They were not putting money in to their own pockets - they were trying to save some hostages and fund the “good guys”
I’m not rabidly anti-Clinton, but I don’t like the guy. Mostly because he took credit for things that had nothing to do with him.
The economy was strong. Sure it was. Since the president has no direct effect on the economy, I got tired of hearing how it was his presidency that kept it strong. The president does not make laws that strengthen the economy. He got in on the upswing of the economy after a recession. By the same token, he got in post-war, when economies have traditionally strengthened.
The most positive thing that can be said is that he knew enough not to screw with things when they were going well. As far as him being a strong leader that took bold steps regarding healthcare, foriegn policy, Social Security, etc… let’s face it, we’re not talking about Roosevelt or Lincoln or even Nixon. That’s my take on his politics. Personally, I think he’s a dork. He lied when it suited his purpose, and saw no problem abusing his position when he could.
Okay Blown & Injected isn’t responding. Can anyone tell me what the hell he was referring to with the bit about being kicked out of school? Honestly?
Once again, life imitates art. From ‘Animal House’:
Bluto Blutarsky (John Belushi): Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell, no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he’s rolling.
I was waiting for someone to say that – thank you.
It WAS all about the blowjob. The fuel that drives the fires of Republican ire about Clinton was the thought of Monica Lewinsky and Cliinton having adult fun in the White House.
Let me say it again: It was about the blowjob, the blowjob, the blowjob! The Repugs tried to IMPEACH Clinton over a blowjob – not anything else. I have a VERY CLEAR memory of those many outraged comments by Repug partisans during those years. I have a VERY CLEAR memory about reading of the Repug “elves” working to make the blowjob a national obsession.
What a feeling it must have been when you Repubs went right to the brink and over on the BLOWJOB issue and the American people didn’t follow you.
It was all about the blowjob, and in my mind, Repugs will always be all about THE BLOWJOB!
I guess we will have to wait until 2049 for all the “secret” impeachment evidence against Clinton is made public. This evidence is stored in the Ford building, and it supposedly is what caused the democrats that voted for impeachment to do so. Sadly, not one Senator bothered to view the evidence.
For the guy asking about expellation from oxford, i’m looking for something. I am not sure he was expelled, but the stories I recall say that after yet another sexual assault he was asked to leave.
One thing no one here has mentioned is Juanita Broaderick. Do no Dems believe her story? What about all the others? I can post a list, or a link to an incredibly complete anti-clinton site where you just might learn a thing or two about your hero.
I want to say a few other things too.
For those comparing Clintons scandals to Iran-contra. First of all, I do not recall any allegations of cocaine smuggling or “weapons of mass destruction”. Second, Clintons scandals were about personal gain, I-C was about saving Americans held hostage and improving the security of our country, by means that unfortunately were illegal to do at the time (though the Pres could have changed that with executive decree, but that would have blown the secrecy. I think a major changing point in my life was watching Ollie North testify. Here I am, a dope smoking tree hugging college student, and there is this guy standing up straight, looking the court in the eye, and saying in effect “yes, i did it, because I thought it was a good idea and the right thing to do”. I have always admired him for that even though I am sure he covered up for others above him and took the fall.
On the subject of cocaine, you people are so quick to allege against GWB, with zero evidence or anyone who actually says they know of anything, yet there is an FBI tape of Roger Clinton saying to a dealer “gotta get some for my brother, he has a nose like a vacuum cleaner”. What about that, or would you rather just pretend that there isn’t mountains of evidence that has always been ignored when it comes to your golden boy.
this site is a catalog of articles and information about all the scandals against clinton. Surely many are bogus, are circumstantial at best, or outright fabrications. But there is an undoubted consistency to many of the scandal lines. If you dare, spend some time looking at these articles and then tell us why we shouldn’t hate all that the clintons have gotten away with.
How in the hell does consistancy in fabrications make them somehow legit? Has anyone ever told you what “fabrication” means? It means “LIE”! You are outright telling us to believe lies about the Clintons.
Not even close. I am providing a link to a database containing all kinds of information. Some of it is more credible than others. for instance I would put a lot more faith in a Wall Street Journal article about Clinton’s prediliction for rape than I would a similar article by an online admittedly rightwing journal like Newsmax (though many of their articles are interviews with credible people such as David Schippers, for example).
Just because the Clintons have been able to avoid most of the charges against them does not make them lies, it makes them unprovable beyond a shadow of a doubt. I always found it amusing that when a clinton scandal was investigated, the investigator says there is considerable evidence of wrongdoing, but there is extensive muddying of the waters to obscure the facts, missing documents, obstruction by those investigated, etc…so that the end result is not likely to end in a conviction, your side says “see, they didn’t do anything wrong” when any reasonable person can see they committed the act, but that enough money will buy you the verdict you seek (sort of like O.J.)
Hey, I heard that Dubya was not only convicted of a crime, but served time in prison for it. While there, he was gang-raped by some of the other inmates and discovered that he really, really liked being gang-raped.
OK, I admit, some of that is fabrication. But I dare you to read that and not hate Dubya!
