Getting a blow job in the oval office...

[Too Tall]

not so big a deal now is it? Compared to all this mess and the Bush years, yeah, I think I will take the President who lied about a BJ over the BS that congress, the senate, the president and the ineptitude of all these politicians.

Clinton is the only one worth a crap in I don't know how long.

Your preference of a bottom-feeding scumbag to what you consider ineptitude says a lot about your morals, or lack thereof.

 

[code1211]

not so big a deal now is it? Compared to all this mess and the Bush years, yeah, I think I will take the President who lied about a BJ over the BS that congress, the senate, the president and the ineptitude of all these politicians.

Clinton is the only one worth a crap in I don't know how long.

Lying about it is.... People go away to prison all the time for purjury.

Is a blowjob wrong? NO, its disrespectful to the Oval Office but, its not "wrong."

Lying to congress is tho....

Clinton was/is a coward.... If he had just been a man and allocated.....

"Is a blowjob wrong? NO, its disrespectful to the Oval Office but, its not "wrong." "

I suspect that you're not married..

Lewinsky was an intern and Clinton was the POTUS. If Lewinsky was a call girl, no problem. She was an employee and, obviously, Clinton was over her hierarchically.

Insert joke here.

There is no circumstance in which this behavior in this setting is correct behavior.

Blow job from an intern: Wrong. From a wife: miracle.

 

[Sallow]

So basically you are wrong..and are just to immature to admit fault.

Or you are a conservative.

Which is basically the same thing.

Uh, guy, you are the one making accusations of things never charged in court.

Your boy Clinton will forever be remembered as "Impeached for a blow job". You all are going to have to live with that, because I doubt anyone will remember him for anything else.

Reagan, on the other hand, will be remembered as one of the great presidents. No one is going to name an aircraft carrier after Clinton. A floating bordello, maybe.

The USS Bill Clinton. Offering Happy Endings?

Doesn't matter whether they were "charged in court" (Whatever that means) or not. They happened.

And the myth making about Reagan is fading fast. As is the villianization of Clinton. Pretty sure in time Clinton stature will overtake Reagan's...

You've been wrong on your assumptions about spies, articles of impeachment and so many other things.

It's astounding.

 

[code1211]

Just like Nixon before him? Are you nuts?

Nixon was a sociopath and probably a psychopath as well. He ordered the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia. Nobody knew about it. And this is after he promised to end the war. He expanded it. Nixon was probably responsible for a million or so additional deaths in the region. He also ordered the illegal break in to a political opponent's office. That's huge.

There's absolutely no equivalence here.

Sounds a little like the Big 0 bombing Pakistan, doesn't it?

If congress has a problem with it..they should order it stopped.

Seems exactly equivilent to Nixon.

 

[Too Tall]

The Clinton impeachment was indicative of conservative contempt for the will of the people and propensity for partisan politics. Their failure to win conviction in the Senate proof of this.

The trial proceedings were largely partisan, with only five Democratic Representatives voting to impeach and no Democratic Senators voting for conviction.

You can't get a lot more partisan than that.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course you don't have a link. Because you have no idea what you are talking about. Spies are universally subject to execution if caught in another country. That's why when GW Bush outed a CIA agent, effectively ending her career and exposing her to danger, he should have been impeached.

Which is also why you have to now resort to personal insults.

Arguing with adults is hard, ain't it?

That is factually incorrect.

Actually it isn't.

You can quibble about plausible deniability..but it's reasonable to assume something of this magnitude came directly from the White House.

No, not really.

Let's review, one more time.

Robert Novak asks Richard Armitage how the hell a HOUSE HUSBAND could have possibly been sent on a secret mission by the CIA. Richard Armitage mutters, "Well, his wife is an analyst at the CIA". He calls Karl Rove, and asks if that's true. Rove says, "Yeah, I heard that." So far, nothing illegal, because she's an analyst, not an operative. Also, neither of these guys mentioned her by name.

