the dictatorship of the whitehouse.

[Care4all]

And for the millionth time, Clionton didn't get Impeached because he had sex, he got Impeached because he LIED under oath to a Judge in a case that directkly effected him, in other words he lied to protect his sorry ass. The Impeachment articles were absolutely correct and he was guilty as sin of them. Politics and his buddies in his own party protected him.

Also for the millionth time, there is NO requirement in the Constitution that if a President is successfully Impeached he be removed from office. He should have been found guilty and some other punishment applied. Hell I don't even care if any punishment was applied. he should have been found guilty though as he was GUILTY.

yes you are right that he did not get impeached for having sex with Monica,
he got impeached, but then acquitted, for LYING under oath about having oral SEX with Monica....

not much different, but still different.

Either way, he was a cheater, on his wife.

care

 

[Edward]

Ultimately, he wasn't knowledgeable enough about the world to learn how to advance an agenda which benefitted us without just using the "stick" and doing things like massage the shoulders of a fellow world leader made him look like a rube.... That kind of behavior reflects on all of us.

That behavior was sexual harassment and I would not have had a problem with her punching George in the face. Not only does that behavior reflect badly upon us but it was inappropriate at many levels. Ask yourself if you would get away with massaging the shoulders of a co-worker, or the CEO of another company without their permission. Not only would it have been inappropriate but you would likely get fired or have legal action taken against you yet this guy George had the audacity to sexually harass a world leader. Did anyone see him massage Tony's shoulders? I know that Tony and Georgie are good friends and everything but I doubt very much that Tony would have liked his back massaged by Georgie. Or maybe next time he will massage the shoulders of Vladimir Putin. Either way his behavior reflects badly upon us and shows his disrespect for people. Maybe Laurie doesn't let him massage her shoulders so he needs to get his kicks from massaging the shoulders of world leaders so he can have some perceived sense of being more powerful than they are. If being President of the United States isn't enough power for this man and he has to try to dominate another world leader by pulling an Alpha male behavior than he has serious issues.

 

[Edward]

And for the millionth time, Clionton didn't get Impeached because he had sex, he got Impeached because he LIED under oath to a Judge in a case that directkly effected him, in other words he lied to protect his sorry ass. The Impeachment articles were absolutely correct and he was guilty as sin of them. Politics and his buddies in his own party protected him.

Also for the millionth time, there is NO requirement in the Constitution that if a President is successfully Impeached he be removed from office. He should have been found guilty and some other punishment applied. Hell I don't even care if any punishment was applied. he should have been found guilty though as he was GUILTY.

This is wrong on several accounts. First, President Clinton was successfully impeached because the House impeached the President. Second, the Constitution does not provide "some other punishment" for conviction on charges of impeachment other then "removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States" The Constitution is very explicit in this and had Clinton been found guilty by the Senate he would have been removed from office and been disqualified from holding public office in the United States. Third, the Congress does not have the authority to impose other punishments on the President or the Judiciary. The Constitution only gives them the power to impeach and then convict and anything more than that would grant them to much power. Lastly, I suggest you read the Constitution because it is obvious you are ignorant about what it contains.

Also, the Clinton legacy is one of impeachment and he is one of only two Presidents to be impeached and that is a punishment worst than anything the Congress could constitutionally impose except for removal from office and barring him from holding office in the future. So, in simple terms the Congress imposed the harshest punishment it could upon Clinton short of removing him from office and barring him from holding future office.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

yes you are right that he did not get impeached for having sex with Monica,
he got impeached, but then acquitted, for LYING under oath about having oral SEX with Monica....

not much different, but still different.

Either way, he was a cheater, on his wife.

care

You insist Bush Lied to us and Congress.... get all hot and bothered by it, yet give a free pass to a President that not only lied, he did so UNDER OATH to a Judge in a personal matter to protect his sorry ass.

Lets review.... Clinton? Known liar. Bush? No proof he lied.

Clinton couldn't tell the truth under oath in a court of law, why would anyone believe him on any other matter? He has proven he can not be depended on to do the right thing and that he is a liar.

Why would you chose to believe him on the myriad other " more important" issues he was ask about, when he couldn't even be truthful on this one?

And he was not found guilty by the Senate because of Politics. Not because he wasn't GUILTY. Or are you arguing he DIDn't lie?

Lets see, can't tell the truth in a case "JUST" about sex but we should believe him about not selling out to the Chinese, we should believe him about not selling pardons and we should believe him when he insists he didn't sell influence to pad his pocket as Governor. Got it.

Bush lied but Clinton was just embarrassed about the "sex" part because of his wife.

 

[Edward]

You insist Bush Lied to us and Congress.... get all hot and bothered by it, yet give a free pass to a President that not only lied, he did so UNDER OATH to a Judge in a personal matter to protect his sorry ass.

