's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Clinton caught again!(117 posts)

Clinton caught again!ClydeTri
Oct 27, 2003 7:17 AM
Well, Bill got caught again in a lie. Does he just make this stuff up as he goes? Does he believe himself? Does he just feel that is okay to make up stuff like this since it is realitively inconsequential? Or is the term for a person like him "pathological lier"?
like Hillary's claim to have been named after Sir EdmundDougSloan
Oct 27, 2003 7:40 AM
Hillary claimed to have been named after Sir Edmund.

His Everest summit was May 29, 1953. He was not famous before that.

Hillary Rodham was born October 26, 1947. Hmm.

These two have a problem with their attempts to ingratiate themselves with other likeable people.

I agree in principle...ClydeTri
Oct 27, 2003 7:42 AM
I agree in principle that little lies like this are harmless, but, people I have known who are like this tend to also tell lies about things that do matter.
maybe we can impeach him again.mohair_chair
Oct 27, 2003 7:43 AM
Talk about much ado about nothing. Who cares?

I think you need a definition of what a lie is.

You might also consider that Blair is lying and Clinton is telling the truth.

Once again, who cares????
I was thinking of a Baghdad peace mission ;-)DougSloan
Oct 27, 2003 8:15 AM
Definition of a lie? "Stating a fact that you know to be untrue." Why would you ask for a definition?

which begs a follow up question...ClydeTri
Oct 27, 2003 8:24 AM
It is often said the George the Elder "lied" when he gave in and signed new taxes after his "no new taxes" pledge. Forgetting the fact that one could get real picky with language and argue that what he signed was not a "new" tax but an increased existing tax, but I diverged. If a person makes such a claim and at the time they make it, they believe that, then if they change in the future, it is NOT a lie. It is only a lie if they knew it to be untrue at the time the statement is made. The press has never offered proof that George the Elder knew he was going to sign
"new" taxes when he made that pledge, yet they continue to use the word "lie"....
It would easily be identifible as a broken promise, but not a lie.
Oct 27, 2003 8:26 AM
Since it is likely that no one other than Blair and Clinton knows the truth of the fact, we cannot call what either one says a lie.

It is possible for each of them to be correct, and therefore neither is lying. It's possible that Blair told Clinton about some health problem in the past and Clinton now associates that problem with whatever the current problem is. Blair knows the difference, Clinton doesn't, but that doesn't mean Clinton is lying or making stuff up!
Fatal FlawsJon Billheimer
Oct 27, 2003 8:43 AM
I think Doug hit the nail on the head. The need for power and approval, the need to continually ingratiate yourself with others is, in my opinion, Clinton's worst character trait. But it is also probably what has driven him and Hillary throughout their lives. It's also probably a pretty good reason why prudent voters should never, never vote for Hillary! But also, Mohair's right. Like who cares??
What's a lier?rdgrrl
Oct 27, 2003 8:48 AM
If you mean liar here's a good book I just read.
I think Mr. Clinton was proved to be both...TJeanloz
Oct 27, 2003 8:53 AM
It was his lying about being a lier that got him into trouble, no?
I don't know if that is accuraterdgrrl
Oct 27, 2003 9:15 AM
It may be an attempt at bad humor. I don't remember that he was ever laying down. I think the lies Mr. Bush has been telling are more dangerous for us than the ones Mr. Clinton told.
Oct 27, 2003 9:36 AM
Clinton was proven to and then admitted to lying. He lied under oath in a court proceeding, thus making it a crime and jeopardized his bar license, which he surrendered as a condition of not being prosecuted.

Bush as not been proven to have lied, nor has he admitted it. Apparently, a lot of people really, really want to believe that he lied (still grumbling over the Gore defeat and having become a bit arrogant and complacent after 8 years of "their guy" in office), and so they have convinced themselves that he did, but at this point the proof is no more than political accusations.

Even if Bush lied, which is denied, in some respects about the reasons for the war, my belief is that but for those statements that he's accused to have fabricated or exaggerated, we certainly would have done the exact same thing in Iraq. Some people would like to think that but for what some things that Bush said, Saddam would have behaved and we'd never have lifted a finger to fight him, but I think that's belies reality. We WERE going, one way or another. Even most Democrat legislators were on board, and they weren't relying upon Bush for either their intelligence information or a pep talk, now were they? The point is that the claimed lies were inconsequential, analogously, about as important as a car dealer exaggerating the horsepower of a car you have already decided to buy, anyway. Makes you feel better about your decision, but you've already made the decision.

Oct 27, 2003 9:51 AM
What's this here line? 'The point is, the claimed lies were inconsequential ...'

