Clinton and Paula Jones

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: senseamp
GOP is a national disgrace. Impeaching such a great president as Clinton over nothing, while allowing Bush's lies to destroy this country's standing in the world, and 3K soldiers lives, and $1T in national wealth.

Not over nothing. Clinton's numerous peccadilloes made the news every single week, right up to the immoral pardons as he left.

Huh? If the Republicans had any sort of evidence of serious wrongdoing on Clinton, don't you think they would have impeached him on more than lying about a BJ? Nope, after spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, that's all they could scrape up.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: senseamp
GOP is a national disgrace. Impeaching such a great president as Clinton over nothing, while allowing Bush's lies to destroy this country's standing in the world, and 3K soldiers lives, and $1T in national wealth.

Not over nothing. Clinton's numerous peccadilloes made the news every single week, right up to the immoral pardons as he left.

Huh? If the Republicans had any sort of evidence of serious wrongdoing on Clinton, don't you think they would have impeached him on more than lying about a BJ? Nope, after spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, that's all they could scrape up.

They had evidence. They just didn't get him on it. The Clinton administration apparently also hid evidence, as in the mysterious disappearance of papers in the Whitewater fiasco. Strange times! There's a reason your god's nickname was "Slick Willie". There's a reason he just wants the whole Paula Jones thing to sweep itself under the rug. There's a reason he won't discuss the Rich pardon, and has been reticent on his shady dealings with foreigners.

All of this will continue to be ignored by you. Anyone who doesn't automatically pooh-pooh the numerous scandals is automatically labelled a conservative right-winger by your sort. What a disastrous worldview.

Edit: I just want to restate my main statements: that Clinton wasn't exactly pure, and that no proof has ever been advanced that Bush lied. I don't understand why this is such an issue.

Clinton is known not to have been the most honest man ever-- and I've admitted that he was a much better president than Bush, partly to salve wounded ultraliberal pride in advance.

Anyone wanting to show that Bush lied has only to post authoritative information proving it. I never said he didn't lie (which I cannot know), only that it hadn't been proven.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I asked before, and nobody every managed to post a link to an authoritative source showing that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. In order to lie, you have to know you're lying-- you know that, right? Otherwise it's called "being mistaken".

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_10...s/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

?On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . .It has developed weapons of mass death.?

?The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.?

Saddam Hussein is ?a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. . . . [A] true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.?

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.

?the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . (I)t has developed weapons of mass death.?

re: chemical and biological weapons:

"he?s got them.?

?Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be
used to disperse chemical or biological weapons.?

Does that prove it? I'm a little confused about where you're going with those quotes. Nobody ever supposed that the President of the United States actually put his naked eyeballs on WMDs. He has to go on the basis of intelligence he's given, which is usually not 100% accurate. When talking of things that are not absolutely known, everything is an opinion.

Saddam Hussein did aid and protect terrorists, IIRC. As a matter of fact, I've seen pictures of a Boeing airplane body used to train terrorists in attacking planes, somewhere in the neighborhood of Baghdad.

Again, to lie is to attempt to intentionally mislead someone.

Ah the purest definition of an Apologist right there above.

Gapeto would be proud.

An Internet search on the term "Gapeto" turns up nothing of note. Your cultural knowledge and mordant wit has fought me to an absolute standstill. You win, Dave-- who can argue with you?

Sorry I mispelled, try again Geppetto

THE STORY OF PINOCCHIO - "There was once a piece of wood"...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Ah, so you're lumping Bush in with "BushCo" now just to drag up that old thread. It doesn't prove that Bush intentionally misled anyone. Neither does the failure of a Congressional inquiry to proceed.

Prove that Bush lied. It's very simple-- prove that he intentionally uttered falsehoods and I'll shut up. You haven't done it yet, which means that you won't do it now.

I see. We're playing semantics games, dramatically narrowing the scope to insulate Bush from accountability for the actions of his minions. (Funny how the self-professed party of integrity and personal accountability never applies that concept to Bush.) Very well. While that's the same sort of lame dodge Clinton used to weasel out of responsibilty, I'll accept your double standard.

Can I prove Bush personally lied? Without a doubt ... if you give me $70M and an independent prosecutor with subpoena power. Lacking that, I must concede there is another possiblilty, that Bush is the most incompetent buffoon to ever hold the office, that he didn't read any of the intel available to him, that he was apparently focused on his Game Boy during all of the briefings and meetings on Iraq, that he is a complete puppet to the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld, that he totally abdicated his responsibility to make a well-informed decision before launching a foolhardy war of aggression that has cost tens of thousands of innocent lives and a trillion dollars or more. But at least he didn't get a BJ. You must be so proud.

