It’s just politics.
I think SPOOFE’s analysis is spot on. The same can be said of Bush and the far-left.
I also think the bashing and slamming that we see now is here to stay. With the increased media outlets and internet that wasn’t around in earlier times, everyday people didn’t have a voice like they do today.
People feel as strongly about Bush and Clinton as they did Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, etc. We just didn’t hear about it all.
There was a senator from North Carolina who made death threats in public against President Bush (Sr.)? When? I must’ve missed that…
What senator from North Carolina made death threats against Clinton and why isn’t he in jail?
Who is Bush Sr? As far as I know, George Herbert Walker Bush doesn’t have a son with the same name as him.
BTW, I was referring to George W. Bush. The far left hate him as much as the far right hates Clinton.
Sorry, I just now saw that you didn’t say death threats, but threatening the President is also a crime.
Jesse Helms made a remark to the effect that if Clinton went to North Carolina, he’d better watch himself (or words to that effect - I forget the exact quote).
I voted for Clinton twice, and would have done so again in a heartbeat. I was much better off under his administration than the two Reagan and one elder Bush terms.
Yes, Clinton was a randy bugger - but the point is that we KNEW that - before he was elected the FIRST time.
I think that the GOP/conservative powers that be hated him so much because he won in spite of all the bad press, allegations, etc. that they threw at him. AND remained popular throughtout the majority of his Presidency.
They continue to vilify him because they need a target to take some of the heat off GW (since the ‘war’ on terrorism doesn’t seem to be enough), so now some are saying that Clinton is to blame for the 9/11 attacks because he didn’t do enough to stop terrorism. (Never mind the legislation that they tried to get through congress, but couldn’t due to conservative opposition).
How quickly both sides forget the actual details…
In 1999, the Wall Street Journal printed a story regarding an Arkansas woman, Juanita Broaddrick. She claims to have been raped by Clinton in 1977 in an Little Rock hotel room. She had denied the rape during the Paula Jone’s harrasment case, but switched her story under pressure from Ken Starr’s investigation. Also, The National Enquirer (obviously a less than reputable source, but hey, they did break the Lewinski scandal) reported that Miss Broaddrick failed a lie detector test regarding the incident. No criminal charges were ever filed, and Miss Broaddrick’s accusations remain the sole piece of evidence. It appears allegations alone are enough for some Clinton haters, who are not about to give Bill the benefit of reasonable doubt.
He never did exactly, but he sure came close. There really is no argument for perjury because most of his answers were technically true. He didn’t say “I did not have sex with her” he said “I did not have sexual intercourse with her, by my definition”. Then there is the whole definition of the word “is” thing. His testimony in the Paula Jones deposition (which was not a grand jury) is the closest he ever came to lying under oath. Though he was obviously covering up the Lewinsky affair during the deposition, and his answers were misleading, evasive, and incomplete, he never actually lied or commited perjury. Misleading, evasive, and incomplete answers are not perjury if they are technically correct. SCOTUS has ruled in cases predating this one that this type of answer is protected by the fifth ammendment right against self-incrimination. Bill is a crafty one, and a wily enough lawyer that he was able to dance around the facts while staying just this side of the law. There is no case for perjury, and criminal charges were never filed. However, he was disbarred for ethical violations stemming from the testimony.
So I’ll ask again… when did a North Carolina Senator threaten the President? Helms is not in jail so there must be some very loose translations going on.
According to Michael Moore (from Downsize This!), the Secret Service investigates Helms’ threats, deemed them serious, and recommended that he be arrested and prosecuted. The Justice Department refused, and let the issue die quietly.
Still, the incident is on Helms’ file.
according to this site (admittedly not very impartial from the looks of things):
“No, I do not. And neither do the people in the armed forces. Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He’d better have a bodyguard.”
– When asked in 1994 on CNN if he thought President Clinton was “up to the job” of serving as Commander-in-Chief
:wally
And I’d second the question: why is this still in CS?
The boards kind of wonky right now, so I will attempt to move this to GD, Pray for me.
Many factual errors in this sentence fragment.[ol][li]None of the truths in “Unlimited Access” have been disproved. On the contrary, the petty destruction in the White House tended to confirm his description of the immaturity of many Clinton staffers.[]The one rumor in the book was labeled as a rumor. The rumor was that Clinton was sneaking out of the White House for an affair. The idea that President Clinton was having an extra-marital affair sounds not unlikely today. []Aldrich was severely (and unfairly) criticized at the time the book was published. Liberal media types chose not to publicize his book.[/ol][/li]
BTW WSLer, you are the one who started this thread. So, maybe the title should ask why liberals keep bringing up Clinton.
That is a humor site that is in the style of The Onion.
And if Michael Moore said so, then I guess it has to be true. After all, he said that Bush authorized Osama Bin Laden’s family to fly out of the US during the FAA shutdown and we know how correct he was on that one. That guy is very reliable.
Check out This for details.
Either way, I don’t take that as a threat against the President in the manner you suggested. If that quote did happen, he was stating that he thought Clinton wasn’t popular with the military and that could get him in trouble. That’s not a threat from Helms.
