Did Hillary ever apologize?

The BBQ Pit
81

Actually I was trying to help you by giving you a chance to reconsider your prevarications and false attributions.

I know that it’s been a real problem for you, but you were doing well there for a while so I wanted to give you another chance.

I don’t recall suggesting that the Monica story simply materialized out of thin air, particularly since its origins are well-known, public and verifiable.

Your assertion to the contrary is a false attribution.

Your stipulation that I am unwilling to face facts is also a falsehood. Your personal opinion does not constitute a fact.
As usual, you are not dealing with me in good faith.

82

Oh for fuck’s sake. This kind of futile, hateful nonsense is rapidly convincing me that there’s no room under the Pubbies’ ballyhooed “big tent” for responsible centrists.

Sex on the side in the power corriders of Washington? It’s a long tradition, folks, and certainly not limited to any party. There’s a long history, and not just recent history, of unrepentant horndogs who considered fast women just one of the perks of power along with good booze, “gifts” and massive deference. The thing is, until the Clintons it wasn’t considered a matter of legitimate public concern by the “liberal press” (a ridiculous canard that doesn’t become a whit more convincing by repeated shouting, btw.) Washington insiders and the “liberal” press corps have always known who was getting hot-sheet action on the side; business as usual. Sex–quite quaintly–was considered a private matter, not suitable for scorched earth political attacks.

It took a very ruthless and organized Right to tear down that barrier in pursuit of the Clintons, and then we were all treated to the less than savory intimate details about Newt Gingrich boinking a bimbo while his wife was being treated for cancer, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. The electorate was nearly deafened by the sound of Congressional zippers being hoisted up and the resultant pompous, defensive shouting. Gee whiz, but didn’t that just improve the level of civic discourse? Who cares about boring shit like policies, sound data, real issues that actually affect our nation and the world when we can obsessively stuff our noses into elected crotches?

This is flat-out STUPID and I for one am damned sick of it. No matter the nauseating, hypocritical bleating of the religious right (which has the formerly noble Republican Party firmly in thrall) the sex lives of elected officials just plain ain’t any of my damned business or conern. I don’t give the slightest whoop what use elected officials–Pubbie or Dem–find for their gonads. Like her or hate her, Hillary Clinton should never have had to even publicly acknowledge WJC’s blow job. If she stayed with him, she was 1. a cold, ambitious ballbreaker only out to protect her position; if she left him, she was a cold, ambitious ball-breaker shedding bad baggage. Try winning that one in this ruthless new climate where spin is king.

It just reinforces why I’m an Independent and will remain so. With all the real, weighty problems in the world why the hell has “conservatism” been reduced to this?

Veb

83

again, would love to see the specific claim -

what I recall that she claimed is that while she was staying at some hotel, he came to visit her room, upon entering, pulled his pants down and offered her the pleasure of giving him a blow job. She declined.

and, as I recall, the judge agreed that it was absolutely boorish behavior but in no fucking way (my words, not the judges) is that rape, by any stretch of the imagination. I’ve never heard the claim that Paula claimed he so much as laid a hand on her.

his proclivities and sexual practices might have been germain, had they been related to. You could potentially use prior events to demonstrate a proclivity, but I think you’re hard pressed to demonstrate a tendancy towards something by using examples that happened afterward. For example - I’ve been known to drink alcohol and have sex, both after I turned 18. You would be wrong to attempt to use either to demonstrate that maybe I did have sex and drink before I turned 18.

december - I’ve used the word ‘conspiracy’ myself both in a joking and non joking manner personally, and never once did I mean what would be chargable as a criminal act. The conspiracy, in order for it to be criminal, must involve a crime at some point. We can conspire all we want to plan golf outings w/o our spouse’s knowledge etc. My father conspired on a regular basis with my brother to bring exotic fish into the house w/o my mother’s knowledge. It wasn’t a criminal act at all.

and, re: a ‘vast left wing conspiracy’ conspiring against Nixon - bwhahahaha. well, if there was one, they were too busy getting laid/stoned to notice the dirty tricks Nixon was using in the campaign (capped off by Watergate). Did liberals/dems in general plan together and act in consort w/each other to defeat Nixon at the polls. Absolutely. was it criminal? not at all.

84

Yes, “conspiracy” is often used jokingly. E.g., the poopular “Volokh Conspiracy” so-called because it’s shared by a group of bloggers.

Of course, Hillary Clinton wasn’t joking.

I fully agree. That’s my point.

85

???

sorry does not compute. Your position seems to have been that Hillary’s comment about a ‘conspiracy’ had to have meant a criminal type of one. You’ve not demonstrated that it does.

