If he didn’t do the crime, why did he cop to it, and give up his law license over it?
CS
Your link says he admitted to giving false testimony under oath. As much as dictionary.com and you would like to believe it, that is not necessarily, legally, perjury.
If you have a cite saying Clinton admitted to perjury, I’d certainly be interested to read it.
:rolleyes: See post #97, and read it carefully this time!
It is absolutely amazing to me that, in point of fact, and not as a spoof, a thread dealing with the issue of whether Mr. Bush should be impeached got hijacked by Mr. Clinton getting impeached [del]for a blowjob{/del] [del]for perjury[/del] for lying under oath. It’s like a deadpan parody acted out by all the members.
He didn’t admit to perjury and he wasn’t convicted or even charged with it.
Somehow it always seems to happen that way . . .
But then, what more can be said about W? No one in this thread appears interested in defending him from a charge of incompetence. The only question remaining is whether he can be impeached for incompetence, and we’ve already established that’s an indeterminate question, and a moot one so long as the Pubs control both houses of Congress.
Which leaves the Fellatiogate hijack as, well, a more interesting topic for discussion.
How is it amazing? On what other basis would you define impeachability other than recent precedent?
It is amazing that anyone would even vaguely suggest ignoring the standards defined by Bush’s own party, which defined its claim to the Presidency largely on the basis of Clinton’s conduct in office and can hardly claim exemption from it now.
If you have any more substantive standard to offer in its place, let’s have it, by all means. If you simply wish to snipe, this is not the forum.
My full apologies for the “hijack”. Question though, on this board are the Bush-Bash threads on a regular schedule, or are they just at random?
Curious,
Carol
You should’a been here for the election(s)!
Every hour on the hour. 
(only slightly joking)
We are actually in a bit of a lull period atm to be honest. In addition, several of the more rabid anti-Bushco folks have left the building…and so we are left with the less rabid (and thus more rational) anti-Bush folks these days.
Of course, saying that…I’m not big fan of Bush myself. 
-XT
Probably the latter, but what does it matter?! Bush-bashing is always appropriate! And will remain so so long as the shitbag remains in office.
Remember, Carol, the SDMB remains open to anyone who can pay the subscription, has regular access to an Internet-linked computer, and is capable of reading and writing/typing in English. Those are the only selection biases. If those biases appear to produce ant-Bush results, that reflects worse on Bush than on anyone or anything else, and you know it precious well!
There are usually three or four active threads in GD devoted to the topic at any given moment, a few more in the Pit, and nearly every political thread contains some attacks on Bush and/or the war in Iraq. Some Dopers essentially have nothing else to say.
The current thread is a representative example of how it generally runs.
Welcome to the SDMB, but if you decide to join, be aware that much of the board hates Bush and Republicans with a passion that goes almost beyond parody.
Regards,
Shodan
Not so.
The Internet is full of message/discussion boards. I came here first because I was a fan of Cecil’s print column, which ran in the Washington, DC, City Paper - an alternative paper with a decidedly left-wing slant. Cecil’s home base was and is the Chicago Reader, another alternative paper also not known for their right-wing affections.
Because this please is so closely associated with Cecil Adams, and because Cecil’s work is (sadly) more readily available to those inclined to peruse alternative papers, there’s a rather large selection criteria that might tend to produce a more liberal sample.
I was particularly struck by this -
addressed to a Guest. How interesting that BrainGlutton knows immediately what is in the mind of everyone who joins the board.
It seems to be an assertion that anyone who happens across this messageboard had better accept the blind assertions of the Bush-haters, or risk having everything they post be interpreted as an expression of bad faith.
Which is one of the other “selection biases” of this board.
And lots of others, of course.
Regards,
Shodan
A lot of the Bush bashing on this board comes from conservatives and independents and people who would normally vote Republican, so maybe, just MAYBE, Bush himself has something to do with it. The guy just objectively sucks, man. Whining that all his criticism can be dismissed as mere partisan sniping sounds like (and basically IS) partisan whining in itself.
No, not really.
