I apologize for ignoring the context. I’ll remedy that now for you. The reason that it is “somebody else’s damn business,” is because of its relation to a case of rape that the President was accused of and perjured himself in regards to.
Now if you are going to argue that Clinton is a victim of a VRWC being fabricated him, don’t you find it hard not to choke a little when the “fabricated” accusations turn out to have merit?
It’s tough to claim conspiracy when you actually did the things you are being accused of, isn’t it?
I’m sniffing, but all I smell is stale milk on a soggy Fruit Loop.
Oh, horseshit, Polycarp, and you know a great deal better than that.
If you would like to throw out the distinction between “legal” and “illegal”, and based articles of impeachment on whatever is disapproved of on the editorial page of The Washington Post, we might as well dispense with the bother of elections at all.
Not that it would help. Clinton was just as convinced as Bush that Saddam had WMD, and also launched military action as a result of it. (At least, that was the public justification. I don’t think I am betraying any state secrets if I point out that he was trying like hell not to be impeached. So if people need to be cast out of office for launching military actions based on motives other than what is acceptable to the Democrats, Clinton would still have been impeached.)
Providing we all “have the decency to be consistent”.
Cite for “its relation to a case of rape the President was accused of and perjured himself in regards to” please. AFAICR, it was the Paula Jones harassment case in which he was deposed and asked the Monica question. Harassment does not equal rape, and Paula Jones did not accuse him of rape.
The official legal definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” as regards impeachment is, according to experts in Constitutional law, whatever the House of Representatives and Senate consider it to be.
Don’t forget the sexual harassment charges were brought up by a woman (Paula Jones) whose legal team had ties to the Independent Prosecutor (Ken Starr), and that the prosecutor kept this conflict of interest hidden from the Attorney General (Janet Reno) when he sought to expand his investigation beyond the Whitewater real estate deal.
Me too. But, I’m also hard-pressed to imagine how someone would use the term “conspiracy” about a group of people to mean something other than wrongful behavior. Particularly when the speaker is a lawyer, and the legal definition is *An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. *
It’s true that for some words, the 2nd meaning is almost as common as the first. But, you’ve not offered evidence that that this is true of the word “conspiracy.” I suggest that this is not the case here, because the exculpatory definition isn’t even included in dictionary.com. Nor is it clear that this definition is appropriate for people, as opposed to forces.
A question for Brickerand wring: Would you defend Richard Nixon, Clarence Thomas, Ronald Reagan, John Ashcroft, or George W. Bush if any of them asserted there was a “vast left wing conspiracy” against him?
There certainly were vast forces arrayed against each of them, but I wouldn’t defend that usage. I’d call it red-baiting.
On this front: You (and others) have made statements to this effect in several other threads. I have done a little digging around, to see what period of time was agreed upon, and am not having luck. That being the case, I will just ask: At what point is it reasonable to assume that the WMD issue was a bogus one? How long do we give Bush to find the massive stockpiles that were supposed to have existed? At what point will the folks that believed that this was the reason for the war start to feel as if they were lied to?
I have a stated goal in life to be polite, and I don’t wish to cry wolf or be alarmist but would like some clarification as to when (as far as the more conservative folks are concerned) this becomes an appropriate topic for conversation.
binarydrone, it ain’t gonna happen. At no point will the superscyllious ever be forced to admit they were not only wrong about the facts but wrong about the morality. It will always be possible to say they are still hidden, or got moved somewhere we haven’t looked yet, or are in the hands of who-knows-what terrorist organization, until the whole thing fades away under the news of other problems in the world, and that sadly doesn’t take long.
Meanwhile, it’s just another example of how the dupable can continue to be duped. At some point, it isn’t even necessary to continue to dupe them; they’ll do it to themselves. Scylla, your willingness to believe that the Monica story appeared out of the air, unrelated to the rest of the indefensible (and undefended even by you) Get Clinton For Something effort, whatever you want to call it, appearing whole and intact and pure as a gift from the Vindication Fairy, is indeed touching. But you’d do yourself a great deal more good by facing facts, even the ones that go against the view you’d prefer to hold. Several others on this board have been able to do so and admit it, and you can too. But meanwhile, it’s simply more evidence of your self-dupability.