86

So 99% of the population lies under oath, cheats on their taxes, or engages in insider-trading?

87

Until now, my participation in this thread has been to defend a Democrat, strongly suggesting that an apology from Mrs. Clinton was not remotely required.

Now it’s time to switch hats, I guess.

“Under oath” is a VERY relevant distinction to make. It transforms a perfectly legal lie into an illegal one. If Mr. Clinton had merely given press conferences denying his involvement with Ms. Lewinsky, he woulod not have been impeached.

I agree that lying to the public is reprehensible, but it has never been an impeachable offense. All three impeachment “incidents” in US history (the actual impeachment of Johnson and Clinton and the almost-impeachment of Nixon) were predicated on the President’s violation of law. Lying on TV, or to other nations, to secure support for a war, as bad as it is, is simply not impeachment material.

  • Rick
88

Yes. I do apologize.

Quasi

89

Until now, my participation in this thread has been to defend a Democrat, strongly suggesting that an apology from Mrs. Clinton was not remotely required.

Now it’s time to switch hats, I guess.

“Under oath” is a VERY relevant distinction to make. It transforms a perfectly legal lie into an illegal one. If Mr. Clinton had merely given press conferences denying his involvement with Ms. Lewinsky, he woulod not have been impeached.

I agree that lying to the public is reprehensible, but it has never been an impeachable offense. All three impeachment “incidents” in US history (the actual impeachment of Johnson and Clinton and the almost-impeachment of Nixon) were predicated on the President’s violation of law. Lying on TV, or to other nations, to secure support for a war, as bad as it is, is simply not impeachment material.

  • Rick
90

She wasn’t writing a brief. She was speaking to a lay audience. It’s not my job to do anything but show that her use of the word is an accepted definition, and made sense in the context in which she used it. To rebut, it’s to you to show why it ISN’T possible that she merely referred to a group of people acting towards a common, legal goal.

Yes.

How interesting. Well, then I suppose you and Mrs. Clinton have different choices in how you express yourselves. Imagine that. I expect we’d find you wear different shoe sizes, as well.

  • Rick
91

I doubt that. I suspect thta living my life in conformity with the law makes me a member of a comfortable majority.

You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would not be sucessful.

Each branch of government has a duty to interpret the Constitution. While I agree that a legislator that votes for a law he believes is violative of the Constitution is violating his oath, a legislator that votes for a law that the Supreme Court has struck down is not violating his oath. On the contrary, he is exercising his duty as a member of the legislative branch. It is not at all uncommon for legislatures to “tweak” laws that did not pass Constitutional muster in an effort to effectuate their original intent. That’s not oath-breaking.

  • Rick
92

Ref: rape.

Those who are bandying the term ‘rape’ around may be thinking of Juanita Broaddrick, who claimed Mr. Clinton raped her years ago.

I never found Ms. Broaddrick’s accusations credible, for what it’s worth.

93

Hey, Jesus! Bring that adulterous woman back here! I just found a guy who can cast the first stone!

94

For fuck’s sake, Dr. Rieux, don’t be a dick.

95

Brilliant observation, Dr. Rieux, if I had been talking about sin. Since the discussion referred to federal LAW, and since Jesus talked about those without SIN, I’d say it’s a rather inapposite comparison.

Wouldn’t you?

96

First of all, I do not claim any intelligence here…this strikes me as a GD thread moved to the Pit in order to allow people to give free reign to their emotions. Of which, of course, I have plenty.

So here is my take on the situation. Supported by everything I have read for the past ten years. And NO I am not going to give you a “cite” which is why I no longer go into GD…so kindly don’t ask for one. If I have to come up with every single news item I have read that supports my beliefs, I’ll have to quit my job in order to search for all of them. And then who is going to pay the mortgage?

It is no one’s business who President Clinton stuck his dick into…NOR does it matter that he DID SO. It really doesn’t concern anyone except for his wife and child. THEY are intimately affected. AND they have my complete sympathy.

The fact that Paula Jones et al didn’t appear have any problem with whatever happened between them and Bill Clinton AT THE TIME leads me to believe that A) Either NOTHING happened or B) Whatever DID happen was consentual.

Don’t talk to me about sexual harassment. Most of these women…all of them really, so far as I can discern… wouldn’t have been directly affected by anything that did or didn’t happen between Clinton and them. Sexual harrassment is when you feel that you HAVE to do whatever your “boss” tells you to or lose your job. Ummmm…did any of these women who came forward…AFTER Bill Clinton became president, not before [sub]although the alleged incidents happened LONG before he became Pres[/sub] go to the police? Did any of them press ANY kind of civil or criminal action toward Clinton AT THE ALLEGED TIME? Excuse me VERY much…if someone had coerced me into having sex with them, which is NEVER going to happen, I would have done something about it AT THE TIME!!! Wouldn’t YOU? Give me a large break.