Good Lord. So's the so-called 'lie' about Blair. So's the lie about the hummers. Seems to me they're a lot more inconseqential than wild misrepresentations about the reason for going to war.

Regardless, here we go again. A Dem president lies about ANYTHING, and the Right's in moral outrage. A Repub president lies about a matter of war and peace, and it's 'inconsequential.' Even more amusingly, it's 'inconsequential' because the arrogant little punk has already decided he's going to war anyway, or Dick Cheney has decided for him (in secret, presumably) so it doesn't even MATTER if the public is rightly informared about why. It's ... inconseqential.

And I'M the one who stands accused accused of treason. Mutter, mutter, mutter ...
hey old ed..point of order...ClydeTri
Oct 27, 2003 9:53 AM
Wasnt CLinton's lieing tied to testimony in a "civil rights" court case?
Yeah, so? It's OK to lie as long asOldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 9:56 AM
you're a Republican and not under oath? Is that your point?
no, not at point is...ClydeTri
Oct 27, 2003 10:10 AM
it was just lieing about was lieing under oath in a civil rights which a woman was sueing...and NOW backed Clinton...
never said this was a big dealDougSloan
Oct 27, 2003 10:04 AM
Hey, I likened this to Hillary lying about her namesake. Sure, who cares? It's fodder for their opponents, but that's about it.

The point of what Bush is accused to have lied about was that we were going anyway. Not inconsequential in the sense of it's importance, but because it made no difference.

Slick Willey's problem is that what he did was a felony. Believe it or not, lying under oath in a court proceeding is a crime, something he could have been fined and jailed for. The law does not discern between "lies about sex," particularly in a sexual discrimination federal lawsuit, or lies about money, injuries, or anything else. I know this was artfully spun as a "lie about sex," almost like it was expected and justified, but people seem to ignore that it was a crime.

Oh, and I couldn't give a (&^# what B.J. Clinton says now.

Like I saidOldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 10:08 AM
as long as you're a Republican and not under oath, lying's fine. Moral outrage is reduced to a partisan legalism.
As long as you're not under oath, lying is at least legal (nm)TJeanloz
Oct 27, 2003 10:11 AM
So is incompetence, cynicism, cheap thuggery,OldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 10:23 AM
unwarranted arrogance, and a boorish contempt for American democratic values. So I guess this crowd's covered on all fronts, eh?
so "warranted arrogance" would be ok? nmDougSloan
Oct 27, 2003 10:28 AM
Yeah. Nothing worse thanOldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 10:33 AM
an arrogant incompetent dumbass.

DOn't mind a little touch of justified arrogance. Lance has it. MJ has it. Doesn't detract.
now nowDougSloan
Oct 27, 2003 10:44 AM
Bad mood today, or just practicing for 2004? I know you Dems really want to believe that, but outside looking in your Liberal fishbowl those "arrogant incompetent dumbass" remarks just sound like the James Carville-on-crack political hackery they are. Very transparent, but hey, Carville was very entertaining with that trash can on his head election night. Can't wait to see what he does for an encore a year from now!

Those were some of my fondest moments :O)Live Steam
Oct 27, 2003 10:47 AM
Carville and Rather looked like they were going to cry. I can understand Carville, but Rather is pathetic!
Gratuitous Clinton bashing always puts me inOldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 10:50 AM
an alley-fighting mood. My normal high-ground approach to political dialogue inevitably suffers.

I'm the opposite of Steam that way.
so, who can we all trash and not offend? nmDougSloan
Oct 27, 2003 11:00 AM
I'll give youOldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 11:06 AM
Barbra Streisand from my side. Bash away. Don't know of a leftie who'd object.

Give me one from your side.
Bill O'Reilly or Dennis Miller. Take your pick :O) nmLive Steam
Oct 27, 2003 11:12 AM
How about Hannity? He's the most annoying. nmOldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 11:15 AM
Can't have 'em. We need him to counter ....Live Steam
Oct 27, 2003 11:21 AM
Arianna Huffington.
Oct 27, 2003 11:14 AM
Streisand is good, assuming anyone on "your side" would actually claim her. I recently heard Dennis Miller do a pretty good number on her.

You can go after Coulter all you want, but you've already done that. In fact, so much so that I think you might have a thing for her. She's really not a Streisand analogue, though.

I would say Heston, but that's not really fair, either.

I assume it must be someone we are willing to bash, too, not just acquiesce in your attacks?

Ok, how about Pat Robertson? I don't like anyone pushing religion in politics any more than the Liberals do.

