Lieutenant Governor, WC is Canadian sunshine. Maybe you should take the time to get know the members.
Chris Wallace interviews Clinton
- Thread starter jimmoyer
- Start date
So? What I said was still relevant. Canadian, American, my replys still made sense.
This board is messed up, sometimes i can see 6 pages and sometime 7 and other times im signed in and then im not. It's frustrating.
Yea! Canadians never helped nobody! Just a bunch of arrogant assholes we are.
---------------------------Lieutenant Governor---------------
LOL !!!
---------------------------Lieutenant Governor---------------
LOL !!!
Yea! Canadians never helped nobody! Just a bunch of arrogant assholes we are.
---------------------------------------------------
Interesting statement eh wot? I gather you're speaking of your own fine self and your contributions, yeah?
Also interesting that you jump all over WC without taking the time to read anything she has written previously - 'cause I suspect if you had you would immediately cease making a fool of yourself.
Then again - if the shoe/hat whatever fits. . . .
---------------------------------------------------
Interesting statement eh wot? I gather you're speaking of your own fine self and your contributions, yeah?
Also interesting that you jump all over WC without taking the time to read anything she has written previously - 'cause I suspect if you had you would immediately cease making a fool of yourself.
Then again - if the shoe/hat whatever fits. . . .
Lieutenant Governor
I am sorry you see nothing but insult in my posts about Canadians. I hardly "generalize" as you critique - in fact I am far too upfront for my own good in many cases and create enemies without realizing it.
I am more interested in reading some of the Canadian issues such as the First Nations, Quebec, English as a "second language" (sarcasm), and the future of Alberta. There was discussion earlier this year on opening up patrolling the Artic water thoroughfare by Canada. So many subjects we hear bits about and never get into the core of the topic.
When there are valid arguments between Canada and U.S. - it makes sense for people to voice their opinions - such as the softwood lumber issue or the auto industry which seems to be in a serious recession or the recent extradition of Mahar...
Things we both can discuss from our different perspectives are great - in order to promote understanding of how Canadians feel about their nation.
Topic after topic ending up in another complaint about either Bush or the U.S.A. is simplistic at best and I honestly feel the posters here have more to write about that the same old flapdoodle about their neighbors to the south.
I am sorry you see nothing but insult in my posts about Canadians. I hardly "generalize" as you critique - in fact I am far too upfront for my own good in many cases and create enemies without realizing it.
I am more interested in reading some of the Canadian issues such as the First Nations, Quebec, English as a "second language" (sarcasm), and the future of Alberta. There was discussion earlier this year on opening up patrolling the Artic water thoroughfare by Canada. So many subjects we hear bits about and never get into the core of the topic.
When there are valid arguments between Canada and U.S. - it makes sense for people to voice their opinions - such as the softwood lumber issue or the auto industry which seems to be in a serious recession or the recent extradition of Mahar...
Things we both can discuss from our different perspectives are great - in order to promote understanding of how Canadians feel about their nation.
Topic after topic ending up in another complaint about either Bush or the U.S.A. is simplistic at best and I honestly feel the posters here have more to write about that the same old flapdoodle about their neighbors to the south.
Secretary Rice weighs in on her perception of events leading up to 9/11 and the early months of the Bush administration.
Sen. Clinton Backs Husband After 'FOX News' Interview
Tuesday , September 26, 2006
WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Clinton on Tuesday backed her husband, Bill Clinton, for fervently refuting questions about his anti-terror strategy, even as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged the former president's claims that he aggressively pursued Usama bin Laden.
Bill Clinton appeared on "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace" on Sunday, where he said he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue bin Laden, and left behind for the Bush administration a comprehensive plan to fight Al Qaeda.
"I think my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take these attacks. All you have to do is read the 9/11 commission (report) to know what he and his administration did to protect Americans and prevent terrorist attacks against our country," the New York Democratic senator told reporters on Capitol Hill.
"You know, and I'm certain, if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified reported entitled, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team," Sen. Clinton added.
That report, reviewed by the Sept. 11 commission, talked about Al Qaeda's determination to attack inside the United States as far back as 1997. The commission noted the assessment came at Bush's request and was dated Aug. 6, 2001.
Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright joined in the attack on the administration.
"Ask Secretary Rice how much attention they paid to terrorism in the first eight months. Ask them how many meetings they had about terrorism," Albright said.
