Monica's back - Says Clinton lied - Here we go again!

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Ah, I miss the days of good old Bubba. Slick Willy actually had charisma and was a smooth operator. No teleprompter needed.

 

[StageLeft]

Really just of no consequence anymore even if he did.

 

[PJABBER]

Until you run your Hummer into a fire hydrant after being chased by your wife with a golf club because she found out your were having multiple affairs with Pages on C Street.

There are very few things that I would fear so much as an angry Latina with a golf club and a ten handicap! Worse for me is that she is a fan of large caliber weapons and considers a fun date to be an evening at the range. I doubt I would even make it as far as the Jeep.

And you are more likely to find me at the Old Ebbitt Grill, not being in with the hoi polloi at C Street.

;-)

EDIT: My wife came home for lunch, glanced at my second monitor where I have this thread open and just thought she would mention that it was not so long ago that she had a hoot watching Brangelina doing "Mr. and Mrs. Smith." She also told me she has written to Santa specifically asking for a case of Prvi Partizan 45 ACP 230 gr ball ammo. That's $450 right there. Now she is walking around with a 4 iron and laughing her head off.

Thanks, Red. Thanks a lot.

 

[DesiPower]

seems like her "skills" are not in hot demand anymore... looking for other avenues... writing a book maybe...

 

[hal2kilo]

Oh look more shinny objects to distract the citizentry from any having to do with what's really important.

 

[nobodyknows]

"Bush Lied, people died"

So says an "independent" study:

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
.
.
.

http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2008/01/bush-lied-peopl.html

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

"Bush Lied, people died"

So says an "independent" study:

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
.
.
.

http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2008/01/bush-lied-peopl.html

Errrr....this thread is about Lewinski and Clinton. Suffer a severe blow to the head recently?

 

[DealMonkey]

Yeah, I'm guessing she's out of money.

Earth to Monica: Clinton hasn't been president in almost 9 years. Nobody cares.

I'm already bored. Next scandal, please.

 

[nobodyknows]

Errrr....this thread is about Lewinski and Clinton. Suffer a severe blow to the head recently?

If you can't see my point you're not too bright and shouldn't be chastising me for being off topic because you are the one off topic.

F'in kids, buy them books and send send to school and you end up with a bunch of dumb ass know-it-alls.

 

[ProfJohn]

If you can't see my point you're not too bright and shouldn't be chastising me for being off topic because you are the one off topic.

F'in kids, buy them books and send send to school and you end up with a bunch of dumb ass know-it-alls.

What exactly is your point??

Other than to distract from the topic on hand.

BTW I think the most meaningful thing from this story is the fact that Bill still refuses to admit that he screwed up.

Him and Hillary both seem to suffer from the same psychological disorder aka everything that goes wrong in their lives is the fault of someone else.

 

[Craig234]

What exactly is your point??

Other than to distract from the topic on hand.

BTW I think the most meaningful thing from this story is the fact that Bill still refuses to admit that he screwed up.

Him and Hillary both seem to suffer from the same psychological disorder aka everything that goes wrong in their lives is the fault of someone else.

PJ, one of your problems is the lack of any connection between the facts and what you say the facts are.

It's a 'true believer' mentality, where you just make up or spin the facts to fit what you want.

I don't say this to attack you, but in case it helps you.

I remember the right wing attacking Clinton for apologizing too much at the time. They'd say, he's apologizing 24x7, can't he shut the hell up already?

Their criticisms had a point, no doubt the PR advice was for him to do just that - kill the problem of the public attacking him for not taking responsiblity, by getting them sick of his apologizing.

But an article comes out claiming he hasn't admitted fault, and you buy into it and repeat it back, saying Clinton has never apologized.

And you go on to make a broader attacked based on nothing but hot air. What setbacks have te Clintons had to even fit your myth?

The Lewinski scandal, the loss of Congress in 1994, the loss of Hillarycare, Hillary coming in second in 2008, not a lot others jump out.

Now where's your evidence for your myth? For one thing, they *did* have the right to blame others a lot.

