Wow. Just wow. I always let Hillary slide with her odd notion of a vast conpiracy because I assume she usually means it in terms of a political machine. But this claim is absolutely incredible.
Jumped the Shark indeed.
The claim was that Ken Starr never found any wrongdoing. Even the civil sanction did not amount to a criminal conviction.
Ken Starr came up empty in Whitewater and had no choice but to resort to the blow job perjury trap. Starr was not a finder of fact for anything, just a prosecutor- or more accurately, a partisan hired thug. His accusations of “deception” (which included the very serious charge that Clinton lied about whether or not he had sucked Ms. Lewinski’s titty) were completely repudiated by a the impeachment trial and that’s that. The obstruction charges were a joke from the beginning and were never substantiated in any way.
Except he was AQCQUITTED of telling “big fat lies.”
Not that lying about sucking a titty is much of a crime. That’s the problem for your side. History is going to make the impeachers look like desperate, childish, voyeristic, hypocritical partisan morons especially in comparison to a guy who lied his way into a war. You want to talk about a POTUS being remembered for a lie? Think WMD, not BJ.
Is this post your membership application?
No, lieu said he was never charged. He wasn’t. What officer of the court could have done that with a straight face?
He wasn’t. He turned his license in voluntarily - wasn’t ever going to use it again anyway.
He did, but made the political decision to reply to political prosecution in a political way.
Are you claiming that Starr told the truth, the whole truth, etc.? Are you willing to let him do your thinking for you? Are you claiming that that pervert had not spent all those years and all those millions trying to find something to get Clinton for, and had failed in every other try? Oh, yes, you are - you listed all that in your “bill of indictment” a few posts earlier, as well as a few things that were beneath even him, and in fact beneath everyone but the WSJ editorial page. That shit, inescapably, must have had even less behind it than the consensual act that gets you excited, huh?
I can only imagine what that feeling must have been like - all those years of just knowing Clinton was a crook, knowing he was evil, and, frustratingly, not having the facts to back it up. But, suddenly, there’s a blue dress - oh, salvation! Hallelujah! Blessed vindication! We knew it all along! Why, oh why won’t those Demmies understand the pure, concentrated evil that they’ve been supporting so blindly? Since they’ll obviously never understand, we’ll have to go ahead without them and go ahead with the impeachment our political strategists planned so long ago.
You really need to broaden your sources beyond Coulter / O’Reilly screeds. Try Brock’s *Blinded by the Right * and Conason’s The *Hunting of the President * for a start. Report back to us when you’re more educated, m’kay?
If they were demonstrable, no doubt you’d be able to demonstrate them. But, as we know as well as you, you cannot. All you have is invective and spittle.
Try a different approach, one that *considers * the facts and their context, and maybe *you * could rescue *your * reputation.
You need it more.
You guys really believe this? That so-called “boom” proved to be merely the reverberation of the bubble bursting. The crash of the telecom market, from which it still struggles to recover, is directly attributable to that “boom.” The empty retirement accounts of numberless Americans are a directly attributable result of that “boom.” The widespread effects of corporation boardmembers manipulting their stock prices, and loss of faith in the stock markets and regulation thereof, is a legacy of that “boom.” It’s the catastrophic bursting of that hellish bubble that haunts the denizens of the markets to this day and has directly caused the extended economic doldrums we still find ourselves in. You guys gripe about the net job loss under Dubya; the reason companies are afraid to make permanent hires is the bursting of that bubble. Nobody and no company wants to go through that nightmare again.
The “boom” during the Clinton presidency was a “boom” in exactly the same way tulip speculation in Holland in the 1500’s was a “boom.” The same way the South Sea Bubble was a “boom” in Britain in 1720. The “boom” was nothing more than greed (something that all of you seem to have forgotten was so bad and loudly deplored by the left during the Reagan era) and speculation run rampant. It was nothing more than a chimera. You guys are nuts if you believe that “boom” has proved to be beneficial in any long-term fashion.
Fortunately for all of you though, Clinton had not a damned thing to do with it.
Good, can we finally get over the fact that the market boomed, busted, and corrected? I’m getting sick of everyone trying to claim credit for a new tech field opening and closing then steadying.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
I didn’t say after he lost reelection, I said he stayed up all night pardoning criminals on his last night in office when it would be too late for anyone to say or do anything about it (or to create consequences as a result of it), which he did. At least Bush had the balls to do it before sneaking out the door the next morning. And I don’t see any FBI top ten fugitives on this list, do I?
snip…
You’re right…GHWB didn’t do it on his last night. He pardoned his buddies in the illegal enterprise on his next to last night. No top 10 fugitives. But he sure cleared up Iran/Contra didn’t he?.
Give me a break.
The point is you said you couldn’t imagine any president doing and it turns out the daddy of your inspiration did it.
/QUOTE]
Just as a point-of-reference, can you tell us one major policy area in which the current President or his administration haven’t told lies or deceptions about? My guess is that we might be able to find some area…but I’ll be damned if I can think of it!
I think GeeDubya has been fairly straightforward on his plans for faith-based initiatives.
Aside from that…
Sure. As soon as the leftists who’re claiming the economic “boom” of the Clinton era is something to crow about. I didn’t bring it up, remember. I merely pointed out the facts about that “boom,” and showed it ain’t the huge success, (not to mention accomplishment for Clinton) the lefties enjoy trumpeting.