But Rice challenged the former president's claim that his administration had pursued bin Laden more forcefully than the Bush administration did before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, and she questioned Clinton's bringing up the debate in the interview.
"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice said Monday during a meeting with editors and reporters at The New York Post. The Post is owned by News Corp., the same company that owns FOX News Channel.
"I think this is not a very fruitful discussion," she said. "We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said."
Bill Clinton became combative in the interview with Wallace when he was asked to defend his handling of the threat posed by bin Laden. He said he "worked hard" to have the Al Qaeda leader killed.
• EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Bill Clinton on 'FOX News Sunday' | Part 2
"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."
Rice disputed his assessment.
"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false — and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," she said.
She also rejected Clinton's assertion that he left behind a plan for detailing with terrorists.
"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight Al Qaeda," she told the newspaper.
On Tuesday, Bush declined to be drawn into the latest dispute.
"I've watched all this finger-pointing and naming of names, and all that stuff. Our objective is to secure the country. And we've had investigations, we had the 9/11 commission, we had the look back this, we've had the look back that," he said.
In the interview on "FOX News Sunday," which got its best ratings in nearly three years, Clinton accused Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?"'
He was referring to the USS Cole, attacked by terrorists in Yemen in 2000 during the Clinton administration. Dick Clarke is former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke, who "left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security," according to Rice.
Asked about whether the interview was part of a "conservative hit job," Sen. Clinton declined to answer.
• Transcript: Former President Clinton on 'FOX News Sunday'
Jim Angle and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Sen. Clinton Backs Husband After 'FOX News' Interview
Tuesday , September 26, 2006
WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Clinton on Tuesday backed her husband, Bill Clinton, for fervently refuting questions about his anti-terror strategy, even as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged the former president's claims that he aggressively pursued Usama bin Laden.
Bill Clinton appeared on "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace" on Sunday, where he said he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue bin Laden, and left behind for the Bush administration a comprehensive plan to fight Al Qaeda.
"I think my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take these attacks. All you have to do is read the 9/11 commission (report) to know what he and his administration did to protect Americans and prevent terrorist attacks against our country," the New York Democratic senator told reporters on Capitol Hill.
"You know, and I'm certain, if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified reported entitled, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team," Sen. Clinton added.
That report, reviewed by the Sept. 11 commission, talked about Al Qaeda's determination to attack inside the United States as far back as 1997. The commission noted the assessment came at Bush's request and was dated Aug. 6, 2001.
Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright joined in the attack on the administration.
"Ask Secretary Rice how much attention they paid to terrorism in the first eight months. Ask them how many meetings they had about terrorism," Albright said.
But Rice challenged the former president's claim that his administration had pursued bin Laden more forcefully than the Bush administration did before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, and she questioned Clinton's bringing up the debate in the interview.
"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice said Monday during a meeting with editors and reporters at The New York Post. The Post is owned by News Corp., the same company that owns FOX News Channel.
"I think this is not a very fruitful discussion," she said. "We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said."
Bill Clinton became combative in the interview with Wallace when he was asked to defend his handling of the threat posed by bin Laden. He said he "worked hard" to have the Al Qaeda leader killed.
• EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Bill Clinton on 'FOX News Sunday' | Part 2
"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."
Rice disputed his assessment.
"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false — and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," she said.
She also rejected Clinton's assertion that he left behind a plan for detailing with terrorists.
"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight Al Qaeda," she told the newspaper.
On Tuesday, Bush declined to be drawn into the latest dispute.
"I've watched all this finger-pointing and naming of names, and all that stuff. Our objective is to secure the country. And we've had investigations, we had the 9/11 commission, we had the look back this, we've had the look back that," he said.
In the interview on "FOX News Sunday," which got its best ratings in nearly three years, Clinton accused Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?"'
He was referring to the USS Cole, attacked by terrorists in Yemen in 2000 during the Clinton administration. Dick Clarke is former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke, who "left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security," according to Rice.
Asked about whether the interview was part of a "conservative hit job," Sen. Clinton declined to answer.
• Transcript: Former President Clinton on 'FOX News Sunday'
Jim Angle and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Maybe it's time to stop blaming eachother for 9/11. I know I'd much rather see the next presidential race focus on what the candidates plan to do NOW and in the future.
Clinton go hang!