Robertson's good. If can all agree. WheneverOldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 11:22 AM
any of us feels the need to bash someone politically, bash Brother Pat or Sister Barbra and no one can complain or contradict. You're free to pile on, of course.

Lotterypick, you cool with that? Don't want the board's Xtians to be slighted.

This has to be unanimous or I'm going back to pounding the Bush/Cheney/Coulter Axis of Evil.

This is kind of like Reagan and Gorbachov in Iceland, isn't it?
so, you are sayingDougSloan
Oct 27, 2003 11:25 AM
I'm foggy headed and you're a commie? ;-)
HA HA HA HA HA! Finally, after all these years,OldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 11:27 AM
we got this thing nailed down, Comrade!
I'll even throw in a Falwell! I've got doubles :O) nmLive Steam
Oct 27, 2003 11:29 AM
I'll see your Falwell and raise you a Franken. nmOldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 11:37 AM
Man he was your hero, wasn't he!Live Steam
Oct 27, 2003 11:05 AM
He is the Democratic equivalent of David slaying Goliath, for you, huh? He beat the "Republican Machine" in your eyes. He's the man!! He took the ball and ran with it. He was the Teflon Dumocrat Man!!! Dondondaaaan!!! Really bums you out when his image is attacked, doesn't it? When I read negative stuff about him or the witch, it's like Christmas in June!!

Awe it's not that bad. I guess you can understand how us Repubs feel about all the abuse Nixon and Reagan took. We survived.
Not just survived, thrived, my friend. YouOldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 11:14 AM
were toughened in the fires of adversity. Wow. Just think. You had a president who was criminally insane, driven out of office by a lynch mob from his own party just days before certain impeachment and conviction, and one so demented he couldn't even remember selling arms to a terrorist state. Gee, no wonder you guys are so resilient. You'd HAVE to be, to survive that.

I promise, we watched you with admiration, and we've learned from you. We'll be back! And the Witch will sweep Washington clean with her Big Broom!
then someone please show me proof of a lie nmDougSloan
Oct 27, 2003 10:20 AM
WMD's in Iraq - nmMJ
Oct 27, 2003 10:38 AM
Can't prove a negativeTJeanloz
Oct 27, 2003 10:40 AM
As people so often say with regards to our Hero doping, you can't prove a negative. Just because they haven't found them, doesn't mean they didn't exist. It is good evidence that they didn't exist, but it is not beyond a shadow of doubt.
I believe there is evidence that they did, but ....Live Steam
Oct 27, 2003 10:42 AM
now they are missing. No evidence that they were destroyed.
Oh yeah...Jon Billheimer
Oct 27, 2003 11:04 AM
...and the holocaust never happened. I can't believe you and Doug. But it doesn't really matter, except Bush's lies involve getting untold thousnds of people killed, subvert democracy, and are bankrupting the Republic. But hey, no big deal, right? Just so long as he doesn't lie about getting a bj? But wait...THAT only counts if the guy is a Democrat, right? Do all of you right wing types share the current White House's contempt for democracy, honour, common human decency?? Perhaps a lie doesn't count when it's not made under oath. But misleading Congress, etc. is supposed to be an impeachable offense, even if Reagan did it and got away with it.

Like Old Ed, there does come a point when this kind of amoral political partisanship really pisses me off!!! My rant for the day.
Hey Jon, where've you been lately? I ...Live Steam
Oct 27, 2003 11:10 AM
certainly missed your open-mindedness :O) My statement is entirely TRUE! - They did exist at one time. They threatened to use them. They no longer can be accounted for. And, they cannot say what happened to them. Where is the inaccuracy in that statement?
Hey Jon, where've you been lately? I ...Jon Billheimer
Oct 27, 2003 12:42 PM
I've been on vacation dude...with the tv off, no newspapers, etc. Rode my bike around Boulder, CO for a week (what an awesome, awesome place for cyclists) and then went to St. George, Utah and raced with a bunch of old farts like myself:)-

I've gotta learn to stay from this nutso forum. Makes me as crazy as the rest of you-all:)-
Partisan jumping to conclusions pisses me offTJeanloz
Oct 27, 2003 11:14 AM
I'd say its far too early to judge the outcome of the Iraq conflict. I don't have any first hand experience with what's actually going on in Iraq, and the media reports are, at best, highly conflicting.

I also don't really believe that the Bush "lies" were the reason we went to war - they certainly weren't the reason that I supported (and continue to support) the war. On the "contempt for democracy, honour, common human decency," I'm not really sure what you mean. Was removing a brutal dictator "contempt for democracy?" I just don't really understand your argument. "Bankrupting the Republic?" Again, I don't see a policy that will lead the United States towards bankruptcy. You're throwing out a lot of current leftist buzzwords (please, use the word "lie" again!), but there isn't much substance behind what you're saying.