Regards,
Shodan
Cute, Shodan. First, you and I used to share a broad range of interests, and I’d encounter you participating in threads on many of them. I still am active in them. But guess what topic you seem to have specialized in, from my perspective?
Second, I’m on record in this and several previous threads in saying that you better have damn good grounds for impeachment, not just “This guy’s politics pisses me off, and here’s an arguably illegal action I can use as pretext.” Third, I’ve complimented Bush for (1) how he handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11, (2) his “guest worker” proposals addressing the illegal immigration problem, and at least one or two other actions he’s taken that I approved of. If I believe that in general, he’s lost track of some of the principles underlying this country and others that define what he should be doing in his job, I think I have a right to say so.
Third, while Diogenes overstates things slightly, he has a point. Both nationally and on this board, some of the people who self-identify as thinking conservatives have found themselves questioning and criticizing Mr. Bush. There are reasons for that, that it might do you well to examine.
Fourth, this entire sidelight is founded on my wry observation about the Clinton “perjury” hijack. And it is a standard of political disagreement 21st century style that whenever Mr. Bush is criticized, someone finds a way to insert William Jefferson Clinton, formerly 42nd President of the U.S.A., and his nefarious misdeeds real or imagined, as a sort of tu quoque gimmick.
If you want to become involved in a debate on any or all of Mr. Bush’s policies, then argue about those policies. Not about how this board is full of Bush-bashers, not about how Mr. Clinton once did something similar. About what Mr. Bush or his Administration actually did, or is alleged to have done, and whether it was proper or not, or whether it will accomplish desired goals or not.
Regards,
Poly
A curious mix of accuracy and inaccuracy. The only sentence above I disagree with completely is: “The guy just objectively sucks, man.” I’m not aware of any objective criteria by which you can make this statement.
But the underlying point of your message is correct: criticism of President Bush is not simply partisan whining. There are plenty of reasons for a fair-minded, non-partisan observer to criticize him. Indeed, I’m a fan of the administration, for the most part, and I have many areas that I believe Bush is fairly subject to criticism on. The death penalty, for example, is in my view an abomination for a civilized society, and Bush has shown absolutely zero interest in toning down the bloodthirsty interest in it.
But I distinguish between criticism on an issue, and a claim that there are some set of objective criteria that, when Bush is measured against them, result in a “sucks” evaluation. Even the death penalty is a subjective issue – I agree that fair-minded people may reach a different conclusion than I.
I don’t pretend to share BrainGlutton’s talent for mind-reading, but ISTM that you’re still cheesed off about losing the election. That seems to be the topic on which you respond to my posts with the most irritation.
But, as I say, I can’t be sure.
Well, that’s good. I, on the other hand, have criticized Bush on a variety of topics. Which is also my right, as is my right to point most of the bullshit from the really convinced Bush-haters. Not that you are necessarily one of those.
On the other hand, if you can find some instance where I have told you that you had no right to criticize the President, I will withdraw and apologize. I rather think you cannot.
I do remember at least one instance where someone else called me “a bad American” because I declined to take Jimmy Carter’s word for it that he was being entirely non-partisan.
:shrugs:
This notion that only the anti-Bush side is nuanced or thoughtful is pretty silly. Much of the anti-Bush sentiment on this board in general is visceral rather than rational. I’m sorry if it upsets you when I point that out, and I am not necessarily talking about you when I do it.
Certainly. Although isn’t it interesting that the first mention of the Lewinsky scandal came from that noted pro-Bush fanatic Cisco? 
Carol Stream asked a question; I answered it. If you have an objection to my post, feel free to report it.
But come on. Is your skin really that thin when it happens that I dismiss 50% of the Bush-bashing on this board as not worthy of serious attention?
Regards,
Shodan
That may be true in general, but in the specifics of this topic (impeachment) it is invariably someone who insists that Clinton was impeached for a “blowjob” who derails the thread since then it’s necessary to go thru the whole debate about perjury again. And it you go back through this thread, you’ll see that is exactly what happened here (I don’t count Cisco’s post since no one really responded to it):
You can’t blame folks like Airman Doors for fighting ignorance.