Talking about American political chicanery is always interesting. The US has set itself up as the world's moral arbiter and we have every right to comment on its progress. Wednesday's Child, you're producing some remarkable twaddle lately. Some of your posts remind me of- me. Extolling the great innocence and goodness and resolution of the land. Marvelling at its accomplishments and efforts. Tongue plastered in cheek.
What we need, as Christopher Hume opined lately in the Star, is a complete fresh start here. Canadians - forbid - should be asked what they expect of government and then each level of government should be forced to do its job and given the appropriate authority to do so. We'd have some measure of exercisable accountability. Gosh, then we wouldn't have this burbling of urban legend about our mythic contributions to the world. We'd actually have to produce some at home.
Talking about American political chicanery is always interesting. The US has set itself up as the world's moral arbiter and we have every right to comment on its progress. Wednesday's Child, you're producing some remarkable twaddle lately. Some of your posts remind me of- me. Extolling the great innocence and goodness and resolution of the land. Marvelling at its accomplishments and efforts. Tongue plastered in cheek.
What we need, as Christopher Hume opined lately in the Star, is a complete fresh start here. Canadians - forbid - should be asked what they expect of government and then each level of government should be forced to do its job and given the appropriate authority to do so. We'd have some measure of exercisable accountability. Gosh, then we wouldn't have this burbling of urban legend about our mythic contributions to the world. We'd actually have to produce some at home.
Amazing,
Americans are still upset over a blowjob a decade ago between two consenting adults, while they still have no problems with their country's current leaders lying and manipulating them into a needless war which has killed more Americans than the 9/11 terrorist attacks, killed more than 100,000 innocent people, led to the suspension of many civil rights and freedoms and increased significantly the number of nutcases willing to blow themselves up and take as many Americans with them as they can.
Talk about screwed up.
When Clinton is asked a loaded question about his failure to capture or kill Bin Laden, in order to make it sound like his administration didn't do enough, his anger is justified. He wasn't the one which ignore al Qaeda for eight months before 9/11. How come no one asked the Bush administration this question right after 9/11, or during his re-election campaign?
Al Qaeda only became a Bush priority after 9/11, not before. After using 9/11 to justify a war in Afghanistan, Bush used 9/11 again to start a war in Iraq.
Anyone who applied critical thought to the known facts during the run up to the Iraq war knew Iraq was not a threat. Even Rice and Powell said so before 9/11. Nothing had been found in Iraq before or since the war to justify the carnage the US and other nations rained down upon the Iraqi civilians.
Now that several reports have clearly indicated the Iraq war was either manipulated or based on false intelligence, Americans can only come to two possible conclusions about Bush. Bush is either a liar/murderer or grossly incompetent. Either way, he should never have been re-elected.
Yet he was re-elected because he opposed gay marriage.
Amazing. I would never have believed people could be so screwed up for so long after the facts have come out.
People in general are about as intelligent as a herd of cows.
Americans are still upset over a blowjob a decade ago between two consenting adults, while they still have no problems with their country's current leaders lying and manipulating them into a needless war which has killed more Americans than the 9/11 terrorist attacks, killed more than 100,000 innocent people, led to the suspension of many civil rights and freedoms and increased significantly the number of nutcases willing to blow themselves up and take as many Americans with them as they can.
Talk about screwed up.
When Clinton is asked a loaded question about his failure to capture or kill Bin Laden, in order to make it sound like his administration didn't do enough, his anger is justified. He wasn't the one which ignore al Qaeda for eight months before 9/11. How come no one asked the Bush administration this question right after 9/11, or during his re-election campaign?
Al Qaeda only became a Bush priority after 9/11, not before. After using 9/11 to justify a war in Afghanistan, Bush used 9/11 again to start a war in Iraq.
Anyone who applied critical thought to the known facts during the run up to the Iraq war knew Iraq was not a threat. Even Rice and Powell said so before 9/11. Nothing had been found in Iraq before or since the war to justify the carnage the US and other nations rained down upon the Iraqi civilians.
Now that several reports have clearly indicated the Iraq war was either manipulated or based on false intelligence, Americans can only come to two possible conclusions about Bush. Bush is either a liar/murderer or grossly incompetent. Either way, he should never have been re-elected.
Yet he was re-elected because he opposed gay marriage.
Amazing. I would never have believed people could be so screwed up for so long after the facts have come out.
People in general are about as intelligent as a herd of cows.
Last edited:
Clinton is a man i can respect. To paraphrase Eminem..