Frankly, I think it's less derisive to consider him a liar, but if you prefer reckless idiot, it's a free country.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: senseamp
GOP is a national disgrace. Impeaching such a great president as Clinton over nothing, while allowing Bush's lies to destroy this country's standing in the world, and 3K soldiers lives, and $1T in national wealth.

Not over nothing. Clinton's numerous peccadilloes made the news every single week, right up to the immoral pardons as he left.

Huh? If the Republicans had any sort of evidence of serious wrongdoing on Clinton, don't you think they would have impeached him on more than lying about a BJ? Nope, after spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, that's all they could scrape up.

They had evidence. They just didn't get him on it. The Clinton administration apparently also hid evidence, as in the mysterious disappearance of papers in the Whitewater fiasco. Strange times! There's a reason your god's nickname was "Slick Willie". There's a reason he just wants the whole Paula Jones thing to sweep itself under the rug. There's a reason he won't discuss the Rich pardon, and has been reticent on his shady dealings with foreigners.

All of this will continue to be ignored by you. Anyone who doesn't automatically pooh-pooh the numerous scandals is automatically labelled a conservative right-winger by your sort. What a disastrous worldview.

Edit: I just want to restate my main statements: that Clinton wasn't exactly pure, and that no proof has ever been advanced that Bush lied. I don't understand why this is such an issue.

Clinton is known not to have been the most honest man ever-- and I've admitted that he was a much better president than Bush, partly to salve wounded ultraliberal pride in advance.

Anyone wanting to show that Bush lied has only to post authoritative information proving it. I never said he didn't lie (which I cannot know), only that it hadn't been proven.

If they had evidence of Clinton committing something more serious than lying about a BJ, the GOP would have impeached him on that, instead of wasting this country's time like they did. They had nothing but innuendo, which is why all that Whitewater nonsense went nowhere. And we have proof that Bush lied. He said Iraq had WMD's and it didn't. Just because he chose to delude himself into thinking Saddam had WMD's, it doesn't mean he didn't lie, any less than Clinton deluding himself into thinking that oral sex wasn't sex.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Ah, so you're lumping Bush in with "BushCo" now just to drag up that old thread. It doesn't prove that Bush intentionally misled anyone. Neither does the failure of a Congressional inquiry to proceed.

Prove that Bush lied. It's very simple-- prove that he intentionally uttered falsehoods and I'll shut up. You haven't done it yet, which means that you won't do it now.

I see. We're playing semantics games, dramatically narrowing the scope to insulate Bush from accountability for the actions of his minions. (Funny how the self-professed party of integrity and personal accountability never applies that concept to Bush.) Very well. While that's the same sort of lame dodge Clinton used to weasel out of responsibilty, I'll accept your double standard.

Can I prove Bush personally lied? Without a doubt ... if you give me $70M and an independent prosecutor with subpoena power. Lacking that, I must concede there is another possiblilty, that Bush is the most incompetent buffoon to ever hold the office, that he didn't read any of the intel available to him, that he was apparently focused on his Game Boy during all of the briefings and meetings on Iraq, that he is a complete puppet to the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld, that he totally abdicated his responsibility to make a well-informed decision before launching a foolhardy war of aggression that has cost tens of thousands of innocent lives and a trillion dollars or more. But at least he didn't get a BJ. You must be so proud.

Frankly, I think it's less derisive to consider him a liar, but if you prefer reckless idiot, it's a free country.

Its pretty impressive that you know he lied because you read/know all of the intel that the President of the US saw. Could you let me know if they tap my phone? kthnx


Yes the war is aggressive. But yes it was warranted. Who has the balls to attack the US now? We will hit you and anyone else who's a threat (I don't care what you say about Saddam, blatantly disobeying UN orders IS a threat).

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Ah, so you're lumping Bush in with "BushCo" now just to drag up that old thread. It doesn't prove that Bush intentionally misled anyone. Neither does the failure of a Congressional inquiry to proceed.

Prove that Bush lied. It's very simple-- prove that he intentionally uttered falsehoods and I'll shut up. You haven't done it yet, which means that you won't do it now.

I see. We're playing semantics games, dramatically narrowing the scope to insulate Bush from accountability for the actions of his minions. (Funny how the self-professed party of integrity and personal accountability never applies that concept to Bush.) Very well. While that's the same sort of lame dodge Clinton used to weasel out of responsibilty, I'll accept your double standard.

Can I prove Bush personally lied? Without a doubt ... if you give me $70M and an independent prosecutor with subpoena power. Lacking that, I must concede there is another possiblilty, that Bush is the most incompetent buffoon to ever hold the office, that he didn't read any of the intel available to him, that he was apparently focused on his Game Boy during all of the briefings and meetings on Iraq, that he is a complete puppet to the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld, that he totally abdicated his responsibility to make a well-informed decision before launching a foolhardy war of aggression that has cost tens of thousands of innocent lives and a trillion dollars or more. But at least he didn't get a BJ. You must be so proud.