They tried to pass healthcare good for the country without selling out to big pharma, unlike Obama, and got their asses handed to them by big pharma ad campaigns (Harry and Louise) and lobbying. I didn't see them blame others excessively. On Lewinsky, that was the tail end (no pun intended) of a several year witch hunt, documented in books you have not read and will not read I expect unless proving me wrong motivates you, with a rabid Republican COngress out to attack him no matter what andf 'get revenge for Watergate', funding massive investigations that came up with nothing, firing the first hand-picked Republican prosecutor when he said he found no wrongdoing and replacing him with a hack who knew what his marching orders were, as well as a $50 million fund for nothig but digging up dirt on the Clintons, true or false, funded by Richard Mellon Scaife who had people scouring bars in Arkansas trying to get anyone to allege he had sold them cocaine or whatever. There was a whole group of right-wing corproate lawyers who conspired - they called themselves 'the elves' - to look how to bring down Cliinton any way they could. These are the people who were a task force behind the one wrong they finally got Clinton for, as they gave Linda Tripp bad legal advice to get her to rat out her 'friend' Monica Lewinski (and I've defended Tripp on that).

Yes, Hillary accurately said there was a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' - and Bill took responsibility for his doing wrong and agreed to a deal with punishment including his admitting what he did and losing his law license.

Hillary losing in 2008? I don't see your myth happening there either. She lost, that was that.
Losing Congress ni 1994? I don't recall Clinton blamng people. You have evidence?

Hopefully this post might help you notice you make things up like this. True believer is not a compliment.

 

[ProfJohn]

Wow Craig... you have out done yourself with that post.

Perhaps you could have add a few more non relevant facts to it.

The pertinent facts are very clear:
Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica.
Bill Clinton lied under oath about that affair.

And yet Clinton still acts like it was a partisan hit job against him instead of admitting that HE was to blame for the whole thing.

Clinton's apologies are always followed by a "but" as in "I'm sorry for what I did, but it's those right wingers who are to blame for this whole mess"

 

[Craig234]

Wow Craig... you have out done yourself with that post.

Perhaps you could have add a few more non relevant facts to it.

The pertinent facts are very clear:
Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica.
Bill Clinton lied under oath about that affair.

And yet Clinton still acts like it was a partisan hit job against him instead of admitting that HE was to blame for the whole thing.

Clinton's apologies are always followed by a "but" as in "I'm sorry for what I did, but it's those right wingers who are to blame for this whole mess"

Well, I trried.

Giving up on helping you for now, let's stick to the topic.

You say Clinton's apologies 'are always' folllowed by blaming the right for his wrongdoing.

He's right to criticize the right for their own wrongdoing in the whole affair (no pun intended); he's wrong if he says they aqre in any way to blame for his wrongdoing.

My challenge to you, on this 'PJ, meet the facts' discussion:

Provide five quotes of Clinton apologizing followed by his blaming the right *for his bad bevavior*, not for their bad behavior.

One more restriction: since you say he *always* does it, you are to provide the first five apology quoted you find, not skip over ones that contradict your claim to cherry pick.

If you do that, while I might withhold judgement on the 'always', I'll say you have a point.

That's how to actually make your point, not post invented facts.

 

[eits]

boringest read ever. thanks. it told me nothing new or juicy.

 

[blackangst1]

Well, I trried.

Giving up on helping you for now, let's stick to the topic.

You say Clinton's apologies 'are always' folllowed by blaming the right for his wrongdoing.

He's right to criticize the right for their own wrongdoing in the whole affair (no pun intended); he's wrong if he says they aqre in any way to blame for his wrongdoing.

My challenge to you, on this 'PJ, meet the facts' discussion:

Provide five quotes of Clinton apologizing followed by his blaming the right *for his bad bevavior*, not for their bad behavior.

One more restriction: since you say he *always* does it, you are to provide the first five apology quoted you find, not skip over ones that contradict your claim to cherry pick.

If you do that, while I might withhold judgement on the 'always', I'll say you have a point.

That's how to actually make your point, not post invented facts.

Out of curiosity, if you dont have me on ignore, are there other topics other than marital infidelity that you feel should be excluded from perjery laws?