So Novak opens up a copy of "WHo's Who in America" and finds out former ambassador and current house husband Joe Wilson is married to Valerie Plame, who works at the CIA. In short, the CIA was cleverly listing the names of their super secret spies in a publicly available book. Wow, that's clever.

When, Why Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame | Sweetness & Light

Incidently, one more point about Joe Wilson. In February, 2003, he authored an article entitled "A big cat with nothing to lose" where he claimed we shouldn't attack Iraq because Saddam HAD weapons of mass destuction.

A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to Lose - Los Angeles Times.

This was only a few weeks after Bush had made the speech where Wilson "knew" he was lying about WMD's.

 

[Sallow]

Sounds a little like the Big 0 bombing Pakistan, doesn't it?

If congress has a problem with it..they should order it stopped.

Seems exactly equivilent to Nixon.

Except it isn't.

Predator drones are extremely surgical.

B-52 bombers are not.

 

[JoeB131]

Doesn't matter whether they were "charged in court" (Whatever that means) or not. They happened.

And the myth making about Reagan is fading fast. As is the villianization of Clinton. Pretty sure in time Clinton stature will overtake Reagan's...

You've been wrong on your assumptions about spies, articles of impeachment and so many other things.

It's astounding.

Well, if they happened and they were criminal, charges should have been brought.

So either 1) they didnt' happen or 2) they weren't criminal.

And as for Clinton's "Stature", it was DEMOCRATS who rejected the notion of them returning to power. They went with the "Community Organizer" instead in 2008. They took one look at the notion of the Clintons and their shady dealings coming back, and rank and file Democrats said, "HELL NO!"

Burns, doesn't it?

Which is actually kind of unfortunately, HIllary would have been a far more effective President than Barry Hussein has been.

 

[code1211]

Of course you don't have a link. Because you have no idea what you are talking about. Spies are universally subject to execution if caught in another country. That's why when GW Bush outed a CIA agent, effectively ending her career and exposing her to danger, he should have been impeached.

Which is also why you have to now resort to personal insults.

Arguing with adults is hard, ain't it?

That is factually incorrect.

Actually it isn't.

You can quibble about plausible deniability..but it's reasonable to assume something of this magnitude came directly from the White House.

I was very interested in this as it was unfolding. It was obvious that everyone in the press corps and the political circles of DC knew that Valerie Plame was working for the CIA. It was also obvious that her husband was about as qualified as I am, which ain't much, to perform anything useful on that trip to Niger.

Novak said in pretty lear terms that he was the guy and this whole thing was a political hatchet job.

Reasonable to assume?

 

[Hoot]

I'm new here...from a conservative family, but after what the "right" did to Clinton, I swore I would never vote for another republican.

This lie about a blow job came about because the GOP couldn't find a way to bring our President down, so they allowed a "civil case" to proceed against a sitting president. (Jones v Clinton)

All members of Congress and all members of the USSC have the right to delay civil trials until after their term of service or until recess, but the single most important man in the world has to face charges in civil court!?

All Clinton asked for was a stay, meaning a delay in the proceedings, but the right wing wackos screamed "No one's above the law.!"

Well, let's suppose I live next to Bush in Crawford, Texas, and I believe he put a fence on my property, so I sue Bush Jr in Civil court...and let's make it the day after 9/11! That ok with you right wing nut cases? No one's above the law, right?

The Jones v Clinton trial led to our President being forced to testify about a perfectly legal consensual relationship, albeit repugnant.

No president should be forced to face charges in Civil court while serving our nation.

This period showed me the true colors of the GOP...regain power, at any expense to our nation, much like today.

Page 4 of the S&P report, explaining the credit downgrade of the U.S., specifically blames the Tea Party and the GOP for failure to compromise on both spending cuts and increased revenue...yes, that means taxes, folks.

The GOP hasn't changed in all these years, except gotten more extreme and further right. their only purpose remains..regaining power at any expense to out President or our nation.

If you've read this far...thank you.

 

[Sallow]

That is factually incorrect.

