|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 62 of 404:
| 
Dec 29 17:11 UTC 2005 |
tod said:
"Had Miss Lewinsky been Mossad rather than just a possessive college
kid, Clinton might have compromised the integrity and confidentiality
of his office."
Anyone who works that closely to the President has passed an intensive
security clearance. There is no possibility she could have been
Mossad.
|
tod
|
|
response 63 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:17 UTC 2005 |
Anyone who works that closely to the President has passed an intensive
security clearance. There is no possibility she could have been
Mossad.
Keep drinking that kool-aid, richard. You yourself admitted JFK slept around.
Hell, he knocked up a CIA double agent courier that was dating Sam Giancana.
What makes you think Clinton's associates are only Ward and June Cleaver?
|
richard
|
|
response 64 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:28 UTC 2005 |
tod, answer the question I asked, based on your own criteria, did Bush
make himself vulnerable to extortion by telling the NSA to break the
law and should Bush resign?
|
fitz
|
|
response 65 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:31 UTC 2005 |
Clinton's vulnerablility to extortion is setting up a straw man so far as his
impeachment is concerned. Lewinsky was part of the White House staff and
known to the Secret Service in both her official and unofficial capacity.
This extramarital affair raised no security concerns when it happened: The
sole charges against Clinton were perjury and obstruction of justice. I doubt
that a charge of "security concerns" would pass a test of relavncy before the
Senate.
|
tod
|
|
response 66 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:34 UTC 2005 |
re #65
Did you listen to any of the Secret Service testimonies? There were several
security concerns. Where do we start? Unscheduled Dominos pizza parties in
the Oval Office?
|
jep
|
|
response 67 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:35 UTC 2005 |
re resp:54-55: I try very hard to assume that a politician probably
means well. Sometimes I can't manage to believe it about some, but I
think just about all have positive goals. They can of course have
wrong goals, or poor perspective, or make mistakes, etc.
|
tod
|
|
response 68 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:38 UTC 2005 |
Mistakes are one thing but circumventing regulatory processes to spy on
citizens thousands of times? C'mon
|
marcvh
|
|
response 69 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:47 UTC 2005 |
I don't believe that Clinton would have sold nuclear weapons to Bin Laden
in order to obscure his scandal. There's no way to prove that, of
course, but I don't buy it. I'm also not sure where that leaves other
presidents -- Reagan, of course, funneled arms to Iran in violation of
law for various reasons (to manipulate the 1980 elections, to gain the
release of hostages.) Should Reagan have resigned or been impeached?
Who was the last president who shouldn't have?
|
fitz
|
|
response 70 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:50 UTC 2005 |
I listened to none: I read the accounts in Newsweak. I have failed. Dominos
Pizza is the gravest espionage threat to the US. Does it rank before
or after floridated water on the espionage scale?
|
tod
|
|
response 71 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:52 UTC 2005 |
And really, we're talking about "hands caught in the cookie jar". Reagan was
out of office by the time anything came of Iran-Contra Hearings.
Clinton did nothing impeachable, imo.
|
richard
|
|
response 72 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:54 UTC 2005 |
tod said:
"least it seems possible that Bush is *trying* to do something positive
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
No he's not, you aren't even seeing the big picture. One day the
spying is on terrorists, the next its on people who might be
terrorists, the next its on people who know people who might be
terrorists, and finally its on anyone they feel like doing surveillance
on. Finally its soccer moms and democratic party officials at the
Watergate. If tod thinks Bush is trying to do anything positive, if he
thinks what Bush is doing isn't impeachable, then he didn't live
through Watergate.
I find it appalling that tod finds it more appalling that clinton got a
blowjob in the oval office than that bush is spying on u.s. citizens
without a judge's approval.
tod I will ask again, DO YOU THINK BUSH MADE HIMSELF VULNERABLE TO
EXTORTION AND DO YOU, AS YOU DID WITH CLINTON, THINK HE SHOULD RESIGN?
|
richard
|
|
response 73 of 404:
|
Dec 29 17:57 UTC 2005 |
And by the way, just for the record, I don't think Bush should resign.
Nor did I think Clinton should have resigned. I think Bush should be
impeached. Let the people, the Congress, decide his fate. I don't
think Nixon should have resigned, he should have let himself be
impeached. Nixon should have let the people decide his fate and taken
his punishment like a man.
|
tod
|
|
response 74 of 404:
|
Dec 29 18:05 UTC 2005 |
re #73
I don't think Bush should resign. I think he should go to jail.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 75 of 404:
|
Dec 29 18:11 UTC 2005 |
Abu Graib or Guantanimo?
How Nixon left office (resignation vs. impeachment) isn't related to the
issue of whether he faced criminal charges (which was the result of a
pardon deal.) I'd assume Bush is smart enough that he could arrange
something similar if the need arose.
|
tod
|
|
response 76 of 404:
|
Dec 29 18:13 UTC 2005 |
Guantanamo is enough for me. Bringing Alberto Gonzales into the fray pretty
much clinched it that he knows he's in hot water.
|
gull
|
|
response 77 of 404:
|
Dec 29 19:54 UTC 2005 |
Re resp:40: True, but Christians don't all think the same way. Even
fundamentalist Christians have differing views on things, even if
they're not really supposed to. This is even more true of political
parties. Serious rifts have been appearing among Republicans over
issues such as fiscal policy.