Reeder, rjung, jsore, et al? Eh? Wassup? I thought you guys found it disingenuous when people brought up Clinton’s record in arguments about the (many) shortcomings of the current Bush administration. And yet here we find you guys centering on Bush in a debate about the Clinton legacy. If you guys wanna claim the high road, as you seem so often apt to do, then you might wanna consider a path other than the Lower Tu Quoque Trail here.
Because that, and revisionist history, is all they got.
It was rjung, and he did not say he was never charged. He said Ken Starr concluded that Clinton did nothing wrong. And unfortunately -
[ul][li]Ken Starr did find wrongdoing, as cited[/li][li]Clinton was charged, which is what an impeachment consists of[/li][li]The judge who found that Clinton knowingly made false and misleading statements under oath was an officer of the court[/ul] [/li]
Already done. Read the cites.
If a single word of your post was true, I must have missed it.
That’s the trouble with Clinton. In order to try to rehabilitate the liar, you turn into a liar.
OK, for ElvisL1ves, that’s not much of a switch. But still…
Which I already showed was false. Ken Starr found that Clinton had lied under oath. So did the judge in his civil trial. So did the Supreme Court in their deliberations on whether to disbar him from arguing before them.
And that’s the problem for your side. You have to start by denying that he lied, and then immediately flip-flop and admit that he did, but lying isn’t a bad thing.
It’s an argument which is dishonest, and stupid. It tends to make those who make the argument look like blind, partsian morons.
If that’s what you want…
Regards,
Shodan
It’s impossible.
Clinton brought more shame and dishonor on the Presidency than any other President in history. No amount of partisanship spin will change that. We already know he’s a liar. The only people who will buy his book are those who are too lacking in their own personal integrity to care.
The Infamous Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. ROTFLMAO!
Clinton, as the sitting President, committed perjury while in office. That’s a felony. He was quite correctly impeached by the House and if the Senate had had any integrity, he would have been removed from office as he should have been.
And he wasn’t even a “moderately decent President”. Read Dereliction of Duty by Robert Patterson, the guy who carried the nuclear “football” for Clinton. That’ll open your eyes.
Wrong. Ken Starr alleged that BC lied under oath. Starr was a prosecutor, not a finder of fact. Prosecutors do not “find” for guilt. They only press charges. This particular prosecutor was hired specifically to trump up any charge he could possibly concoct to get Bill Clinton. He failed. Congress found that BC did not lie under oath and that’s the end of it.
I never admitted he lied about titty sucking. I don’t know if he sucked her titty. I just said it’s a chickenshit reason to impeach a president. Since he was acquitted of lying about titty sucking then, legally, he didn’t commit the crime.
But even if he HAD lied about sucking a titty it’s an asinine thing to impeach him for and the Pubs who did it will be remembered by history as buffoons.
Um…nope, sorry. Never happened. No such conviction is on record.
Please. You know what a cite is. The “cites” you claim consist of a list of “-gate” names, might as well have been cribbed from Coulter, combined with a few blustering assertions. No facts at all.
You switched your pronouns there.
Watch it, amigo.
Actually it’s not “the end of it” ---- Clinton was the first US president in history to be found in contempt of court. Clinton was suspended from the practice of law in Arkansas and in the US Supreme Court and other the other federal courts. Clinton was also fined $90,000 by Judge Wright and $25,000 by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Typically, those things don’t happen once it’s “the end of it.”
Go talk to David Brock, then, since he worked for the conspiracy.
And Shodan, I’m still wondering how six instances of “misleading statements” equates to “lying about everything under the sun,” as you alleged originally. Or are you going to duck the issue again by simply mentioning “Ken Starr” every chance you get, while overlooking the fact that Starr was anything but an “independent” prosecutor?
Well, I don’t think I have ever been against intelligent comparisons between the Bush and Clinton Administrations or any other comparisons if I consider them to be well-made and apt to the discussion at hand. And, I think when the discussion at hand is honesty, it is important to make comparisons.
Has Clinton shown that he can be a lying / deceiving SOB on the subject of who is filandering with? Absolutely. (Although I would argue whether some of the specific instances were true lies…e.g., one of my ex-girlfriends doesn’t count me amongst the men that she has slept with since we never had sexual intercourse…This seems a fairly prevalent def’n even if I think it is a little stupid.)
And, after that Monica Lewinsky thing broke, I swore I would never get sexually involved with that guy! 
[Actually, I probably already knew that before.] Do I think it reflects badly on his character? Sure, but the sad fact in politics seems to be that almost nobody in it is completely “clean” on the lies and deception issue so you have to choose amongst the lesser of evils.
Clinton governed for 8 years and while I am sure he wasn’t 100% honest on policy issues, he didn’t freakin’ lie and distort with practically ever sentence out of his mouth like our current President. And, that for me matters a hell of a lot more than what he does in his personal life and what he says about it because I wasn’t electing Clinton to be my lover; I was electing him to be my President.
Right-wingers: you can’t have it both ways. You can’t pretend to be “outraged” about Clinton’s “lying under oath”, and at the same time regard Oliver North as a hero, when he did the same thing (lied under oath).
You seem to regard someone who lied under oath about violating the U.S. Constitution as an American Hero, while you regard someone who lied under oath about a blowjob as “unfit to be president”.
You may not see a logical error with this position, but future generations surely will.
Stop right there. You need to start by showing that the people you are addressing hold the views you are about to lambast. Now, if you want to lambast Jesse Helms for supporting Oliver North, fine. Of course, you’ll have to show that Jesse Helms is someone who also condems Clinton for lying. But that should not be too hard.
In the mean time, you cannot complain about DOPER right wingers support of North and condmenation of Clinton unless you can show that there are those who do.