And lastly, if Mr. Bush is called to testify about any aspect of his life or Presidency, I expect him to tell the truth.
I've said it before...No_sprint
Oct 27, 2003 12:46 PM
Bush haters are so engrained in their hatred they convince themselves of their own imagination. They're unable to think logically, view the facts and make good judgements and decisions.
and maybe more importantly, ...DougSloan
Oct 27, 2003 10:46 AM
...that he did not have a basis for saying they existed (nearly every Democrat went on record over 10 years saying they existed). If he lied, then so did about 300 Democrats on the same subject.

and where are they now? no more comments... :) nmNo_sprint
Oct 27, 2003 12:46 PM
we can recycle that thread with the quotesDougSloan
Oct 27, 2003 1:01 PM
ClydeTri "Interesting quotes" 9/23/03 8:07am

>> Discussions >> Non-Cycling Discussions

Interesting quotes
ClydeTri - 07:49am Sep 22, 2003

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of Mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has sys
What will you say if they find them? nmLive Steam
Oct 27, 2003 10:40 AM
here's one Franken goes crazy on...gtx
Oct 27, 2003 12:09 PM
from his book...during the debates

"Bush said, "I also dropped the bottom rate from fifteen percent to ten
percent, because, by far, the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom
end of the economic ladder."

"By far, the vast majority . . . goes to the people at the bottom." That is what George
W. Bush told America. The truth is that the bottom 60 percent got 14.7 percent. Gee,
that's a pretty significant misstatement, don't you think?
That's not a misstatement...TJeanloz
Oct 27, 2003 12:13 PM
As Mr. Clinton will attest, it all depends on your definition. If I define "help" as "greatest percentage reduction in tax burden" - then, by far, the VAST majority of the "help" goes to people at the bottom - their taxes are reduced by 33%. People at the top, meanwhile, saw their taxes reduced by around 10%.

By far, the vast majority of the break, is at the lower levels. On a percentage basis, the people at the top got a much smaller break.
Oct 27, 2003 12:17 PM
depends what your definition of 'is' is...
Dpends on who you like, doesn't it?OldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 12:24 PM
If you like folks on the bottom, and generally find the aristocracy irritating in their prissy insistence on the best accomodations and -- while you're at it, young man! -- more tax cuts, you tend to interpret it one way. If you're a royalist who thinks the rabble are generally messy and annoying, albeit necessary as sources of labor and to buy your crappy products, you interpret it the other, eh?
I don't know,TJeanloz
Oct 27, 2003 12:30 PM
I don't know that it has a lot to do with who you like. The issue is that there is more than one way to interpret the statement, one of which makes the statement a lie, the other makes it true, thus it's not really reasonable to say that it is a lie. It is, after all, true.
Nor is it reasonable to say it is true. It is, after all, aOldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 12:37 PM

Your formulation, as you say, cuts both ways. As the old Wobbly song had it, 'Whose Side Are You On?'
not a lieDougSloan
Oct 27, 2003 12:44 PM
So, is it a lie to make any ambiguous statement?

Careful what standard you set. My guess is that Democrats just as often make statements that could be interpreted more than one way.

Every day. nmOldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 12:50 PM
I'm not sure about that...TJeanloz
Oct 27, 2003 12:48 PM
This is going to get ugly in a philosophical sort of way, but to the degree that anything is true or false, if one makes a statement that is true under some definition, it is true. Whether or not something is a lie has everything to do with the intention of the person saying it.

On a similar thread, one thing that always bothered me about the Clinton "lie" - and the one nagging doubt that I have - is that I'm not sure a BJ is "sexual relations". And I'm not sure that Mr. Clinton thought a BJ was "sexual relations". That's the only thing that obscures that issue for me. And to pull it back to the Bush case, it is clear that what he intended was the construction I gave, not the misinterpretation. One can't be held responsible for somebody else's misinterpretation of their statement.
Fact is, Bill has the 'Southern boy' definition of sex.OldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 12:57 PM
Which is screwing. Period. When I was growing up, it wasn't considered 'having sex' unless there was intercourse. We were often shamefaced about it. 'Naw, man, I never had no sex with her. I tried and I tried, but she shut me down. It's EMBARRASSING man. I spend all that money on dinner. All I got was a blow job. But no sex'

No kidding, and this isn't a political thing: When Clinton split that hair, I understood INSTANTLY. No intercourse, no sex. I was truly shocked to discover that most people (apparenly) consider a BJ to be sexual relations. To me it's just ... heavy petting or something.
come onDougSloan
Oct 27, 2003 1:04 PM
So, what if Slick Willey "didn't have sexual relations" with your daughter? You'd still be duty bound to at least kick his ass, right?