Actually it isn't.

You can quibble about plausible deniability..but it's reasonable to assume something of this magnitude came directly from the White House.

No, not really.

Let's review, one more time.

Robert Novak asks Richard Armitage how the hell a HOUSE HUSBAND could have possibly been sent on a secret mission by the CIA. Richard Armitage mutters, "Well, his wife is an analyst at the CIA". He calls Karl Rove, and asks if that's true. Rove says, "Yeah, I heard that." So far, nothing illegal, because she's an analyst, not an operative. Also, neither of these guys mentioned her by name.

So Novak opens up a copy of "WHo's Who in America" and finds out former ambassador and current house husband Joe Wilson is married to Valerie Plame, who works at the CIA. In short, the CIA was cleverly listing the names of their super secret spies in a publicly available book. Wow, that's clever.

When, Why Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame | Sweetness & Light

Incidently, one more point about Joe Wilson. In February, 2003, he authored an article entitled "A big cat with nothing to lose" where he claimed we shouldn't attack Iraq because Saddam HAD weapons of mass destuction.

A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to Lose - Los Angeles Times.

This was only a few weeks after Bush had made the speech where Wilson "knew" he was lying about WMD's.

Um..

Fitzgerald's subsequent replies to reporters' questions shed further light on the parameters of the "leak investigation" and what, as its lead prosecutor, bound by "the rules of grand jury secrecy," he could and could not reveal legally at the time.[15] Official court documents released later, on April 5, 2006, reveal that Libby testified that "he was specifically authorized in advance" of his meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller to disclose the "key judgments" of the October 2002 classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). According to Libby's testimony, "the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE [to Judith Miller]."[36] According to his testimony, the information that Libby was authorized to disclose to Miller "was intended to rebut the allegations of an administration critic, former ambassador Joseph Wilson." A couple of days after Libby's meeting with Miller, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told reporters, "We don't want to try to get into kind of selective declassification" of the NIE, adding "We're looking at what can be made available."[37] A "sanitized version" of the NIE in question was officially declassified on July 18, 2003, ten days after Libby's contact with Miller, and was presented at a White House background briefing on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.[38] The NIE contains no references to Valerie Plame or her CIA status, but the Special Counsel has suggested that White House actions were part of "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson."[39] President Bush had previously indicated that he would fire whoever had outed Plame.[37]

Valerie Plame - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By Libby's own admission the order came from the President.

 

[code1211]

If congress has a problem with it..they should order it stopped.

Seems exactly equivilent to Nixon.

Except it isn't.

Predator drones are extremely surgical.

B-52 bombers are not.

So crossing the border of a sovereign nation to kill their citizens is okay if... ?

I'm not catching the distinction.

 

[Sallow]

Seems exactly equivilent to Nixon.

Except it isn't.

Predator drones are extremely surgical.

B-52 bombers are not.

So crossing the border of a sovereign nation to kill their citizens is okay if... ?

I'm not catching the distinction.

You are killing terrorists..that have specifically indicated they will attack America and the country hosting them has no interest in capturing them.

 

[Divine Wind]

Just like Nixon before him? Are you nuts?

Nixon was a sociopath and probably a psychopath as well. He ordered the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia. Nobody knew about it. And this is after he promised to end the war. He expanded it. Nixon was probably responsible for a million or so additional deaths in the region. He also ordered the illegal break in to a political opponent's office. That's huge.

There's absolutely no equivalence here.

Disagreed. Regardless of how much you say about President Nixon is true, it doesn't excuse President Clinton from his actions including his perjury and attempts to smear an innocent woman to save his own reputation. Even if everything you said is true, which it is not, it is a difference of degree, not guilt or innocence. President Clinton destroyed his own legacy by letting his little head rule his big head.

 

[JoeB131]

Hoot, here's the problem. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 (including two Clinton appointees) that Paula Jones was entitled to a day in court.