Frankly, I think it's less derisive to consider him a liar, but if you prefer reckless idiot, it's a free country.

Its pretty impressive that you know he lied because you read/know all of the intel that the President of the US saw. Could you let me know if they tap my phone? kthnx

That's a specious diversion. One need not read ALL of the intel. There is ample evidence of dishonesty available in the intel that has already been made public. As I said, however, if the Bush apologists prefer to think of their hero as a reckless idiot instead of a liar, who am I to argue? Denial is a powerful drug, and it's undoubtedly tough for an addict to go cold turkey. I think it's a major step forward that the Bush faithful are finally acknowledging his propaganda machine lied to us.

Yes the war is aggressive. But yes it was warranted. Who has the balls to attack the US now? We will hit you and anyone else who's a threat (I don't care what you say about Saddam, blatantly disobeying UN orders IS a threat).

Wow. If you really think becoming the world's bully has made us safer, you're in even deeper denial than I thought. Couple that with testosterone overload, and we have a great recipe for disaster.

As far as blatantly disobeying U.N. orders is concerned, I take it then that you feel Israel is ten times the threat Iraq was, true?

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Ah, so you're lumping Bush in with "BushCo" now just to drag up that old thread. It doesn't prove that Bush intentionally misled anyone. Neither does the failure of a Congressional inquiry to proceed.

Prove that Bush lied. It's very simple-- prove that he intentionally uttered falsehoods and I'll shut up. You haven't done it yet, which means that you won't do it now.

I see. We're playing semantics games, dramatically narrowing the scope to insulate Bush from accountability for the actions of his minions. (Funny how the self-professed party of integrity and personal accountability never applies that concept to Bush.) Very well. While that's the same sort of lame dodge Clinton used to weasel out of responsibilty, I'll accept your double standard.

Can I prove Bush personally lied? Without a doubt ... if you give me $70M and an independent prosecutor with subpoena power. Lacking that, I must concede there is another possiblilty, that Bush is the most incompetent buffoon to ever hold the office, that he didn't read any of the intel available to him, that he was apparently focused on his Game Boy during all of the briefings and meetings on Iraq, that he is a complete puppet to the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld, that he totally abdicated his responsibility to make a well-informed decision before launching a foolhardy war of aggression that has cost tens of thousands of innocent lives and a trillion dollars or more. But at least he didn't get a BJ. You must be so proud.

Frankly, I think it's less derisive to consider him a liar, but if you prefer reckless idiot, it's a free country.

No semantics games. You're just pissed because you can't use your old, inaccurate post in order to bolster your inaccurate statements in this thread. In the old thread, you never successfully showed even that Rumsfeld lied-- the only seemingly authoritative damning information anyone posted was a memo from a person setting down their recollection of statements Rumsfeld made on 9/11. Like it or not, this is not the sort of proof that, for instance, a court would require. It may show part of the state of mind of an anguished Rumsfeld as the attacks occurred, far far before the UN got involved.

One of your more consistent arguments has been that "BushCo" lied by misrepresenting the strength of the information they had available. Again, when someone says "we know that they have X in X" at that level, they haven't actually done the intel themselves, ever. Intelligence is usually characterized by a lack of absolute certainty, often due to conflicting reports. That does not mean that a reasonable person cannot draw strong inferences.

One can argue fairly that the Iraq war was not reasonable, in its reasons or the way it was carried out. I still haven't seen proof that Bush lied. Show me some!

 

[LcarsSystem]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: LcarsSystem

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Zebo
- yeah I beleive her Clinton borked anything that moved except square legs he was married to.

Yeah, so he had a healthy sex life outside of his marriage, don't you wish you did??? :laugh:

Never even seriously thought about it. If I did I would'nt maintain a sham of a marriage like Clinton has for at least 20 years.

A fight between the elites!

Anyways, I'd rather have him back in office than the current whackjob. Like I said before, it's a shame people still hold animosity toward Clinton when they should be asking themselves why don't they feel the same about Bush, afterall he is the one that lied about Iraq, has gotten people killed and is continuing to do so.

I asked before, and nobody every managed to post a link to an authoritative source showing that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. In order to lie, you have to know you're lying-- you know that, right? Otherwise it's called "being mistaken".

He purposely lied about the weapons, and the materials, look the story up it was on 60 Minutes a couple months back. He was told that their were no materials to be had from Niger, and yet he still mentioned it to plunge this nation into war.

I am not even going to bother searching for it, you're the one interested you look for it, I know where I stand.

 

[AnandTech Moderator]

This thread is being hi-jacked.

Stay on topic (Clinton/Jones) or start a new thread

5 minute warning