And the introduction into this thread of RAPE is laughable, IMHO.

What we have here is several women who decided…LONG after the fact…that there was some kind of benefit TO THEMSELVES to be made by “coming forward NOW” :rolleye: and bringing charges against a man who had something to lose.

Allow me to express some major scepticism.

And then there are the people who tried to impeach him. Well, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt insofar as they TRIED REALLY hard to find something they could impeach him for…but since they couldn’t really find anything that mattered, they latched onto this perjury thing.

You know, I have always felt that the questions concerning Monica Lewinsky should NOT have been allowed in the first place. What kind of relevence did those questions have to this inquiry? None, that is what.

I never understood why Clinton didn’t just say “This question has no relevance to the investigation so I decline to answer.” But an attorney friend kindly informed me that if you answer ANY question that the Grand Jury asks, you cannot decline to answer anything else. Come on now…talk about a rock and a hard place. I mean, I have to say…if you HAVE to answer a question because you CANNOT decline to answer it, and you love your wife and child and don’t WANT to hurt them…what would YOU do? You would, if you were intellligent enough and knew the law enough…form your answer in such a way as to “skirt” the law and still hope to avoid hurting your wife and child.

If you think you would do anything else in this situation, then you are in denial. I am not saying you would ever DO anything that would place you in this situation, but if for some reason you FOUND yourself in this predicament…I doubt you would do it any different.

Then we come to the perjury thing. Well, the legal definition appears to be that oral sex is NOT legally defined as “sex.” I think that has been pretty much established. So…LEGALLY, Clinton didn’t perjure himself. Morally, of course, is a different thing…but once again, only the concern of his family.

Here ARE the facts. This country entered the Bush adminstration with a balanced budget. This country now no longer HAS a balanced budget. Furthermore, I heard the other day that this last bill that the administration signed allowed the national debt to increase by a trillion dollars. Oh, and we are all going to get yet another “tax refund”. Um…excuse me? We are increasing the national debt, but we are going to get tax refunds?

The money is going to have to come frome SOMEWHERE…and where is it going to come from? Well, the money has to come from somewhere, so I suppose we will have to cut social services. “Of course, even after doing THAT, we are still going to be zillions of dollars in debt. Oh well.”

So, the poor are probably going to suffer so the rich can hang onto their money and our President can get re-elected. And I don’t think the rest of us (those not rich) are going to fare all that well either. JMHO.

This whole thing makes me sick.

And you know what is funny (for me at least) is that I am really non-partison. I vote for the person and the platform, NOT the “party line.” But I cannot with any conscience support this regime…except for the fact that he IS president of my country, and I DO support my country.

What a mess. (IMHO)

97

Don’t laugh, I know a young man that actually believes this. And not only that, but that NOW organized it and are the ones that actually have the power in the country. (and they have the power so that they can use the aborted fetal tissue for medical research, black market tissue etc).

Don’t worry, I don’t know him IRL, but only online. He’s sweet, but very deluded.

98

iampunha, thanks for clarifying a run-on sentence whose meaning was certainly clear enough for anyone.

quasi, you’re a mensch, and others could profit by your example.

99

Craig Crawford, columnist for Congressional Quarterly, had this to say in a (subscription only) article last night:

She has until October to file for the New Hampshire primary.

And, as reminder to the usual suspects who will no doubt gnash their teeth and spout frothy things like, “couldn’t possibly happen,” or “there’s no way the American people are stupid enough to elect that clown,” I’ll just point out that the clown suit is currently rented, know what I’m sayin’?

100

Speaking of apologies- when Clinton bombed Iraq various high ranking Republicans claimed he was “wagging the dog” and we shouldn’t have bombed them or Al Queda. Seeing Bush later invaded Iraq even though nothing changed but the health of the economy, I am expecting those apologies to Clinton and the American people any day now.

Cites:

http://slate.msn.com/id/11384/

http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm

http://www.conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm

Feel the Irony-- feel it:

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1999/mar99/psrmar99.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/eafricabombing/stories/decision082198.htm

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/12/cov_17newsb.html

And I wonder what a search of “wag the dog” would bring up here. Seeing Al Queda and Iraq are now deemed such critical threats, and alledge non-complance with UN resolutions are now ground for an invasion versus missle strikes and am sure all those Republicans will now apologize for their treasonous(1) political outbursts.
(1) irony fully intended.