magiver, you might note the number of times Broaddrick changed her story, including her swearing under oath in the Lewinsky case that it had not happened. To say you believe the version that no news organization short of the WSJ editorial page would run is to accuse your own star witness of perjury. She also insisted it occurred on a date when Clinton wasn’t even in town, ya know.**
The facts of her story never changed. She was dragged into the limelight as a rape victim. God help any member of your family for support or privacy if they are raped.
Oh and the date he wasn’t in town… tell me, what day did you have that car accident or other traumatic event 12 years ago.
If a Republican had been accused of sexual harassment, indecent exposure, and rape, the Democratic Party would parachute in. But keep defending Bill Clinton. I hear he is looking for an intern to help him with his upcoming book tour. Maybe you have a sister or daughter who can fulfill his needs.
All, well, the problem is that we (you know, the ones who ‘hate’ Bill Clinton) saw him as being the ultimate career politician, willing to say or do anything to accomplish his personal goals - which were not really in the interests of the nation. And we saw him as changing course to keep to the wind, regardless of where that was taking us.
The Communists were hardly intellectuals. Most of the “Intellectual Class” had socialist leanings, and they despised the COmmunists almost as much as the Nazis did. The OCmmunists tried to revolt in several places following WWII, and each time was followed by a bloody, if short, battle with returning troops. Berlin became, for a while, an armed camp.
quote] by CaptMurdock
So, did Clinton do nothing about Saddam and Osama, as the r-wingers claim nowadays, or did he make attempts for the sole purpose of distracting The Peepul from his impending impeachment. Jeesuz, make up your minds…
[/quote]
The problem, as we see it, is not that he tried to do something, but rather that he only did enough to distract the media. He would get us involved in foreign conflicts, but not actually do anything serious to end them and fix the problem. He wanted to fight, but not win, and particularly he ignored outright terrorist threats against the US.
Really? How long do you think nuclear warheads take to design and develop before they go into service?
I’ve already pointed out otherwise: She swore just the opposite, under oath. Deal with it.
If it was traumatic, I’d remember every last detail about it, wouldn’t you?
I take it you acknowledge the other things that have been pointed out as false in your posts. We take facts very seriously in this forum, and it would serve you well in life to do likewise.
“byEve
IMO a politicians needs to be sure of himself and of the correctness of the path he is going. A politician who changes his mind and opinion whenever he is questioned or challenged is not a good leader.”
cholo and Magiver, I’m going to have to call you out on your cites. Frankly, I’d never heard of NewsMax until just this month, but The first time I saw it linked I did follow it. It’s almost disrespectful to the intelligence of the membership of these boards to cite from there. It also nearly instantly discredits any possible valid points you may be posting. You may as well cite from The Onion. Just my $.02.
As far as weighing in on the Clintons; I was more of a Concord Coalition follower in the eighties. My dream ticket would have been the late Paul Tsongas (D-Mass.), and former Senator Warren Rudman (R-N.H.). Any dream ticket of mine these days would have to include McCain. I guess I’m your typical fiscally-conservative-moderate left. I thought Clinton was a sleazeball with a good grasp on a few things. But I’ll agree with some previous posters, I just didn’t trust the guy. He personified the lyin’ cheatin’ mid-river-changing politician. I never got frothy at the mouth over him, since I saw his work in Ireland as huge (as does most of Ireland) and that was, and still is, a topic near and dear to him. But I also can’t claim to have not enjoyed to see him squirm when the affair came out, but I’ll agree that it was a bit of a witch hunt. Overall, I didn’t revile him like some others, but I could kinda see where they were coming from.
What I still don’t quite understand is: Why all the hate for Hillary? She seemed like a bit of an overbearing b*tch for the whole travelgate issue, but beyond that, I saw nothing more than just another driven, often politically motivated, and often duplicitous character that Washington D.C. I full of. In other words, just another politician. In fact, that she managed to appear to be a strong female role in the midst of a shitstorm garnered her some respect from me. That she didn’t dump Bill right then and there knocked her down a few points, but I know plenty of couples in my life that have suffered bumps in the road, and made the extremely tough choice to fight for their marriage rather than jump ship. Some have succeeded, some haven’t.
Is there any *substantiated *(remember guys, no NewsMax this time, k?) additional information I’m missing on Hillary? Because over all, I find her in my column of “respected”, whereas her hubby has been bumped over to the “indifferent or worse” column.
The anger at Hillary wasn’t so personal as political. Hillary, as her enemies said, was often trying to act as a legislator when it suited her. Which irritated Republican congressmen.
Smiling Bandit hit on my biggest grip with the Clintons…and possibly many politicians. They were the pinnacle of Politicians. They did and said whatever it took. Play the sax on TV? Sure. Talk on MTV? No problem. Most people I talked to at the time that voted for them couldn’t tell you what they stood for, they just liked them or thought they were cool. And it burns me that our leaders are chosen on this kind of basis.
I don’t want people running my country that will change their policy with whatever is popular or easy. I want them to do what’s right, even if it means losing the next election.
The Clintons took politicing to a new level. They showed that you don’t have to have principals or substance. Just that you need to look good on TV and get people to like you.
Now, I realize that other presidents may have been this may, but I haven’t been paying attention to politics for very long. Clinton’s first election was the first time I really did, and it left a bad taste im my mouth. Maybe I just hate them for making me lose faith in our political system as a whole.
Well, yes and no – I mean, the United States is supposed to be a representative democracy, and I think a leader who does change policy according to what his constituents want is a good thing. Granted, Bill Clinton was reacting to polls a tad too much, but given a choice between Clinton’s “do what the public wants” and G.W. Bush’s “I’ll do whatever the damn hell I want,” Clinton wins easily.