He's got the balls to say it in front of ya'll and he don't gotta be false or sugar coated at all. He just gets on the mic and spits it and wether you like to admit it, He just better than 90% of the politicians out there.
------------------------------------Lieutenant Governor----------------------------------------
Clinton's outburst while understandable for him to have wished he killed bin Laden, reopened the
debate about what he did or did not do in his term regarding the little known al Qaeda to the public,
but well known internally to them ever since the first attempt in 1993 on the Twin Towers where
the bomb went off in the basement killing 6 people and causing serious structure problems not fixed
completely until several years later.
His alleging he left a terror plan is mystifying, because no one seems to know what his plan was
unless his reference is to Clark's work, or the usual bureaucratic brochures and memorandum on
the subject. But he was very specific about it being HIS PLAN, that he gave to the next administration.
See quote at beginning of thread: When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke… ..... Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know…"
And so is his reference to Clarke being fired. Clarke was never fired. Read what he said and it is quite misleading.
No one demoted him nor fired him. It was said he wanted to by head of a Cyber unit, and not
the head of Home Security.
It appears very little vetting of his specific allegations is being analyzed.
Just glossed over.
Just an inkblot test for a person's standing bias.
Each glosses over it with their particular persuasion rather than analyzing the particulars.
We all agree to move on, however.
Anyway I would like to reprise a humorous statement by Lieutenant Governor:
Yea! Canadians never helped nobody! Just a bunch of arrogant assholes we are.
---------------------------Lieutenant Governor---------------
LOL !!!
He's got the balls to say it in front of ya'll and he don't gotta be false or sugar coated at all. He just gets on the mic and spits it and wether you like to admit it, He just better than 90% of the politicians out there.
------------------------------------Lieutenant Governor----------------------------------------
Clinton's outburst while understandable for him to have wished he killed bin Laden, reopened the
debate about what he did or did not do in his term regarding the little known al Qaeda to the public,
but well known internally to them ever since the first attempt in 1993 on the Twin Towers where
the bomb went off in the basement killing 6 people and causing serious structure problems not fixed
completely until several years later.
His alleging he left a terror plan is mystifying, because no one seems to know what his plan was
unless his reference is to Clark's work, or the usual bureaucratic brochures and memorandum on
the subject. But he was very specific about it being HIS PLAN, that he gave to the next administration.
See quote at beginning of thread: When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke… ..... Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know…"
And so is his reference to Clarke being fired. Clarke was never fired. Read what he said and it is quite misleading.
No one demoted him nor fired him. It was said he wanted to by head of a Cyber unit, and not
the head of Home Security.
It appears very little vetting of his specific allegations is being analyzed.
Just glossed over.
Just an inkblot test for a person's standing bias.
Each glosses over it with their particular persuasion rather than analyzing the particulars.
We all agree to move on, however.
Anyway I would like to reprise a humorous statement by Lieutenant Governor:
Yea! Canadians never helped nobody! Just a bunch of arrogant assholes we are.
---------------------------Lieutenant Governor---------------
LOL !!!
Last edited:
Technically Clarke was not fired as Clinton says. More accurate would be to say he was demoted, sidelined and ignored, which is about the same as being fired, except he was still on the payroll.
When 9/11 happened, Clarke's skills and knowledge suddenly became more important. But he remained on the sidelines and had no real power or authority, like he did under Clinton.
Clarke finally quit when Bush's war on terror expanded to include Iraq.
Therefore Clinton's assertion that Clarke was fired was technically incorrect, but reflects reality. Clarke, under Bush had the same title, same pay, but none of the responsibility, influence or authority he had under Clinton.
When 9/11 happened, Clarke's skills and knowledge suddenly became more important. But he remained on the sidelines and had no real power or authority, like he did under Clinton.
Clarke finally quit when Bush's war on terror expanded to include Iraq.
Therefore Clinton's assertion that Clarke was fired was technically incorrect, but reflects reality. Clarke, under Bush had the same title, same pay, but none of the responsibility, influence or authority he had under Clinton.
Oh, I remember MUCH more about young Willy than his blow job.
I remember him declassifying for export useful missile technology in return for a $350,000 donation from the daughter of a general in China's People's Liberation Army.
I remember him stomping roughshod over the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
I remember him firing a missile or two into a desert or two over Osama's terror attacks.
I remember him throttling any chance at military aid for the UN in Rwanda during the genocide there.
I remember him lying under oath.