You stole my pun! :O)Live Steam
Oct 27, 2003 1:09 PM
That explanation is totally disingenuous. That true fact of the matter is in this whole sordid affair, the BJ is all he admitted to, but there could have been more. That mere fact that even a BJ is not considered "PG" is also relevant. I think he would have a totally different view on the meaning of sex if Chelsea were involved in a similar affair.
The reason I came down on the other side,TJeanloz
Oct 27, 2003 1:11 PM
The reason I have ultimately concluded that Clinton lied on the issue is that he was obviously choosing his words very carefully (depending on what the current definition of "is" is), and he used the word "relations" instead of "intercourse" - thus "relations" must be some broader term than "intercourse," and a BJ is about the next broader step.

Had he said "intercourse" - I'd be fine with it, no lie there (as far as Mr. Starr knows).
You're a freak. Sorry.No_sprint
Oct 28, 2003 1:40 PM
According to you sucking c*$k, etc., etc., etc. is not sexual relations...


That what your daughter tells you? *Dad, I'm only 14 I know, but it's not sexual relations I was having with that 21 year old, you told me so.* LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

You conspiracy boys can convince yourselves of the most ridiculous things.
This gets even more absurd upon a re-read...No_sprint
Oct 29, 2003 12:17 PM
It's my second ever posting saved. This one takes the cake though, especially that 2nd to the last line!

I quote "I was truly shocked to discover that most people (apparenly) consider a BJ to be sexual relations."


You are really something. What does your wife think about that? How bout if she were *not having sexual relations* with others?
Oct 27, 2003 11:52 AM
I think when you created an atmosphere where you only want negative information you are creating lies. Mr. Bush and the people around him took pieces of information that were not complete and some information they knew to be false and presented it as the truth. Mr. Bush created the atmosphere that created the lies.
The American people were not informed in a truthful way as to why we should go to war with Iraq. Mr. Bush didn't trust the American people enough to be honest. You remind me of some people that I know that won't even look at anything that might cause them to question Mr. Bush. I think that is a shame because you and they are doing the same thing Mr. Bush did. You are only seeing what you want to see. I guess you would never read the book by David Corn. That's a shame too.
The lies that came from only wanting to present damning information about Iraq did more damage to my trust in Mr. Bush than Mr. Clinton lying about an affair that was nobody's business but his and Ms. Lewinskys and Hillarys. The sexual hypocrisy of the conservative Republicans trying to make the affair humiliating and part of a court record made me madder than a lie under oath in such disgraceful proceedings.
There's a lot more to it than thatLive Steam
Oct 27, 2003 12:21 PM
Setting aside the obvious reasons to condemn Clinton for his lies, ie. lying directly to the American public on a National broadcast, obstructing a Federal Grand Jury investigation, etc..., his indiscretions were much more serious and destructive in many ways. First he had sex with a subordinate on the job. It doesn't matter that it may have been consensual. That is, and never should be, tolerated. Many men have been fired for less. Second, he was obviously thinking about things other than our national security while enjoying himself. Third, he now had to concern himself about this and what would happen if it ever got out, also distracting him from his duties. Fourth, he now not only had to worry about his own political future because of his libido, he now had to worry that if the information was leaked to enemies of the state (no I don't mean the Republicans :O), they could then use it to blackmail the President of the United States. Fifth, he was supposed to be a strong supporter of women's rights or is that women's rites :O) This type of behavior does not help that in any way. His endorsement from NOW is really suspect, don't you think? An last, it proves that he couldn't be trusted - not even by his family!
but Democrats were saying the same thing!DougSloan
Oct 27, 2003 12:30 PM
Someone a few months back posted a list of about 2 dozen Democrats saying the exact same things about Iraq and Saddam. They were 100% on board. We they all lying, too? We know for certain that the weapons were there, but now that they haven't turned up post war half the country wants to single out the President as if he alone had all the information and he alone supported the war. That is just wrong. Do you deny many Democrats were saying the same thing, including Clinton?

If you distrust Bush, then if you are rational and fair you must also distrust equally nearly every politician in Washington. Fair enough, if you do.

Clinton's lying was NOT "nobody's business." Recall that he was being sued for sexual harrassment, and he lied under oath in that federal lawsuit. This wasn't some cheesy tabloid inquiry.

