prefer McCain or Guiliani to Hillary. McCain, for all his reputation as a moderate of high integrity, was one of they guys caught in the act for ABSCAM (I think - in any case, it was a clear-cut case of bribery and highly publicized) back in the late 80s, and is a pretty profound conservative based on his voting record (which isn’t to say that I wouldn’t infinitely prefer him to what we have now). I really don’t know anything about Guiliani except that he was a pretty successful prosecutor before becoming mayor of NY, and he managed to look leaderly during the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
As far as I can tell, the Republican or conservative stance basically boils down to “government is ok as long as it doesn’t actually help anyone, and its only proper domestic function is to provide the best possible environment for business.” That is to say, government is good for national defense, and possibly for police services, period. Everything else should be handled privately, either commercially or by forming non-profit groups. Oh, except for sexual matters, which should be completely regulated. And I think they might be OK on interstate highways. But proper government function does not include anything to do with education, health, scientific research, aid to the poor, anything to do with retirement, protection of the environment, protective regulation for business to ensure a safe work place for people who don’t have the knowledge to know that something they’re breathing now may kill them twenty years down the line, help for the disabled, etc.
Obviously, I’ve taken things to extremes here, but less so than I wish were the case. And so I ask you, Jim, what is it about the Republican position that makes you prefer it to the Democrats? And why do you prefer McCain or Guiliani to Hillary, who despite the rather puzzling rightwing outrage and hatred toward her, is little less moderate than Bill Clinton?