Now, that was taking it too far, as far as I'm concerned. The woman wanted $250,000, and can anyone really doubt at this point that what she claimed happened did? (Well, Shallow will, but he's operating in some odd alternate universe.)

Clinton had several options at that point. He could have settled. He could have just let the court proceedings go on and let the chips fall where they may. He chose to lie, to encourage others to lie, and let what you call a petty civil matter drag on through the courts for years.

Yes, this is a bullshit case. You know what, we have a million lawyers in this country, and Mr. Clinton's party is owned by the trial lawyers, and every year, they find bullshit reasons to file cases and take from the producers in society. He was the one who ran on the "I believe Anita Hill" platform. He's the one who expanded the rights of women to sue their employers, co-workers, and so on to where every company has to have these silly classes on how strange looks and dirty jokes are unacceptable.

So, no, I can't feel really bad that he got put through the wringer over a civil case, and less bad because he abused his office to avoid it and got impeached for it.

 

[Sallow]

Just like Nixon before him? Are you nuts?

Nixon was a sociopath and probably a psychopath as well. He ordered the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia. Nobody knew about it. And this is after he promised to end the war. He expanded it. Nixon was probably responsible for a million or so additional deaths in the region. He also ordered the illegal break in to a political opponent's office. That's huge.

There's absolutely no equivalence here.

Disagreed. Regardless of how much you say about President Nixon is true, it doesn't excuse President Clinton from his actions including his perjury and attempts to smear an innocent woman to save his own reputation. Even if everything you said is true, which it is not, it is a difference of degree, not guilt or innocence. President Clinton destroyed his own legacy by letting his little head rule his big head.

Clinton committed no perjury.

The whole game was a political assasination attempt.

It's astounding how anyone can applaud the efforts of a party that used a very serious procedure, impeachment, in a case of something so damned trivial.

This really shakes the foundations of our government.

And it's scary you guys don't see that.

 

[code1211]

I'm new here...from a conservative family, but after what the "right" did to Clinton, I swore I would never vote for another republican.

This lie about a blow job came about because the GOP couldn't find a way to bring our President down, so they allowed a "civil case" to proceed against a sitting president. (Jones v Clinton)

All members of Congress and all members of the USSC have the right to delay civil trials until after their term of service or until recess, but the single most important man in the world has to face charges in civil court!?

All Clinton asked for was a stay, meaning a delay in the proceedings, but the right wing wackos screamed "No one's above the law.!"

Well, let's suppose I live next to Bush in Crawford, Texas, and I believe he put a fence on my property, so I sue Bush Jr in Civil court...and let's make it the day after 9/11! That ok with you right wing nut cases? No one's above the law, right?

The Jones v Clinton trial led to our President being forced to testify about a perfectly legal consensual relationship, albeit repugnant.

No president should be forced to face charges in Civil court while serving our nation.

This period showed me the true colors of the GOP...regain power, at any expense to our nation, much like today.

Page 4 of the S&P report, explaining the credit downgrade of the U.S., specifically blames the Tea Party and the GOP for failure to compromise on both spending cuts and increased revenue...yes, that means taxes, folks.

The GOP hasn't changed in all these years, except gotten more extreme and further right. their only purpose remains..regaining power at any expense to out President or our nation.If you've read this far...thank you.

If the Dems had taken up and worked on the Ryan Budget Budget and come up with a comprimise in May, none of this would have happened. The Dems seem to have an aversion to passing budgets. Don't know why.

You really need to examine what qualities regaining power brings out in which or both political parties. If you haven't noticed by now that both parties are people with bottom feeding snakes committed to only the furtherance of their own careers and routinely sell the promises made to constituants for contributions and deals, you're just not watching.

The TEA Party has one goal and if that had been pursued, we'd have a triple A rating from S&P. The other 4 rating agencies would still have us down, but we have the home field advantage with S&P.

 

[JoeB131]

Um..