No tabloid, just cheesy. nmOldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 12:40 PM
that's for sureDougSloan
Oct 27, 2003 12:49 PM
I'm handling four sexual harrassment/discrimination cases right now. They're all cheesy. Women getting swatted on the butt, that sort of thing. Probably not considered cheesy if you are the [alleged] victim, though.

Cheesy or not, God help any of the witnesses who lie under oath if the local federal judges get ahold of them, though.

The Democrats did more than talk.DJB
Oct 27, 2003 1:01 PM
Don't forget about Operation Desert Fox.

400+ cruise missles.
650+ air sorties.
Joint operations with Britain.
No U.N. resolution.
No war protestors.

All because of WMD.

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or
the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,"
Clinton said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against
his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
Clapping!!! I'm clapping!!!!!! And what about Bosnia?Live Steam
Oct 27, 2003 1:13 PM
That is still being played out with US troops and resources.
and where are the 3 or 4 you know whos now?No_sprint
Oct 27, 2003 1:58 PM
They always seem to steer clear of all the facts and cannot acknowledge anything that isn't in their particular anti-Bush angle. As usual they're so clouded in their hatred and imaginations they're unable to think logically, consider facts, all facts and make intelligent judgements and decisions. Guided by hatred in their hearts rather than their minds. Emotional types.

Their ridiculous hard line with blinders only serves to solidify the beliefs by others who take all the *facts* into consideration and oppose.
Oct 31, 2003 12:26 AM
No War protestors?????????

Desert Fox lasted all of four days and started without public knowledge that it was coming. EVEN SO on Dec 17th and 18th 1998 there were protests in Washington D.C., New York and San Francisco. On Saturday Dec 19th there were large protests in those cities and L.A., Seattle, Chicago, large violent protests in London, that I was at, and on all over Europe and the Middle East. On the fourth and final day there was so much violence in the Middle East protests that the U.S. knew that any kind of Arab backing couldn't be expected for much longer. You should try and get your facts straight.
so you're saying......rufus
Oct 27, 2003 1:09 PM
that bush had his mind made up that he was gonna attack iraq no matter what, whether congress, the american people, or anyone else went along, and he just said all those things to make everyone else feel better about it and not raise a fuss? my god, that is a crass and disgusting course of action. and a despicable subversion of our political system.
Oct 27, 2003 1:21 PM
First of all, these decisions don't take place in a vacuum. Bush wasn't plopped down into his 3rd year of presidency and then decided to attack Iraq with no information whatsoever. Rather, aside from a dozen years or so of public historical information, including numerous statements from Democrats to do what he wanted, there are dozens of more private conversations among his office and legislators about these things that we never even know about. He doesn't just get on national TV and announce a plan with no consulting at all. So, no, it was not in a vacuum, but yes, I think the die was cast as of the time he made the speeches, if for no other reason we knew Saddam would continue to thumb his nose at the rest of the world.

You miss the pointLive Steam
Oct 27, 2003 1:32 PM
Haven't you been paying attention to Ed, Jon, czar, mj and company :O) 9/11 was just an excuse to go into Iraq. Everything was planned well before GWB was elected to office.
just not by shrubrufus
Oct 27, 2003 2:17 PM
he's too much the amiable buffoon to come up with such a plan. but certainly cheney, rummy, wolfie, perle, libby, feith, and all the rest of that group had a hard-on for iraq for years. it's no coincidence that people from this admin were calling press within hours of the tower strikes and telling them they had to tie this to iraq somehow.

bush was definitely right to go after osama in afghanistan(where is osama anyway?), but it was that group in the pentagon and cheney who brought the project for the new american century plans for the middle east to bush and convinced him this was the way to go.
just not by shrubrufus
Oct 27, 2003 5:53 PM
he's too much the amiable buffoon to come up with such a plan. but certainly cheney, rummy, wolfie, perle, libby, feith, and all the rest of that group had a hard-on for iraq for years. it's no coincidence that people from this admin were calling press within hours of the tower strikes and telling them they had to tie this to iraq somehow.