 

[Craig234]

Out of curiosity, if you dont have me on ignore, are there other topics other than marital infidelity that you feel should be excluded from perjery laws?

I tend not to answer dishonest questions. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

[blackangst1]

I tend not to answer dishonest questions. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Nope. She still tries though. Problem is, I have 15 years of both private and semi professional experience behind me. She does OK in '01, but she cant get the strategy down properly to beat me in cricket. Not to mention her PPD is very low. She's a good sport though.

Its not dishonest at all. I tend to think you dont agree that perjury should be punished no matter who commits it, nor what the subject matter is. Correct me if Im wrong, because I also believe you think the Clinton impeachment was bullshit. Correct me if Im wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow Craig... you have out done yourself with that post.

Perhaps you could have add a few more non relevant facts to it.

The pertinent facts are very clear:
Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica.
Bill Clinton lied under oath about that affair.

And yet Clinton still acts like it was a partisan hit job against him instead of admitting that HE was to blame for the whole thing.

Clinton's apologies are always followed by a "but" as in "I'm sorry for what I did, but it's those right wingers who are to blame for this whole mess"

Well really the investigation WAS a crazed prosecutor and a partisan hit job. (what the hell did Monica Lewinsky have to do with what Ken Starr was supposed to be investigating? Ridiculous.)

That being said, Clinton totally perjured himself, and perjury is a serious crime. Clinton should have gotten a lot more than the slap on the wrist he got, but I also don't think that lying to cover up an affair merits impeachment. In my opinion impeachment is meant to remove someone from power who is a threat to the US in some form, and I think you can't really make that case for Clinton.

 

[heyheybooboo]

"Bush Lied, people died"


The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
.
.
.

Maybe we should appoint a Special Prosecutor and spend $80 million investigating Bush.

Of course, since the Adulters in the GOP persecuted Clinton for his blow job, perhaps we will be induced to find war criminals to prosecute Bush ...



-

 

[Lemon law]

Excuse me here, but question, who has standing to demand Bill Clinton answer any questions for receiving a blow job?

Is a blow job sex when the classic definition of sex involves vaginal intercourse? As for me, I agree that perjury is a serious problem, but the Bill Clinton mistake was in trying to answer the questions when he should have just shut his mouth and say nothing.

And if I thought Monica Lewinsky or anyone else could have sucked any sense into GWB or Dick Cheney, it would be well spent Federal dollars to have the service always available 24/7/365.25. Of course, what made the Bill Clinton impeachment attempt so laughable was the revelations that many of Clinton's loudest critics all had their own Bimbo's on the side. It kinda took the wind out of their holier than thou sails.

 

[Craig234]

Its not dishonest at all. I tend to think you dont agree that perjury should be punished no matter who commits it, nor what the subject matter is. Correct me if Im wrong, because I also believe you think the Clinton impeachment was bullshit. Correct me if Im wrong.

Much better. See that 'you tend to think what my opinion is' part? You need to ask, if there's a question, or need to make a reasonable attempt to represent my opinion accurately.

Simply putting in a straw man as my opinion as a *statement* in your question is the problem. If it happens by innocent mistake, it can be corfrected, by be a little conservative, and you are not here.

In fact you are incorrect about my opinion on perjury. I'm a big fan of punishing perjury, it's one of the most satisfying crimes for me to prosecute for.

So then we get, apparently, to you asking my opinion on the Clinton issue?

I think Clinton was put into a very hard position (no pun intended as usual on this issue). Let's put aside the long history of presedential lies, that he might have felt entitled from - I don't support that position.

There really was an immoral witch hunt. It's pretty frustrating to reward that. Imagine if i decided to just try to mess with you because I felt like it, and there were private investigators looking not only for any wrongdoing but anything embarrasing; imagine I owned a newspaper most of the people you know read, and had the ability to print stories I know are lies about you every issue to embarrass you as much as possible.

But we haven't found a defense for perjury in that.

