You just keep exposing your own ignorance and political prejudice. Is it really your contention that Clinton was not impeached for grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice? Was this only something Limbaugh said? (Just for the record, and contrary to the erroneous stereotypical image you apear to keep in mind, I neither listen to Limbaugh nor drink Cool-Aid. I come up with this stuff all by myself, thank you very much. These things are perfectly obvious.)
And what does politics have to do with it, as far as your line of reasoning is concerned? He broke the law! He lied to a federal grand jury! You don’t get to decide for yourself when you’re going to tell the truth and when it’s okay to lie to federal investigators. He knew that; he was a lawyer and an officer of the court! Hell, yeah, if you do things like that your political opponents are going to jump on it. Remember Nixon? He wasn’t drummed out of office by the country’s Republicans.
The lack of discernment is clearly in your court, my friend.
Thank you for re-finding that for us, Mr. Svinlesha. Bush had been waging a 'war of words" and veiled (or not) threats against Iraq and Saddam, for supposedly having WMD and for just being a bad man in general. After 9/11, he invented a link between Saddam and Bin Laden. When that proved unmarketable, he flipflopped to America, Freedom, haters, Gawd, stay the course, meeble meeble meeble. He alternated between Kill Osama" and "He isn’t viable anymore (unimportant). If memory serves right, during the debates, he even said Saddam had attacked us (?). The Downing Street memo and the writings of Lt Col Kwiatkowski support my supposition. The UN and CIA reports on WMD that came out stated an awful lot of “none found” “none indicated” “no capability” etc. He (Bush) wanted war. Plain and simple. He would lie to get one, as Sam Stone has clearly stated. Sam even traced all the circles Bush went through and his assessment looks pretty accurate (if cynical).
It should be noted that this sort of idea may not even have originated with the NeoConservative movement, but instead with Lemnitzer and his “Operation Northwoods”. If credible, that plan entailed the deliberate attack of US citizens by their own government, in order to generate a “reason” to invade Cuba during the Kennedy years.
So, it is not that far a fetch for me. If not absolute fact, it sure leaves a lot of questions about the “purity of intent”.
To start with, this is a post hoc line of thinking; just because what happened in Libya and Lebanon happened after Afghanistan and Iraq doesn’t mean they happened because of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Second, as I understand it, Lebanese started acting to end the Syrian presence when their PM was killed. How exactly do the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan apply here?
Libya was in conversation with the Clinton administration about redefining their relationships. (Gaddafi condemned the attacks before the end of the day on September 11.)
Syria has been in conversation with Israel about changes in policy toward Israel and Lebannon since prior to the death of the elder al-Asad–actually for nearly ten years, now.
It is possible that the invasion of Iraq may have either hastened or delayed events that were already in motion; we really do not yet know.
However, a declaration that one led to the other (barring any real information) is simply an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Impeachment is, by its very nature, a political act. It’s not a judicial action, even though it has many of the trappings of one. Yes, of course Clinton was impeached because of perjury. But that doesn’t mean it was not a political act, which it most certainly was. Clinton’s mistake was to lie about a “scandalous” sex act. Had his lie been about something mundane, the impeachment would never have flown.
So, in a sense, the blowjob was indeed central to the impeachment process, even though it was not technically the reason for it.
Merely saying he was banned for a DIFFERENT rules violation than being rude/insulting/troll like/etc to other posters old boy (which seemed to be the reasons, loosely speaking, for the other bannings). No need to get defensive…I’m the LAST person on this board who is going to scream about Mod bias. Check out how many pit threads I’ve started about Mods. Think you guys do a hell of a job…keep up the good work and all that.
In non-fawning mode: Sorry for the confusion there…wasn’t meant to be a dig at you or anyone Tom.
You say “we just don’t know either way” right after posting that the lack of body parts strewn in the streets that things are safer. Which one is it?
If the CIA or FBI was penetrating terror cells prior to thing such as the Patriot Act and all those things you admire so much, would they have told us? If not, how do you know they weren’t happening before?
You argue that anything you don’t know is obviously good for your side but, admitting you don’t know, the other side obviously can’t be correct.
Congratuations. I think you’ve discovered anti-logic.
But we don’t say: “Mary Kay Latourneau was thrown in jail just because she fell in love.”
Although we could say that MKL’s falling in love was central to the set of circumstances, although it was not, technically, the reason for her imprisonment.
We don’t say that because, although technically true, it suggests something that isn’t true. MKL was jailed because her falling in love, a generally legal act, led her into a situation in which she had sex with an underage person - an illegal act.
Mr. Clinton was impeached because his receiving a BJ, a generally legal act, led him into a situation in which he lied to a grand jury, an illegal act.
And that’s all true, also. But I don’t think legal and impeachment analogies work very well due to the (highly) political nature of the latter. Clinton’s impeachment hinged on several political aspects: the “scandalous” nature of the act, and the partisan efforts of the Republicans in Congress. No one need to be “out to get” MLK, as almost anyone would have been prosecuted for what she did under almost any circumstances.
But it certainly is an inaccurate statement to say “Clinton was impeached because of a blowjob”. That alone would not have done it. His impeachment was, however, an action looking for an excuse-- ie, a political act more than anything else.
Nixon wasn’t drummed out by Democrats either. It was very obvious that he was about to be impeached and removed from office by a bi-partisan vote. My clearest memories of the impeachment hearings were questions from Republican Senator Howard Baker, assisted by counsel and future Republican Senator Fred Thompson. It was Thompson’s suggestion that elicited the information about the existence of Oval Office tapes.
Don’t let anyone convince you that this was not bi-partisan. Even Nixon admitted that he was the “architect” of his own fall.
There was every reason to believe that Nixon would be brought up on criminal charges – so much so that President Gerald Ford pardoned him before charges could be brought. That was for the good of the country and most of the Democrats that I knew who were tired of seeing the country in shambles agreed with that decision.
Think you guys do a hell of a job…keep up the good work and all that.