The key is that Clinton lied about a "personal matter" while "under oath" while Bush has lied to the American people and to our elected representatives in Congress about matters of government and that is in essence a crime against us. Perjury is one thing, and is impeachable in the general sense, but lying to Congress and to the American people about matters of government was the reason that Congress was given the power to impeach the President. You assume the Bill Clinton's motive was to protect himself but the truth is that adultery is not a crime so the obvious motive for him not telling the truth isn't to "protect his sorry ass" instead the motive was more likely to protect his family from the embarrassment. The current relationship between Bill and Hillary Clinton also negates the idea that he was trying to save his marriage but even if he was that was a noble motive. The most likely motive though was to protect his daughter and if I had committed adultery and I was asked this question under oath in a case that has no bearing to the adultery than I also would lie to protect my loved ones. The fact is that the lie was more moral than telling the truth in his circumstance because the harm in telling the truth wasn't just to him but to a) Hillary, b) Chelsea, and c) the American people. While telling the truth benefited no one except those with a political axe to grind.

Lets review.... Clinton? Known liar. Bush? No proof he lied.

So now we as citizens need proof that people who hold office have lied? That is simply ludicrous and morally repugnant assertion. Bush has demonstrated his disregard for our elected representatives and for us and it is not so much that he has lied but what he has lied about that is offensive. He can lie about whether he and Laura Bush sleeps in the same bedroom under oath in a case that has nothing to do with their sleeping arrangements and I would have no problem with it because it is no ones business where they sleep.

Clinton couldn't tell the truth under oath in a court of law, why would anyone believe him on any other matter? He has proven he can not be depended on to do the right thing and that he is a liar.

Do the right thing? Let's begin with the fact that the question was politically motivated and then go on to look at the cause and effect and if you still come back with the immoral position that he should have told the truth regardless of the consequences to him, to his wife, daughter and this country than you are beyond hope as it would be clear that you have lost your moral compass.

Why would you chose to believe him on the myriad other " more important" issues he was ask about, when he couldn't even be truthful on this one?

That is easy, he is not known to have lied about matters of government and the lie he told was in response to inappropriate question about a personal matter and which he would have been in the wrong to answer truthfully. Anyone who would say that they would have answered truthfully does not deserve their family especially their children. I know you don't care about Chelsea or Hillary and enjoy watching families be destroyed but some of us have more morals than that. Had Clinton lied about matters of government under oath I would be far more outraged, and rightly so. While I recognize that Clinton lied under oath it was about a matter that was not relevent to the case he was testifying in and was obviously politically motivated. You say he "couldn't even be truth on this one" and my response to that is had he been truthful on this one I would not trust him to be the President of this country. If someone would do that to their family, and especially to their children in front of the entire nation then they are immoral, and I for one condemn your attitude for what it is. The person you should be condemning is the person who asked the question in the first place. I don't like the fact that Clinton lied but I know that everyone lies and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. You make a stupid point in saying that he can't even be trusted to tell the truth on this one when you can't even be trusted to tell the truth on something less personal in your every day discourse.

And he was not found guilty by the Senate because of Politics. Not because he wasn't GUILTY. Or are you arguing he DIDn't lie?

Of course it was about politics just like the question was asked because of politics. Like Alexander Hamilton has said impeachment is a political matter. The charges of impeachment were politically motivated, and the question itself was politicaly motivated and so was the vote by the Senate and the House. This is to be expected. While it is true that Clinton lied under oath it is also true that the question should never have been asked and once it had been asked he was morally obligated to not tell the truth. Had he told the truth he could not be trusted to be President. It would have shown his lack of love for his family and anyone who would put their family including his daughter through that would not deserve to be a father but worst could not be trusted to be President. Would he do the same to the country? Would he tell the truth regardless of the consequences even if it would hurt this country? That is a question that I would not be so sure of had he told the truth in a matter that would hurt his family.

Lets see, can't tell the truth in a case "JUST" about sex but we should believe him about not selling out to the Chinese, we should believe him about not selling pardons and we should believe him when he insists he didn't sell influence to pad his pocket as Governor. Got it.

Let's see, the next time you are in a court I hope that the attorney asks you a personal question such as, "how many times do you have sex with your wife in a week" or "what is the name of your first and last sexual partner" and if you lie I hope you are charged with perjury than you may begin to realize the reason Clinton was morally obligated to lie. Had he told the truth he would not deserve to be a father or to be the President because telling the truth was more of a betrayal to his wife, his daughter and this country than having an affair was and lying about a personal matter would have been. While it is true that the lie was under oath and constituted perjury it is important to note the responsiblity to prevent the question rested with the attorneys, and with the judge who should have known better than to allow the question. Anyone who would believe that he would tell the truth about an affair is obviously stupid. It is also interesting the Clinton has not been charged with or convicted of perjury since leaving office because it proves that it really wasn't that big of a deal after all.