Actually, I’d rather see a hybrid of the two points, resulting in a President who’s willing to make unpopular choices, but also wise enough to reconsider his positions when it looks like he’s going down the wrong way.
My dislike of WJC is entirely personal. There are many more pols more left of him that I disagree with more. He’s worse than some, but bette than most of the Dems when it comes to policy, IMO.
“I tried it once, but I didn’t inhale”. “Depends on what your definition of “is” is”. and yes, “I did not have sexual relations…”. Plus the way he ditched his friends (eg Lani Guineer). “I feel your pain”. And the letter to the senator when he was in college explaining how he wanted to keep his avoidance of the draft and overall anti-war views out of the public record as it might compromise his future political ambitions. Bleaghhhhh!! Get me the hell away from this guy!!!
If he had not been president he would’ve been miserable. Someone who craves power that much, I just don’t trust.
So let’s take GWB. His response to cocaine use: “No comment”. He doesn’t abondon his friends just because it’s politically expedient to do so. And if he didn’t become president, he’d have gone on with his life a happy man.
HRC. Everything I said about WJC, but I do see her as poltically left of the mainstream Dems.
This point has to be made again (since it refutes the OP and I think is closer to the truth then the majority of the mudslinging going on in here- I swear this place can be worse than the Pit.)
Perhaps tdn has rose colored glasses on. Whenever ANY President is elected there will be a group who absolutely hates that person. They will whine and bitch and say “My guy had it worse!” Then they try to justify their statement by saying things that detract from the current President. It happened with Regan (I remember the NUMEROUS jokes made about his critical thinking ability being made at the watercoolers of America) especially when the whole Iran Contra thing exploded. Puh-lease. Every President is hated by one group or another. Every President “Has it worse then…etc.”
Quit yer crying. This is how life works. My guy doesn’t get in so I’ll vilify your guy.
In other words, he lied. Which is something he did a lot of.
He also lied about this one. Feel free to cite any legal precedent that has found that the draft violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Just because Clinton didn’t like it doesn’t make it illegal. Sorry.
Clinton did nothing effective about Saddam and Osama. This was because he was trying to delay the impeachment vote.
Interestingly enough, he also took military action based on the belief that Saddam had WMD. So if you, or anyone else, would like to claim that Bush is lying and should be impeached for taking military action based on that belief, you are going to have to come up with a rationalization for not impeaching Clinton on the same grounds.
Unless Bush is supposed to have psychic powers that Clinton lacked.
I am going to have to have cites on all of these accusations. I have heard the one about Gingrich before, but I don’t immediately recognize the others.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with what Clinton did, so I will understand if you would prefer to drop it.
Nixon. And your point would be?
I imagine this sounded like a refutation to you.
No, but it is so characteristic of Clinton’s rather distant relationship with the truth that it tends to stick in the mind.
Not quite. Actually Rich was indicted for $48 million in tax evasion, as well as 51 counts of tax fraud. Also running illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis. And he did not happen to be out of the country; he fled the country after he was indicted. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99302,00.html
Again, your attitude towards a thinly disguised bribe in return for a pardon for a major white collar criminal seems a little casual. I imagine you regard the Enron executives with the same off-hand acceptance. After all, its only money, isn’t it?
Actually, her story was that she went to Clinton the day her husband committed suicide to see if he could help her. He responded by attempting to rape her.
So, if that is true, no - I would not call it anything like justice, dignity, or honor. There is not a lot in the Clinton legacy I would use those words to describe.
Regards,
Shodan
Don’t you think that actively trying to get rid of the guy you hate , trying to pin him down with endless investigations instead of letting him do his job, and trying to get him out of office in defiance of democracy itself goes a bit beyond that?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Shodan *
Actually, Clinton admitted it (after lying about it several times). The illegal act, or the one that’s any of your damn business, re Flowers would be? Take your time.
Re “didn’t inhale”.
You know the facts how? And its importance is? Why not be more concerned about cocaine use and alcohol addiction?
You’re not helping your pretense to be interested in facts.
True enough, but then he never made that (claim. Which makes the liar … wait, don’t tell me … you?
Yes, the case was thrown out of court, as stated.
Perhaps not.
Wipe the spittle from your lips and think about what you just said - that he did a half-assed job of defending the country simply because the get-him process was still underway after all those many years. Wouldn’t he have been better able to stop the vote with a more-comprehensive military effort, not just a few cruise missile launches?
Which, at the time, he did.
No wonder. You wouldn’t know from the pre-filtered news sources you obviously use.
It reveals their, and your, hypocrisy in the matter. No wonder you’d rather not get into it.
Re Lincoln Bedroom rentals) Care to get into the price of a Texas Governor’s Mansion rental 1996-2000? Much higher, ya know. More lame hypocrisy.
More of the same.
As do you?
Yes, her “story,” after Klayman’s operation showed her the money. You automatically believe it, of course.
The question is, why do you continue to believe, and spread, all those lies, no matter what facts are shoved in your face? There is good enough reason to disagree with, or personally dislike, Clinton or anyone else, but you show much more of yourself by lying.
Right. Its totally unjustified to call him criminal and sleazy. He only cheated on his wife multiple times, then made bold faced lies to the entire nation about it. And “permanently borrowing” thousands of dollars worth of stuff from Airforce 1 the last few days in office is surely the mark of a gentleman.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a fan of Bush either, but he’s a totally different type of screwup.