Here’s my list:
-
He lied, under oath, to protect his own arse. I am sure that lots of folks lie under oath. However it is only forgivable when you are doing it to protect the lives of others, such as giving testimony that would reveal spies and such. It is never acceptable to deliberately lie under oath to save your own hide. I don’t care on a moral standpoint if Bill had sex with goats. However if one of the goats came back and accused him of rape, asking him if he has sex with goats is a legitimate question, and he either has to tell the truth, or take the 5th. As a former law professor and lawyer, he absolutely knew that.
-
His response to acts of terror that killed Americans and destroyed diplomatic and military targets was virtually non-existent. How many folks even remember the first WTC attack? I remember hearing the name of Osama bin Laden even then. Had we responded swiftly and appropriately, 9/11 probably would have never happened.
-
He sent the US military overseas to places like Haiti, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia with no clear plan of action, no objectives, insufficient resources, and no clear timeline for disengagement. He placed US service men and women in unnecessary jeopardy, and many paid the ultimate price for it.
-
Elian Gonzalez. I think that the ultimate result was probably the right one, however there has never been a more messed up way of doing it. It really made me proud as an American to see a guy in SWAT gear, pointing an H&K submachine gun at a defenseless boy hiding in a closet.
-
He took money from the People’s Republic of China, and had to have known about it.
-
He and his wife so obviously had no respect for the law. From hiding subpoena’ed documents from the Rose Law Firm in the White House, to laundering kickbacks from Tyson Foods through the futures market, they made their contempt for the constitution and the people of Arkansas and the United States abundantly clear.
Nonsense. Iran-Contra was a for-profit enterprise. Although I’m sure you can and will wave away the substantial profits that Richard Secord, Albert Hakim, and Thomas Clines put into their pockets selling weapons to the Contras. Link. Link. Linkity-link.
By gosh, your hindsight is perfect!
Who are you to say that those in charge had no clear plan of action. Maybe it was just unclear to you. Had he not contributed to the UN’s humanitarian mission in Somalia, you’d have that to hate him for. Somebody else said it earlier in the thread: the hate is the foundation. If you discover that reasons a, b and c aren’t good reasons to hate Clinton any more, you’ll go looking for reasons x, y and z. And by god you’ll find them. Anything to keep the hatred alive.
I thought we were talking about Clinton.
I’d like to see that picture.
You’ve never seen this photo?
B&I and Texican, I am still waiting for anything yet on Clinton being “kicked out of school?” I admire, in some way, how B&I was able to spout this one, and Texican was able to pick up the ball and run with it by adding that he was expelled from Oxford for sexual assault, all without either any reference to any kind of source, nor any shame.
Pathetic.
Bullshit.
Yes I’ve seen that. He’s not pointing his gun at the child, he’s pointing it down and off to the side. Are you suggesting it would have been a good idea to go in unarmed, or with arms not at the ready?
Yes, Yes, and let me add another Yes: It would have been best not to go in at all. I am sure little Elian is thrilled to be growing up in a workers paradise, which his mother died to flee.
Where was the threat? Officers should not present lethal force unless they have reason to believe that lethal force will be used by suspects. Firearms are not a threat, they are a tool. Were the officers going to pop Elian’s cousins if they didn’t hand him over? No, of course not. So what’s with the firepower? What the living hell an MP5 was doing in this situation, I dunno. Poor training and worse planning, I suspect.
First, I did bring up Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey, earlier in the thread. One changed her story several times over the years, denying it happened, then swearing it did. The other’s story could not be corroborated because the woman whom Willey said could do so refused to lie under oath for her.
Result: Uncredible and Uncorroborated. Good-bye.
Also:
:rolleyes Didn’t we address this already? The Pubs were taking more money from the PRC than Clinton and the Dems were. That’s why the Republican-led probe suddenly stopped without warning. Oops.
Y’know, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and lawyers gotta use the process to the fullest extent possible. It’s called Being a Lawyer. Get over it. As for the Rose Law firm, this is tied into Whitewater, the biggest non-expose in American history with the biggest pricetag, and you outta be ashamed just bringing that up. As for the Tyson Foods thing, I really hadn’t heard about that.
Elian Gonzalez: Now that was a hell of a mess. Nobody came out looking good after that. But really, expecting the cops to not go in armed in the middle of a Cuban neighborhood in Miami? Are you stoned? Great Ziggy Stardust, I’d’ve called in an airstrike first! And hey, nobody got killed, so what do ya want?
The Anti-Clinton auto da fa that irks me more than any other is the “I don’t care if he was having sex, it was his lying about it under oath!”
If you don’t care that he was having sex, why do you care that he lied about it? (Remember the episode of BLACKADDER 1, incidentally, where Edmud’s mother tells him “It’s not the sheep I mind, dear, it’s the lying…” ?)
Larry Flynt proved much better than I ever could the hypocrisy of his “morally outraged” Republican detractors (Hyde, Chenoweth, Barr, etc.), and I honestly don’t think that the public portion of the investigation ever should have included a consentual sex act- even the president has some right to privacy.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but when was Clinton ever formally charged with rape? He was charged with sexual harassment (a much lesser charge); the allegations of rape from Juanita Broaddrick were discredited and never formalized.
OTOH, having seen her box I have no doubts that Paula Jones was unable to defend herself, and I also have no problems admitting that she was just as innocent as Jessica Hahn.