Bush lied but Clinton was just embarrassed about the "sex" part because of his wife.

What I know is that the question was immoral and should not have been asked in a court of law in a case it had no relevancy to. You can keep driving it home that he broke the law and I will keep driving it home that lying was the right thing to do in this circumstance.

 

[Truthmatters]

Clinton lied under oath about an unmaterial matter in a case whcih was heaved out of court because it had no merit.

It was a hokied up trap to catch him in a lie about cheating on his wife.

It was not harrassment Monica was 26 and consenting.

No one died, no national treasure was thrown to the wind and war profiteers.

Frankly I dont care who a presidetn has sex with as long as they are of age and consenting, its none of my business unless they have condememed others for the same behavior.

The right wing could never get Clintons "women" to tell on him so they staged one he tossed away because she was too ugly.


Now you Rs who have condemed this man worthy of impeachment for not watning his wife to know he got some on the side are ripe for the taunting whenever you get caught.

Many have been so far just its more on the right are getting caught with underage boys instead of adult women.

 

[Bullypulpit]

And for the millionth time, Clionton didn't get Impeached because he had sex, he got Impeached because he LIED under oath to a Judge in a case that directkly effected him, in other words he lied to protect his sorry ass. The Impeachment articles were absolutely correct and he was guilty as sin of them. Politics and his buddies in his own party protected him.

Also for the millionth time, there is NO requirement in the Constitution that if a President is successfully Impeached he be removed from office. He should have been found guilty and some other punishment applied. Hell I don't even care if any punishment was applied. he should have been found guilty though as he was GUILTY.

Indeed he did lie, and he was impeached for it. Bush et al have repeatedly and consistently lied about the rationales for invading Iraq, where thousands have died and we can't even get a Resolution of Inquiry on that matter, let alone a vote to impeach. It would, however, be ironic if the Bush administration were to be brought down by a woman named Monica.

 

[Truthmatters]

I dont know if this will bring them down or not but it is just one of many things that this President did that if Clinton had done would have brought him down.

Clinton was investigated for EVERYTHING and all they could get was lying about an unmateral fact to hide an affair from his wife.

This president spent six years beign investigated for NOTHING!

Now look at the mess they have to investigate.

There is so much they wont have time to cover it all before he leaves office.

One wonders what else he got away with.

It sets a VERY BAD precident for future admins.

 

[Gunny]

I don't know if Bill Clinton turned a blind eye. I think he chose his battles. As for Bush, I don't see him as "idealistic", I see him as ignorant and bullying and trying to impose his "don't mess with Texas" attitude on the rest of the world.

I attribute your views of Bush and Clinotn, respectively, to you being a liberal. It's quite easy to see that Bush is driven by righteous idealism. I only question his judgement.

Clinton didn't pick and choose his battles. He ignored the ME as best he possibly could and only made ineffectual token attempts at retaliation when he absolutely had to.

Ultimately, he wasn't knowledgeable enough about the world to learn how to advance an agenda which benefitted us without just using the "stick" and doing things like massage the shoulders of a fellow world leader made him look like a rube.... That kind of behavior reflects on all of us.

And no... no one internationally gave a rat's patoot about Monica. (Just figured I'd respond pre-emptively... lol!)

Whether or not anyone internationally gave a rat's ass about Monica is irrelevant. The fact is, the entire incident was conduct unbecoming the man holding arguably the most power office in the world.

I will point out however, that you cannot have it both ways. Either Clinton's behavior reflected on all of us as you claim Bush's does, or it did and does not.

As far as being a "rube" goes, Bush has little if anything on Bill.

 

[Truthmatters]

private business.

Bush can have sex with Condi if he wants or hell even Rove.

I dont want to know about it.

I would point and laugh but to impeach for it hell no.

When Bush (or any president) lies us into a war spilling the blood of our bravest and throwing our treasure to the wind.

HELL yeah that is my business.

I swear if this was a Dem I would still be screaming....funny thing you would be joining me.

 

[Care4all]

Clinton lied under oath about an unmaterial matter in a case whcih was heaved out of court because it had no merit.

It was a hokied up trap to catch him in a lie about cheating on his wife.

It was not harrassment Monica was 26 and consenting.

No one died, no national treasure was thrown to the wind and war profiteers.

Frankly I dont care who a presidetn has sex with as long as they are of age and consenting, its none of my business unless they have condememed others for the same behavior.

The right wing could never get Clintons "women" to tell on him so they staged one he tossed away because she was too ugly.


Now you Rs who have condemed this man worthy of impeachment for not watning his wife to know he got some on the side are ripe for the taunting whenever you get caught.

Many have been so far just its more on the right are getting caught with underage boys instead of adult women.

One correction there TM, Monica was 20 not 26....still legal though....