bush was definitely right to go after osama in afghanistan(where is osama anyway?), but it was that group in the pentagon and cheney who brought the project for the new american century plans for the middle east to bush and convinced him this was the way to go.
You mean "lying", but I don't think Starr gave those details -nmTJeanloz
Oct 27, 2003 9:52 AM
Then those are the onliest details the notedOldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 10:02 AM
pornographer Mr. Starr failed to give! What a sick-o!
You all missed the pointMR_GRUMPY
Oct 27, 2003 9:31 AM
It was Tony Blair's "Spokesman" that said that Blair never had a problem before, not Tony Blair himself. I believe that Clinton just wasn't thinking when he talked about something Blair might have mentioned to him years ago.
How many politicians try to keep some minor physical problem under cover.
You all missed the pointClydeTri
Oct 27, 2003 9:51 AM
I can remember one..JFK on massive amounts of pain medication in the White House...and CLinton still has never released his medical records...
Woodrow Wilson was totally incapacitated.OldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 10:00 AM
Roosevelt's polio and other ills were totally hushed up. Johnson's health was much worse than reported. Lincoln was a seriously gloomy Gus. Dick Nixon was psychotic, never reported. Reagan was early-stage dementia. No press secretary goes out and says, "Yas, yas, we're on the verge of losing it here" unless there's no alternative.
I was going to make the same point before DougOldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 9:53 AM
waylaid me with his rather breathtaking analysis above.

It's 1000 percent more likely that Blair's people are the ones 'lying' here. Cover-ups of leaderly health problems are de rigeur at a certain level.
I would guess that Blair is upset with Clinton now.MR_GRUMPY
Oct 27, 2003 10:05 AM
His brain must not have been in gear when he said that. One of the few really stupid things that Clinton has said. (Besides what is "is")
I just love this!Live Steam
Oct 27, 2003 10:17 AM
A Clinton BASHING Fest and it's not even my birthday!
and did you notice they drag Bush into it?? nmDougSloan
Oct 27, 2003 10:19 AM
They do that everytime someone brings up Clinton! Jees!! nmLive Steam
Oct 27, 2003 10:23 AM
All right, all right! I'll drag Nixon and Reagan inOldEdScott
Oct 27, 2003 10:24 AM
Say when are they broadcasting that fiction on Reagan, so ...Live Steam
Oct 27, 2003 10:29 AM
so I'll know I missed it?! :O)
Is that a pic of you, Steam?sacheson
Oct 27, 2003 10:47 AM
If so ... you're about 50 years younger and 50 lbs lighter than I pictured you. (not that the pic is that revealing ... I just imagined you as a really old and bitter fat guy ... you know, the Derny riding, Belgian, handlebar mustache type)

... no offense.
Now where you "envisioning" me too :O)Live Steam
Oct 27, 2003 10:55 AM
Thatsa' mia'. What gave you that impression? Are all Republicans fat, unkempt slobs? Why bitter? I always put a smiley after my posts. I'm a happy dude :O)
It's probably fallout from ...sacheson
Oct 27, 2003 11:09 AM
... some event ion my life that I subconciously block frm memory. Dunno. I have a mental image of nearly everyone on the board. That just happened to be the one I have for you. Maybe thinking of you as the crotchety old man makes it easier to digest your highly opinionated views.

And no, not all repubs are fat slobs ... Lance is a Republican! ;-)
Where's your pic? How bout OldEd?No_sprint
Oct 27, 2003 2:38 PM
I pegged Rufus right on. Mine's up there in the gen. board. Thread from Friday afternoon.

Kinda cool to check out those with balls enough to post a pic on the board.
Yeah, that's right, I got em!! :O) I picture Ed ...Live Steam
Oct 27, 2003 4:06 PM
as an unshaven, grey-haired, balding hippy with a pony tail! Oh and a paunch too :O) Sorta like David Crosby. It probably was red hair when it wasn't grey. How'd I do oh wise one?
That's so funny!sacheson
Oct 27, 2003 6:25 PM
That's exactly how I see him!
HA HA HA! I like the image.OldEdScott
Oct 28, 2003 6:05 AM
But naw. No gray, no ponytail, only minor balding, and no paunch (not yet anyway; my out-of-season paunch starts growing with the end of daylight savings time though, and I expect to have a nice one by Dec 31.)

I'd post a pic if I had one handy, but I'm another who's usually on the other side of the lens. I'll dig around

I look more like Chevy Chase than David Crosby. At least that's what people tell me.
Chevy Chase? Have you seen him lately?Live Steam
Oct 28, 2003 6:37 AM
Man he looks gawd awful in that AFLAK commercial. Yeah I'm usually the one carryin' the camera, though I do forget to take it out of the case quite often. My wife gets PO'd when I don't take pics at events and family gatherings. I'd rather party :O)
Haven't seen him lately.OldEdScott
Oct 28, 2003 6:42 AM
But my daughter always called our vacations 'the Griswald family trip to (fill in the blank).' Apparently I more than just LOOK like Clark Griswald!
Oh my! You mean you're a ...Live Steam
Oct 28, 2003 7:03 AM
goodnatured, hapless clod?! You must be sometin' to behold when liquored up :O)