There are 3 possibilities:[ol][li]The WMDs alleged by the Bush administration were actually present before the war, but they were hidden or destroyed or moved out of the country.[]There were no WMDs, but Bush claims accurately represented what his intelligence reports told him.[]Bush lied about what the intelligence reports said.[/ol]We should soon know if #3 is the case, because Bush has given all the intelligence material to the Senate Intelligence Committee. If these reports don’t back up Bush’s claims, then he will be in big trouble, and deservedly so. [/li]
However, if the intelligence reports do support Bush’s statements, then we must find out what happened to the WMDs. Either our intelligence agencies screwed up or a bunch of WMDs are still out there somewhere. Either way, it’s important for us know.
That’s nice. I think that makes you a member of a minority that makes up probably 1% of the population. My point was that even after years of sifting through this man’s personal life they couldn’t even come up with a violation of the law. Instead they found a secret that he was trying to keep. Yes, he lied about it under oath. If lying, under oath or not, were enough to keep a person from being President then no one who ran for the office could be sworn in if they won.
On the whole “under oath” thing. I think our presidents and memebers of congress take a little oath when sworn into office. I would say that everything they do while in office could be charicterized as being subject to that oath. I think with a little digging it could be proven that each and every one of them violates that oath at least weekly.
the one from the Senate is typical:
Well both houses of the legislature have just passed a law that is virtually identical to one deemed unconstitutional by the Supreame Court. I guess in my book that right there blows the oath for anybody who voted for it. This is not an isolated incident either. Many pols make points this way. They knowingly vote for a measure they know won’t pass muster. then when it is struck down they can go back to their constituency and say, “I voted for it but the EVIL Supreame Court shot it down.”
Does knowingly voting for an unconstitutional measure for purely selfish ends, tying up the courts, costing the counrty millions in trying the case, etc, constitute supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States? Or even bearing true faith and allegiance to the same? I’ll leave that up to you.
I couldn’t find a full transcript but I found this:
I take this remark to mean something like “the people making these allegations are the same people that have been after my husband since he announced for president”. On that point I think she’s correct. Timeline. Nothing to apologize for. Regarding the allegations, she was wrong. Regarding the people behind them, she was right. So it’s a wash.
Scylla, you are not helping yourself one bit, pal.
december, that about sums it up, except for this: The war was predicated on Bush’s assertion that Iraq not only had the weapons, but that they were in a condition and quantity and state of control that represented an imminent peril to the security of the United States requiring an immediate preventive invasion. We now know he couldn’t have known that, nor even have honestly thought so. We already therefore know he lied about the most fundamental question about a leader’s most basic responsibility. The real situation on the ground at the time he did so is academic, since it didn’t have any influence on his decisionmaking. Fair enough?
You’re right about this, though: It’s important for us to know.
Scylla, I’m not Elvis, but I’ll give it a shot (I’m feeling brainy right now, is all. I need something to do). This is my interpretation of what Elvis is trying to say. If I’m wrong, so be it:
"Scylla, you are willing to believe that the Monica story appeared out of thin air. Further you believe that it is unrelated to the rest of the indefensible (and even you have not defended it) Get Clinton for Something effort. This Monica story, as you believe and espouse, appeared whole and intact and pure as a gift from the Vindication Fairy. That much is touching.
You would do better to face facts, even those that go against your preferred point of view. You would not be the first on this boards, but you can be the next. Until that time it’s more evidence of your willingness to hold slightly plausible belief as though it were reasonable."
Again, if I’m reading that wrong, please feel free to disregard. I mean no ill will. I’m just seeing if I can clear it up. Sometimes y’all GD people forget to write sentences shorter than Cicero’s paragraphs:D