Fitzgerald's subsequent replies to reporters' questions shed further light on the parameters of the "leak investigation" and what, as its lead prosecutor, bound by "the rules of grand jury secrecy," he could and could not reveal legally at the time.[15] Official court documents released later, on April 5, 2006, reveal that Libby testified that "he was specifically authorized in advance" of his meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller to disclose the "key judgments" of the October 2002 classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). According to Libby's testimony, "the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE [to Judith Miller]."[36] According to his testimony, the information that Libby was authorized to disclose to Miller "was intended to rebut the allegations of an administration critic, former ambassador Joseph Wilson." A couple of days after Libby's meeting with Miller, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told reporters, "We don't want to try to get into kind of selective declassification" of the NIE, adding "We're looking at what can be made available."[37] A "sanitized version" of the NIE in question was officially declassified on July 18, 2003, ten days after Libby's contact with Miller, and was presented at a White House background briefing on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.[38] The NIE contains no references to Valerie Plame or her CIA status, but the Special Counsel has suggested that White House actions were part of "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson."[39] President Bush had previously indicated that he would fire whoever had outed Plame.[37]

Valerie Plame - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By Libby's own admission the order came from the President.

THe bolded part indicates that there was no mention of Plame.

Plame was not exposed by Judith Miller or anyone Libby talked to.

She was "exposed" by Robert Novak, who was against the war, from talking to Richard Armitage, who was against the war.

And having watched Fitzfong operate here in Illinois, vindicitively going after people when he can't prove his primary case, I don't really trust anything the man says.

Like threatening to imprison a man's girlfriend if he didn't testify against Gov. Ryan. (And I'm no fan of George RYan, but that was dirty pool.)

 

[JoeB131]

Clinton committed no perjury.

The whole game was a political assasination attempt.

It's astounding how anyone can applaud the efforts of a party that used a very serious procedure, impeachment, in a case of something so damned trivial.

This really shakes the foundations of our government.

And it's scary you guys don't see that.

Clinton has no one to blame but himself.

He could have settled with Paula Jones in 1993, before Monica even came to Washington.

He dragged out a petty civil case for 6 years, and then tried to lie his way out of it.

Again, given how badly his supporters, the trial lawyers, have screwed up things for eveyrone, I'm not feeling a whole lot of his pain.

Live by the sword, die by the sword...

 

[Warrior102]

Um..

Fitzgerald's subsequent replies to reporters' questions shed further light on the parameters of the "leak investigation" and what, as its lead prosecutor, bound by "the rules of grand jury secrecy," he could and could not reveal legally at the time.[15] Official court documents released later, on April 5, 2006, reveal that Libby testified that "he was specifically authorized in advance" of his meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller to disclose the "key judgments" of the October 2002 classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). According to Libby's testimony, "the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE [to Judith Miller]."[36] According to his testimony, the information that Libby was authorized to disclose to Miller "was intended to rebut the allegations of an administration critic, former ambassador Joseph Wilson." A couple of days after Libby's meeting with Miller, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told reporters, "We don't want to try to get into kind of selective declassification" of the NIE, adding "We're looking at what can be made available."[37] A "sanitized version" of the NIE in question was officially declassified on July 18, 2003, ten days after Libby's contact with Miller, and was presented at a White House background briefing on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.[38] The NIE contains no references to Valerie Plame or her CIA status, but the Special Counsel has suggested that White House actions were part of "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson."[39] President Bush had previously indicated that he would fire whoever had outed Plame.[37]

Valerie Plame - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By Libby's own admission the order came from the President.

THe bolded part indicates that there was no mention of Plame.

Plame was not exposed by Judith Miller or anyone Libby talked to.

She was "exposed" by Robert Novak, who was against the war, from talking to Richard Armitage, who was against the war.

And having watched Fitzfong operate here in Illinois, vindicitively going after people when he can't prove his primary case, I don't really trust anything the man says.

Like threatening to imprison a man's girlfriend if he didn't testify against Gov. Ryan. (And I'm no fan of George RYan, but that was dirty pool.)

You are correct.

It's just more convenient to blame Bush.