Re resp:42: Majority of the money. ;)
Re resp:45: Considering only one FISA judge was told about Bush's
wiretaps, and was forbidden to tell the others, I don't think the
administration thought the FISA court would back them up on this one.
One judge who wasn't told has resigned in protest.
Re resp:53: No, I don't believe Clinton would have sold a nuke to
anyone to escape personal embarrassment. I didn't realize just how
thoroughly you had demonized Clinton until this moment. It's kind of
shocking. It's the same attitude as people who believe Bush allowed
the 9/11 attacks to happen so that he could invade Iraq. They've so
thoroughly convinced themselves the man is evil that they believe he's
capable of anything. I think both Clinton and Bush are slimy in their
ways, but I believe both of them have moral limits.
|
jep
|
|
response 78 of 404:
|
Dec 29 19:59 UTC 2005 |
If Clinton had come clean about Lewinsky and said "Yes, I did it", then
that would have been the end of it. It would have shown he wasn't
intimidated by the implications of what he had done. It wouldn't be
all but inevitable to think -- as I do -- that the president *might
have been* be extorted. Remember, he did everything he could to hide
from the issue, publicly. Who knows how much more he did than what we
know about?
Bush has not come clean, either, but it is plausible (however unlikely)
to think he has legitimate public reasons for not doing so. We do not
know the security implications of what he won't say. Even so, I'm very
much disturbed by the implications of the president ordering wiretaps
and secret surveillance of Americans without court supervision. The
president has only the power given to him by the Constitution, and that
sort of thing is specifically Constitutionally prohibited.
|
tod
|
|
response 79 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:12 UTC 2005 |
Does it matter that Clinton was banging an intern? Was it worth the whole
Kenneth Starr investigation and massive report? I'm disgusted that anybody
wasted time on the investigation. To me, it says volumes that people couldn't
find anything "political" to nail him on and they had to stoop into his sex
life. Yea, there are alot of scumbag sexual deviants in politics and around
the world. Is it worth the money to find out if they wear women's underwear
or whatever, though?
Bush HAS come clean that he is breaking the law. He flat out admits it.
People should be emailing their Reps and Senators raising all hell but they
aren't. I think people are too busy buying into the "our shepherd will
protect us" mentality. Next thing you know, 2nd amendment rights will
disappear and passports will be mandatory. If that doesn't bother people,
this country is screwed.
|
jep
|
|
response 80 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:14 UTC 2005 |
re resp:78: Hang on, I didn't mean to demonize President Clinton. I
gave that comment only as part of an example, it was not any kind of
accusation. I want to believe he had good intentions, great
capabilities, and that he would not have misused his power with regard
to his personal indiscretions.
It is hard to believe Clinton wouldn't have done *some* things in
violation of the nation's interests because of his scandal, because he
publicly did so. How far would he have gone if it would help him? All
you can say for certain is that he most definitely *was* capable of
protecting himself even at the expense of the nation.
My point was that some people are demonizing Bush who defended Clinton,
and some demonized Clinton who are defending Bush. I think these
people are only interested in having their own side look good and the
other side look bad. I think what you say about the merits or problems
of the situation doesn't mean much if you're only trying to promote the
side you vote for.
|
tod
|
|
response 81 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:19 UTC 2005 |
I think the levels of crime are different. Clinton's crime involved lying
about banging an intern. GW's crime involves wiretapping thousands of
citizens. In a civilian courtroom, guess who is going to be looked at as the
one who has more victims?
|
richard
|
|
response 82 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:27 UTC 2005 |
tod said:
"I think the levels of crime are different. Clinton's crime involved
lying about banging an intern"
he didn't lie about that because he didn't "bang" any intern. He got a
blow job. I hope you aren't iike one of those dense lawyers back
during when that was going on who were trying to insist its the same
thing.
jep said:
"My point was that some people are demonizing Bush who defended
Clinton, and some demonized Clinton who are defending Bush."
go back and read some agoras from back then. I did not defend Clinton
for the Lewinsky mess. As I recall, I was pretty critical of him in
fact, not about getting the blow job, but for lying about it later.
I just think its absurd to compare the two things. One is a far
greater transgression than the other.
|
tod
|
|
response 83 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:37 UTC 2005 |
he didn't lie about that because he didn't "bang" any intern. He got a
blow job. I hope you aren't iike one of those dense lawyers back
during when that was going on who were trying to insist its the same
thing.
Just because he used a cigar doesn't make it less sleazy, richard. Let's not
get into the analysis of what was reported. I say bang and you say bj? Fine.
|
richard
|
|
response 84 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:40 UTC 2005 |
hey plenty of famous world leaders in history have kept concubines,
whole groups of women, to service them. Being a world leader is a
tough, intense job ya know, even the best leaders need a little release
of tension now and again. :)
|
twenex
|
|
response 85 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:43 UTC 2005 |
IT'S A HARD JOB!
|
tod
|
|
response 86 of 404:
|
Dec 29 20:45 UTC 2005 |
Thomas Jefferson kept slaves, too. You think everybody with a stressful job
should have a few slaves around?
|