Cynthia McKinnon has said far worse about Bush.
http://archive.nandotimes.com/newsroom/jesse2.html
http://www.dailyillini.com/archives/1994/December/2/tonycol.html
You’re saying that Jesse Helms did not say that about Bill Clinton? It was on CNN. I remember seeing on the news back then and there are several references online to it and the unrepentant clarification that Jesse Helms made days later as well.
Not according to the GAO report, which found only $14,000 worth of “damage” and that much only by valuing keyboards at $75-85 each. The report also compared the “damage” to the “damage” and cost of repair after the GHWB administration, and found the two to be similar. Ari and Bob Barr were, as usual, lying.
As far as the OP goes- it’s very simple- Clinton was, in spite of the desperate attacks on him by the Scaife-funded right, a fairly successful president, and the nation and the world during his 8 years were on a positive course. As GWB said, he had to “beat peace and prosperity” in order to “win” the presidency, and he has indeed beaten them- beaten them to hell. JDM
Sometimes “slams” are well deserved. Sometimes they are just coy “hit-and-run” politics. Telling the difference is not easy, even decades later. Saying that it’s all politics, a sort of Orwellian “criticism is doublebad partisan notgoodthink,” is just one silly extreme that has become popular recently: but so is the other extreme.
—A well-considered opinion that he brought disgrace to the office of President—
I will never understand how people could possibly care as much about an extra-marital affair “disgracing the presidency” as they do about the incredibly influential and in many cases detrimental acts that presidents in general make that are directly against the public interest, violate deeply held moral principles, etc.
I’m sure people can think up important examples where it can be argued that Clinton’s administration did something related to POLICY that counts as a disgrace: but for some reason all anyone seems to care about is that he had sex with an intern. Yeah, that’s a bad thing, but is it as bad as hurting millions with this or that action, pardoning criminals for no particular reason other than influence peddling, etc.?
The fact is, I could never take any of that moralizing, even the complaints about “is,” seriously. Because I knew that as soon as a Republican president came into office, roles would reverse, and the blue side of the isle would be shocked SHOCKED to have people parsing the president’s words.
But the idea that Clinton was especially dishonest as a President is downright laughable. What sort of comparison is being used? Against who? Abe Lincoln?
During the 2000 campaign, I was aghast that people actually seemed to buy the idea that Gore had some sort of problem with the truth that was particularlly characteristic to him and him alone. Not that I cared much for Gore, and Gore is certainly no model of honesty, but the circulated quips, even if truly lies, were self-aggrandizing nonsense: of virtually no importance compared to lying about actual policies that would affect actual Americans, of which both sides were guilty of (though only one side had the hilarity to actually release a budget proposal that tempted rational and economic insanity, and then accuse the other side of doing “fuzzy math” (read: “triplenot unthink”).
Politicans are not the sorts of people who anyone should listen to for a lecture on morals, especially not honesty. As soon as the winds change, they’ll be making the same excuses as their opponents.
“Only” $14,000 worth of vandalism? This after liberals swore up and down that it never happened at all?
As far as the achievements of the Clinton administration -
Obviously, not everything a President wants to accomplish gets done. For which we should all thank a merciful God.
But Clinton is the first President since Nixon to stand up on national TV, shake his finger in my face, and lie thru his teeth. The difference being - the only difference - is that the media liked him (he is a Democrat), and therefore he was allowed to get away with it.
Thank God for the Reagan recovery. It allowed the country to survive even Clinton.
Regards,
Shodan
14.000 to fix up a very busy office facility after 8 years of 24/7 use is a bargain. And as the report pointed out, it was about the same as the way GHWB left it for the incoming Clinton administration. It wasn’t vandalism, no matter how much Bob Barr jumps up and down and screams that it was.
Ruby Ridge happened in 1992. Who was president in 1992? Come on- you can do it- I’ll give you a hint- begins with “B”
Waco was a leftover from that same president. And the culprit at Waco was? David Koresh, maybe? Seems like the person that started the fire would usually be the responsible party.
The first WTC attack occured 1 month after Clinton took office. The government tracked down the responsible parties and convicted them. It also stopped at least two major terrorist strikes that were in the works. That’s a hell of a lot better than GWB has done. JDM
“The first WTC attack occured 1 month after Clinton took office. The government tracked down the responsible parties and convicted them. It also stopped at least two major terrorist strikes that were in the works. That’s a hell of a lot better than GWB has done.”
Now that is a red herring if I ever saw one. Can you possibly be so deluded that you think the president of the United States of America has anything to do with terrorist investigatiosn other than “Find the guys who did it!”? Frankly, the people who attacked the WTC first were less effective.
Likewise, CLinton benefited from chance: he was lucky in getting a good ecenomic period. His policy’s did lttle to help. Similarly, Bush’s plans have not particularly hurt it. The economy is, of course, dependant partly on the political climate, but the economy tanked before the end of the Clinton presidency, not after Bush tok office.
Osama bin Laden was convicted?
If Waco was a “leftover” from Bush Sr., why isn’t ObL considered a “leftover” from Clinton? You know, those embassy bombings and such. And I imagine Timothy McVeigh might be used as a counter-argument against the idea that Clinton did a better job against terrorism than Bush Jr.
The trashing of the office was vandalism.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020419-803782.htm Unless you count prying off the letter W from a keyboard and writing on the walls to be normal wear and tear.
Regards,
Shodan