Clark Griswold: I think you're all f%cked in the head. We're ten hours from the f%cking fun park and you want to bail out. Well I'll tell you something. This is no longer a vacation. It's a quest. It's a quest for fun. I'm gonna have fun and you're gonna have fun. We're all gonna have so much f%cking fun we'll need plastic surgeory to remove our godamn smiles. You'll be whistling 'Zip-A-Dee Doo-Dah' out of you're a$$holes! I gotta be crazy! I'm on a pilgrimage to see a moose. Praise Marty Moose! Holy Sh!t!
Pretty good natured andOldEdScott
Oct 28, 2003 7:13 AM
no doubt occasionally hapless. But I believe the reference was more to the disasters that inevitably befell us, usually because as a fiscal conservative I was trying to do something on the cheap!
Ed on a tripDougSloan
Oct 28, 2003 7:35 AM

[Stuck in traffic, while banging on steering wheel] "Those GD conservative tax cuts and we can't get any GD highways built, so now we are wasting how many GD gallons of fossil fuel stuck here on the highway?!"

[Opening utility bill] Those sumbitch republicans and all their deregalation of utilities are driving up my GD utility bill every damn month! We gotta elect someone to get in their and clean house!


"Fiscal conservative" Gee you must have been a fun Dad :O)Live Steam
Oct 28, 2003 7:38 AM
So you subjected them to long, hot rides to the in the back of the unairconditioned Ford Galaxie?

Since we are on the subject of movies, did you ever see The Inlaws - the original with Alan Arkin and Peter Faulk. They made a great team. Glad they didn't try to do an Inlaws II. It never could have matched the first. You should have sat down to watch that before your daughter's wedding. I love that movie. It's a riot. A real classic.
Here you go, dude. Only pic I could find on thisOldEdScott
Oct 28, 2003 7:53 AM
computer. It's three years old and black and white, but still recognizable as me:
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! My eyes!!!!!Live Steam
Oct 28, 2003 8:17 AM
Grow a mustache or something! Now I know why you were SYOPS. You weren't going to be scarin' to many Vietcong looking like that :O) I do see the resemblance to CC, though you could also do a John Lennon with some help form your friends :O)
Not as fearsome as my prose, eh?OldEdScott
Oct 28, 2003 8:25 AM
I think I was smiling so happily that day because I'd just learned the Senate had voted to totally exonerate Bill Clinton on ALL CHARGES, and those asinine 'House managers' were on TV looking like all their puppies had died for Christmas!

KIDDING. Actually, I think was was taken during the Florida 're-count,' and I'm surprised I could muster a smile at all.
Ahhh!! LOL Here is No_sprint, no_helmet, no_shades.No_sprint
Oct 28, 2003 9:07 AM
Oct 27, 2003 6:24 PM
funny ... I started looking for images and realized I'm usually the one behind the camera! Not many to choose from.

I do thank you for inspiring my search, though ... I found some shots I got of my wife that I thought I'd lost.
what? as a graying, fat, ex punker who hates to shave? nmrufus
Oct 28, 2003 8:49 AM
interesting how quickly you string up the noose ...sacheson
Oct 27, 2003 10:45 AM
sure, if you want to take some third party article for the whole-and-absolute truth with out doing any other research, you could say Clinton lied.

Of course, from the article you could also deduce:

* Blair's people are lying to cover up a potential health issue during a challenging time in the UK.

* Blair had another, unrelated health issue that Bill is referring to

* This could be a recurring health issue that Blair DID say something to Clinton about, but no one else knows besides the two of them.

Of course, how you got past this article: to the 'Billy lying' article kind of blows me away! I mean jeesh - you must be hell-bent on proving a liar is a liar!
Hey, isn't that Muslim Heaven? ;-) nmDougSloan
Oct 27, 2003 10:48 AM
Don't see too many .....Live Steam
Oct 27, 2003 10:50 AM
natural blondes there :O)
You know he started the LA fires, too. (nfm)Cory
Oct 28, 2003 9:11 AM
Yeah from that joint he didn't inhale :O) nmLive Steam
Oct 28, 2003 9:18 AM
That was his and Gore's conspiracy...No_sprint
Oct 28, 2003 9:29 AM
Gore wanted more trees and shrubbery to burn real good so he could spend money rebuilding CA and bring justification to raising taxes. He also wants to build his voting base so maybe he'll offer amnesty to all illegal immigrants under the guise of needing help rebuilding. Maybe they'll target a few good tornados on the alley over the coming months.

This conspiracy garbage is for chumps. It's too easy.