Then there's the issue that the secret team of lawyers were able to maneuver him into being forced to testify about sex, with a possibly phony lawsuit, and the judge apparently *made a legal error* and allowed him to be asked about embarrasing sexual things, as president. And I'm going to say he might have felt it wasn't just about him, it was protecting the office from future abuse and threat (putting aside he could have done that by not messing with Monica).

Can you miagine being asked a hugely embarrassing question *that it's illegal to ask you* and a mistake leading to the power of the court denying you your rights to force you to jeopardize your presidency, your marriage all so the smirking bastards who had spent tens of millions of private money, and tens of millions of public money, to try to block your agenda so they could get power for their own greed?

Now imagine that as a lawyer you thought you had a legal way to not admit what you had done. You knew your trial had defined 'sexal relations' not to include oral sex so you could say no and not perjure.

What I'm saying is I have a huge amout of sympathy for his desire not to let the bastards get away with catching him on his wrongdoing (I'm not defending the wrongdoing).

Apart from the personal, he had reason to believe the fallout could hurt the people in the nation he felt his policies would help.

Having said all that - I don't support his misleading answer.

Given all the extenuating circumstances, I don't want him punished worse like Eskmo does, but I do think punishing him makes sense, with an asterisk about how there should have been some way to protect his rights, if the judge had made a bad ruling. It may be his options were limited, where a normal defendant might refuse and have the issue reviewed, as president he couldn't look like he was hiding things.

On your second question, of course I think the Clinton impeachment was wrong - not because he should go unpunished for perjury, but because the wrongs did not come close to the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' needed for impeachment. The Republicans were'out to get him' by violating their responsibility and abusing power, in part in a perverse agenda to 'get even for Watergate', which they wrongly thought was an unfair impeachment. It was an abuse of the impeachment process. If you think impeachment was justified, we're going to disagree.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, how can you call it an 'immoral witch hunt'??

You seem to have forgotten the facts that lead to the impeachment.

Paula Jones, a former employee of Clinton's, sued him for sexual harassment.

During her completely legal lawsuit her lawyers were allowed to question Bill Clinton, and Clinton fought hard as hell to keep himself from being questioned. Paula's lawyers learned that Clinton had a sexual relationship with another employee of his, thus creating a pattern that her lawyers could use in a trail.

However, when questioned about this relationship Bill Clinton decided to lie and commit perjury.

It is from there that the whole impeachment mess began.

BTW a phony lawsuit or 'legal error' does not give Clinton the right to lie under oath.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, how can you call it an 'immoral witch hunt'??

You seem to have forgotten the facts that lead to the impeachment.

Paula Jones, a former employee of Clinton's, sued him for sexual harassment.

During her completely legal lawsuit her lawyers were allowed to question Bill Clinton, and Clinton fought hard as hell to keep himself from being questioned. Paula's lawyers learned that Clinton had a sexual relationship with another employee of his, thus creating a pattern that her lawyers could use in a trail.

However, when questioned about this relationship Bill Clinton decided to lie and commit perjury.

It is from there that the whole impeachment mess began.

BTW a phony lawsuit or 'legal error' does not give Clinton the right to lie under oath.

 

[waggy]

I have said it before i will say it again. him cheating on his wife should only be between him, his wife and the god (if any) he prays to.

only issue i ever had with him is his lieing under oath.

 

[blackangst1]

Well really the investigation WAS a crazed prosecutor and a partisan hit job. (what the hell did Monica Lewinsky have to do with what Ken Starr was supposed to be investigating? Ridiculous.)

That being said, Clinton totally perjured himself, and perjury is a serious crime. Clinton should have gotten a lot more than the slap on the wrist he got, but I also don't think that lying to cover up an affair merits impeachment. In my opinion impeachment is meant to remove someone from power who is a threat to the US in some form, and I think you can't really make that case for Clinton.

I believe he was investigating who knew what that maybe they werent supposed to. At the time, who knew Monica's only ambition couldve been...she just loves giving BJ's (shame on her for not swallowing though. Not very lady like). For all we knew she was after some confidential info, and everyone knows a guy's dick is his weakness.

Not to mention he already had a history of sexual harassment. Did she blow willingly? Or was it for favor? Who knew? Sure we suspected, but such things need to be investigated nonetheless.