I remember watching a "60 minutes" report on how he sexually assaulted a White House worker who went to him very upset because her husband had lost his job, and had gone missing...........he was later discovered to have killed himself.
I remember him abandoning Somalia after losing 19 men............
And, the final indignity, I remember the scum stealing tens of thousands of dollars worth of furniture when they finally left the White House.
AND THAT'S JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD!!!!!
Do you remember that whatever Clinton tried to do he had to do it under a Republican led congress that attempted to block his ability to lead the country? I’m sure in stating things about Clinton you would pick the worst you can try to portray of him. If this is supposedly Clinton’s worst, then Bush must have you bleeding out of your eyeballs.
You think these republicans care about what is happening in Africa now? You think they cared before? Now they control all three branches of government. If they wanted to care about the atrocity (still occurring), they could have shown it by now so many years later.
Clinton wasn’t after the terrorists? Bush has dropped the ball for how long with regards to Osama? He said at one point he doesn’t think about him much (post 911). Instead the USA is fighting an insurgency that has nothing to do with the cause of 911, but rather is a resistance against an occupation that should have never of happened to begin with. Instead the USA is breeding terrorism as report after new report continues to suggest.
Anyway, America is for Americans to build on or destroy. They have the means to know everything they need to know at this point. It’s their country. I really shouldn’t feel too passionate about whether they wish to destroy the image of various people in their society, fairly or unfairly. Unfortunately we get American culture and media blasted into our eyes and ears via television and the last thing I want is a dumbing down of our own citizenry on the perspectives of reality.
The same republicans in US politics that chastise Clinton are the same ones that have worked at destroying their own decorated heroes for political gain. Vietnam veterans (and I’m not talking of Kerry) who have even lost limbs but held a critical voice on how the US conducts foreign policy. Hey, they will slander even one of their own, John McCain without any ethical qualm.
And yet people still turn to these mud throwers as information providers against political rivals? I can only wonder what the truth is sometimes when I have to wade through that mud.
....
By the way, I’ll never forget how they portrayed McCain as being the father of a black baby. And they weren’t even lying! However it wasn’t that he had an affair with a black woman to foster a black child, betraying his wife. No, not like the way they portrayed it. He was the father because him and his wife adopted a black child out of the good of their heart. But only republicans can get away with that kind of slander for some reason. Hence Bush beating McCain for Republican leadership. And I say this without being any fan of McCain.
Technically Clarke was not fired as Clinton says. More accurate would be to say he was demoted, sidelined and ignored, which is about the same as being fired, except he was still on the payroll.
When 9/11 happened, Clarke's skills and knowledge suddenly became more important. But he remained on the sidelines and had no real power or authority, like he did under Clinton.
-------------------------------------------------earth_as_one------------------------------------------------------
Clinton wanting FOX (much less any news outlet) to ask the Bush administration,
" Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know…" is not only TECHNICALLY misleading,
but rather it is TOTALLY MISLEADING.
Nor was he demoted, and nor sidelined, and nor was he ignored any more than the Clintons who
mislead you into believing he had a top notch place in the sun in their administration, because there
are many including Clarke himself, who felt NEITHER administration was listening ENOUGH.
And this plan of Clinton's ? HIS PLAN ?
Oh well, let the partisan spin on both sides continue.
Clarke does damn both administrations. Read his book.
When 9/11 happened, Clarke's skills and knowledge suddenly became more important. But he remained on the sidelines and had no real power or authority, like he did under Clinton.
-------------------------------------------------earth_as_one------------------------------------------------------
Clinton wanting FOX (much less any news outlet) to ask the Bush administration,
" Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know…" is not only TECHNICALLY misleading,
but rather it is TOTALLY MISLEADING.
Nor was he demoted, and nor sidelined, and nor was he ignored any more than the Clintons who
mislead you into believing he had a top notch place in the sun in their administration, because there
are many including Clarke himself, who felt NEITHER administration was listening ENOUGH.
And this plan of Clinton's ? HIS PLAN ?
Oh well, let the partisan spin on both sides continue.
Clarke does damn both administrations. Read his book.
Last edited:
What a load of crap. More smears and libel.
Sure Clinton relaxed rules on what information could be exported to China. But you twist his decision to make it sound like he was representing Chinese interests or accepted a bribe. I'm sure donations to Clinton's elections campaigns were as closely examined as the stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress.