 

[Care4all]

You insist Bush Lied to us and Congress.... get all hot and bothered by it, yet give a free pass to a President that not only lied, he did so UNDER OATH to a Judge in a personal matter to protect his sorry ass.

Lets review.... Clinton? Known liar. Bush? No proof he lied.

Clinton couldn't tell the truth under oath in a court of law, why would anyone believe him on any other matter? He has proven he can not be depended on to do the right thing and that he is a liar.

Why would you chose to believe him on the myriad other " more important" issues he was ask about, when he couldn't even be truthful on this one?

And he was not found guilty by the Senate because of Politics. Not because he wasn't GUILTY. Or are you arguing he DIDn't lie?

Lets see, can't tell the truth in a case "JUST" about sex but we should believe him about not selling out to the Chinese, we should believe him about not selling pardons and we should believe him when he insists he didn't sell influence to pad his pocket as Governor. Got it.

Bush lied but Clinton was just embarrassed about the "sex" part because of his wife.

There is nothing that can be said about this other than, yes, President Bush and Cheney have not lied under oath....

BUT ONLY for 1 Reason....

THEY REFUSE to testify under OATH....even when before the grand jury for the Libby case, which was investigated, THEY REFUSED to testify under oath....

WHAT do you think they are afraid of or hiding? Will the Bible seer their skin if they touch it? I wonder?

(And yes, maybe that was a partisan thing to say, but I call it more of a religious question that I often ask myself, especially with their FEAR of being under oath for ANY reason....)

And again, I ask, why is this....?

Inquiring minds want to know....

Care

 

[Annie]

There is nothing that can be said about this other than, yes, President Bush and Cheney have not lied under oath....

BUT ONLY for 1 Reason....

THEY REFUSE to testify under OATH....even when before the grand jury for the Libby case, which was investigated, THEY REFUSED to testify under oath....

WHAT do you think they are afraid of or hiding? Will the Bible seer their skin if they touch it? I wonder?

(And yes, maybe that was a partisan thing to say, but I call it more of a religious question that I often ask myself, especially with their FEAR of being under oath for ANY reason....)

And again, I ask, why is this....?

Inquiring minds want to know....

Care

reasonable minds know that once the questioning starts, there is no going back. Be accused of something, YOU DID NOT DO, consult a lawyer, listen to how much he wants you to talk.

 

[Care4all]

reasonable minds know that once the questioning starts, there is no going back. Be accused of something, YOU DID NOT DO, consult a lawyer, listen to how much he wants you to talk.

Hmmmmm, too bad Clinton testified under oath and all other presidents that HAD to, all they needed to do is say they are afraid that our justice system will frame them for something they did not do....and just refuse like the Bush team....

I'm sorry K..... that is an unacceptable excuse imo.

care

 

[Annie]

Hmmmmm, too bad Clinton testified under oath and all other presidents that HAD to, all they needed to do is say they are afraid that our justice system will frame them for something they did not do....and just refuse like the Bush team....

I'm sorry K..... that is an unacceptable excuse imo.

care

Had to depends on what the prosecutor calls for and the reasons. See there is this constitutional deal called 'executive privilege'. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes not.

Without it, all the president's time would be taken up with special prosecutors and Congress. FYI the GOP congress tried to do away with special prosecutors, the democrats mistakenly brought them back, as you say, to their own chagrin with Clinton.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its amazing how it only applies to them but when you turn it around it doesnt apply

 

[Annie]

Its amazing how it only applies to them but when you turn it around it doesnt apply

Uh huh. Like Libby and Berger. Depends on the ox and the owner.

 

[Care4all]

Had to depends on what the prosecutor calls for and the reasons. See there is this constitutional deal called 'executive privilege'. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes not.

Without it, all the president's time would be taken up with special prosecutors and Congress. FYI the GOP congress tried to do away with special prosecutors, the democrats mistakenly brought them back, as you say, to their own chagrin with Clinton.

President Clinton had to testify under oath over 65 times during his administration...

Do you admit or concede or agree that the REPUBLICANS ABUSED the special prosecutor situation?

And are you actually justifying what I believe was republican congressional abuse by saying that it was the Democrats FAULT for the republicans abuse because they reinstituted special prosecutors???????

Care

 

[Truthmatters]

Give them a inch and they take a million miles.

The last R congress will go down in history due to their lack of investigation.

They investigated nearly nothing.

 

[Annie]

President Clinton had to testify under oath over 65 times during his administration...

Do you admit or concede or agree that the REPUBLICANS ABUSED the special prosecutor situation?

And are you actually justifying what I believe was republican congressional abuse by saying that it was the Democrats FAULT for the republicans abuse because they reinstituted special prosecutors???????

Care

7 special prosecutions under Clinton. 20 total between 1978 and 1999. Not all that special was Clinton.