Many rules controlling what information could be passed to the Chinese had become obsolete. Some restrictions were related to technology China had already mastered. Others were plain stupid. For example, how is an American satellite company supposed to launch a commercial satellite on a Chinese booster if American law prevents them from telling the Chinese basic information like the size, dimensions and weight of their satellite???? Under the new rules, China did not learn anything it did not already know or harm American interests. In fact it could be argued that the new rules protected American military and economic interests by making American satellite companies more competive rather than forcing them out of business because they could not compete internationally.
So what if Clinton wanted to make it harder for Americans with violent criminal records and mental problems to acquire automatic weapons. It was never the intent of the second amendment to facilitate armed robbery and incidents like Columbine. At least Clinton didn't blatantly violate these other ammendments:
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
One valid point. Clinton ignored Rwanda and he should be hung out to dry on that one. How do you feel about Bush's handling of the genocide in Darfur?
No court ever ruled Clinton had lied under oath. A committee of policitians made that determination. Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky under a definition provided to him in writing by Jones' lawyers, and also said that he could not recall whether he was ever alone with her.
Technically the first statement was true as Jones' lawyers described sexual relations as penile-vaginal contact which did not include a blowjob. But everyone including Clinton knows a blowjob is a form of sexual contact.
The second was probably a lie, but cannot be proven. Even if Clinton did show off his erection to Jones in the privacy of her room, according to Arkansas law, that isn't rape or even sexual harassment.
What Clinton did with Lewinsky should never have been part of this case in the first place.
Regarding the allegation of rape: Does it make sense that a women would maintain a friendship with Clinton, use him as a reference and write letters to him describing herself as Clinton's number one fan after he raped her? No doubt Clinton had a long list of extramarital affairs. I find it difficult to believe that someone as smooth talking as Clinton would have a hard time convincing women to have sex with him, let alone resort to rape, but I suppose that's possible. Still as far as I know Clinton has never been convicted of rape. More likely Clinton is guilty of convincing women to do things sexually they later regretted. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Obviously some of Clinton's actions in his personal life were immoral, but immoral isn't the same as illegal.
Sure Clinton relaxed rules on what information could be exported to China. But you twist his decision to make it sound like he was representing Chinese interests or accepted a bribe. I'm sure donations to Clinton's elections campaigns were as closely examined as the stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress.
Many rules controlling what information could be passed to the Chinese had become obsolete. Some restrictions were related to technology China had already mastered. Others were plain stupid. For example, how is an American satellite company supposed to launch a commercial satellite on a Chinese booster if American law prevents them from telling the Chinese basic information like the size, dimensions and weight of their satellite???? Under the new rules, China did not learn anything it did not already know or harm American interests. In fact it could be argued that the new rules protected American military and economic interests by making American satellite companies more competive rather than forcing them out of business because they could not compete internationally.
So what if Clinton wanted to make it harder for Americans with violent criminal records and mental problems to acquire automatic weapons. It was never the intent of the second amendment to facilitate armed robbery and incidents like Columbine. At least Clinton didn't blatantly violate these other ammendments:
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Your memory is imcomplete:
One valid point. Clinton ignored Rwanda and he should be hung out to dry on that one. How do you feel about Bush's handling of the genocide in Darfur?
No court ever ruled Clinton had lied under oath. A committee of policitians made that determination. Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky under a definition provided to him in writing by Jones' lawyers, and also said that he could not recall whether he was ever alone with her.
Technically the first statement was true as Jones' lawyers described sexual relations as penile-vaginal contact which did not include a blowjob. But everyone including Clinton knows a blowjob is a form of sexual contact.
The second was probably a lie, but cannot be proven. Even if Clinton did show off his erection to Jones in the privacy of her room, according to Arkansas law, that isn't rape or even sexual harassment.
What Clinton did with Lewinsky should never have been part of this case in the first place.
Regarding the allegation of rape: Does it make sense that a women would maintain a friendship with Clinton, use him as a reference and write letters to him describing herself as Clinton's number one fan after he raped her? No doubt Clinton had a long list of extramarital affairs. I find it difficult to believe that someone as smooth talking as Clinton would have a hard time convincing women to have sex with him, let alone resort to rape, but I suppose that's possible. Still as far as I know Clinton has never been convicted of rape. More likely Clinton is guilty of convincing women to do things sexually they later regretted. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Obviously some of Clinton's actions in his personal life were immoral, but immoral isn't the same as illegal.
Last edited: