Dude, Clintion is a crook too. A tenth the crook the least of the Neo-con gang is, but a crook none the less. Then again given my choice I'll take a crook of Clinton's caliber that can't keep his hands off the girls over a crook of Bush's stupidity that can't keep his hands off the Constitution.
Y'know? I'm in the mood to open Ye Big Fuckin' Can O' Worms.
Tell me his crime.
No, really. Lying under oath in the Paula Jones case? After being badgered, smacked around, and railroaded by Ken Starr and the rest of the funboys who were gunning for his ass and forcing him to go through a ludicrous trial with no merit? Whitewater -- the land scam deal with which he lost money, that nobody gave a shit about except the punditocracy? Or are we gonna drag out the supposed murder of Vince Foster?
NOTHING Clinton did was worse than the violation of his marriage vows to Hillary Clinton. That was pretty bad. But, y'know what? That was HIS business, and hers, and Chelsea's, and Monica Lewinsky's.
And, in the middle of an administration that is willfully, gleefully, publicly shredding the Constitution, doing everything it can to violate everybody's privacy and torture people in multiple locations around the world, giving handouts to corporations and the obscenely rich at the expense of the poor and middle-class, fucking up the environment every way it can, destroying our reputation around the world, accusing those who disagree with it of treason, and, oh, yeah, waging a fucking illegal war for the past three and a half years, I am SICK TO THE FUCKING TEETH of hearing how much of a goddamn crook Clinton was.
Hear, hear! I do the same thing whenever I hear someone say Clinton was a crook. I ask them what made him a crook, and usually I just get "Well, everybody says so" to which I point out how wrong _that_ is, and when they list something specific, it's always the same things he was found _not_guilty_ on, or the republicans gave up on because they couldn't find anything.
You know there it is. I take oaths seriously. Lying to a Grand Jury is a crime. Being a politician I think that if you dig deep enough you would find something else, but it's not really worth the effort and certainly NOT worth the public money. It wasn't worth the public money spent in the first place. However had the man not lied I don't think you could have touched him.
It might also be added that Waco was on his watch. While he didn't pull any triggers, he was the man in the responsible position.
You are assuming that a dislike of Clinton implys a like of Bush. Far from it. Clinton deserved a slap from his wife, maybe a divorce and a nice fat alimony bill. Bush deserves a cold hard cell to rot in. Killing him would be a mercy and I do not favor capital punishment. I might add a constant group of Iraqi Mothers to scream at him for slain children. On even days we can have American Mothers scream at him for their slain children.
But Clinton is a politician, and therefore deserves two terms. One in office and one in prison.
Dude, you called Clinton a crook. Name the crime. Be specific.
Or cop to the fact that you shot your mouth off and libeled a man without anything to back it up.
But this "he's a politican" crap isn't cutting it. This "it's not really worth the effort" crap isn't cutting it. They spent the effort, they spent the money, and they couldn't even come up with enough to indict him. How much would they have to spend before you'd admit there was nothing to find?
Waco? You are seriously calling Waco a crime? Let's examine what happened?
An ATF raid went bad. The reason the ATF was raiding was because Koresh had promised to surrender but then failed to do so. After the raid, a stand off started. A Branch Davidian told the FBI that there was a suicide plot inside the compound. The decisions was made to force the issue, and the BD's set fires that resulted in massive death.
Had an overzealous ATF PR Agent not leaked news of the raid, Koresh would probably be sitting in a jail cell and Waco would be known mainly for a rodeo.
If you are going to hold Clinton criminally responsible for Waco, shall we hold Reagan criminally reponsible for the Beirut Marine Barracks bombing?
More on Waco. The people in charge there were promoted by Bush sr. appointees, solely based on their loyalty to the republicans and how much they donated to Bush sr.'s campaign fund. The fact that they refused to listen to professional negotiators, plus the fact that even though they knew their operation was blown, they went ahead with the failed raid, all happend on Bush Sr.'s watch, so if you say anything about Waco being on Clinton's watch, you're a damn fool!
Also, do keep in mind that these same people lied in their reports to Washington D.C., understating the cultists resolve, overstating their position, and claiming that negotiations were proceeding well (when, in fact, they were undermining negotation so as to provoke a response), so when Reno gave them the authority to invade _IF THEY MUST AND IF ALL AVENUES OF NEGOTIATION FAILED_ (her words on the final order) it was based on false information provided by the men in charge, who later got cushy job in companies owned by Bush croneys.
If you keep that in mind, then any attempt to lay the blame of Waco on Clinton show just how ignorant you are.
Now come on, tell us another crime clinton committed. Come on! Be specific!
Well, is that FBI agent in Jail? If not why? Clinton was the man at the head of the Justice department. He held Reno's leash.
Koresh was stupid. Getting the place burned to the ground was stupider and totally avoidable. "Smart" was in short supply all around.
And yes, I hold Regan responsible for every US soldier that died on his watch. Look up "Commander in Chief" and see what it means. What business did we have in Beirut in the first place?
I still can't find those two articles that did the best job of covering what happened during and after (they were written five years ago, and I last saw them on the net two years ago), but as I recall, the agents most responsible for the failed initial raid, the false reports, and the deliberate ignoring of the negotiators and advisors, retired and Reno, who was trying to deflate an already enormous disaster, decided not to prosecute them as that would give the clinton haters more ammo (as in "They're trying to scapegoat innocent agents") However, it wasn't until two or three years later that the extent of those agent's screw-ups became fully known. During a review before archiving the case files it was discovered that the info the agents got differed significantly from what their reports to washington said.
Nope, sorry. He gave a weaselly lawyer's answer in the grand jury--and, I might point out, the exact same weaselly lawyer's answer that every single one of his persecutors would have given under the same circumstances. What he did not do was commit perjury.
Do not buy in to the Big Lie. The Big Lie about Clinton was that he was a perjurer. He wasn't, period, end of statement.
Blah blah blah. Obstruction of justice is only relevant if there is justic to be obstructed. Lying about a non-crime is multiplication by zero. The public has no business asking about blow jobs. The Monica thing was a gross abuse of Congressional authority, time, and resources, and the Republican leadership spread no small amount of their own lies on this non-issue.
Hey! Lying under oath to a grand jury is purjury and is a federal crime. period. There is no addendum for "unless you are trying to cover up an affair with a white-trash trailer ho!"
Another thing to consider that Clinton didn't really lie. He said that according to the difinition of "sexual relations" established by the grand jury, he did not have "sexual relations" with lewinsky, which is very underhanded and disreputable way of avoiding the issue, to be sure, but he didn't lie. Also, look into how the grand jury's difinition of "secual relations" _changed_ from when they first started trying to supeana Clinton and what was actually delivered to his laywers. Starr set out to trap Clinton from the start and violated numerous rules, proceedures and even laws, and he pulled a fast one here and got away with it.
And don't forget, if you try and count "obstruction of justice", then by the established definition and practices they charged Clinton with, Bush _personally_ did that and worse on no less than 14 occasions (that we know of, who knows how many more are classified as top secret?)
Here is the deal. What Clinton did has nothing to do with what Bush did. What Bush did has nothing to do with what Clinton did. One does not explain the other. One does not excuse the other. Each man must take responsibility for their own actions regardless of what others did or did not do.
I realize this idea is not very popular. I have never altered my ethics based on the popular.
I agree with you entirely! I am just so sick and tired of people bringing up Clinton as if he was as bad, or worse, than Bush, and using that to distract from Bush's illegal actions. Especially because they have to resort to false, vague or twisted reasoning to even equate the two.
Oooooo, that makes me so mad, I'm going to make some ice cream to cool down. Grrrrrrrrrr!
Are you saying that Clinton ought to have been impeached, but that W shouldn't? Were the things that Clinton did worse than what Bush has done? Do you think that Bush should be impeached too? Or is it just a popularity contest? If you poll ratings drop enough then you get impeached, and that is just the way it is?
No, I am saying Clinton was impeached (on the flimsiest of excuses) because his political foes controlled Congress.
Bush, who should not just be impeached but tried for gross treason, maleficence of office and other crimes will not be impeached because his political friends control Congress.
Impeachment has nothing to do with Justice. Clinton, who didn't deserve it was. Bush who of any man does deserve impeachment will not be. Not even if the Congress was turned 100% Democrat tomorrow do I believe it will happen.
Personally Bush should be tossed into the Potomac with the National Debt tied around his neck. Except that would kill the fish, and who did they hurt?
Well, come on, we're inundated with all of this "you're liberals, so you're wrong" bullshit 24/7 and we rarely get to see any decent response making the national airwaves, so when a opening like this comes up it's like hanging a big sign reading "VENT HERE!"
Maybe Tom should put up a big sign reading "VENT HERE--BUT ONLY IN VERSE!" then he might get a good song or two out of it.
So I think we agree that Clinton didn't deserve to be impeached. So why did your first response to Tom's post start "Dude, Clinton is a crook too."?
Is it because you think he is guilty of worse crimes than the average man in his office or in Washington (or in America for that matter)? If so, could you please name the last 2 presidents who were guilty of only lesser crimes?
Is it because you think he is guilty of something that personally offended you, and if so, could you please get around to telling us WHAT?
Or is it because you want to throw enough accusations around that we all get inured to them, like the villagers listening to the boy cry wolf? I'd really rather focus our attentions on Bush's attacks on the Constitution.
Glad to see you're doing good work, mostly. Now get back up to Connecticut and campaign on behalf of the REAL Democrat there, since you did so much to hurt him in the first place.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Needs a Big dog House.
Date: 2006-08-19 07:38 pm (UTC)Wrong Answer.
Date: 2006-08-19 07:56 pm (UTC)Tell me his crime.
No, really. Lying under oath in the Paula Jones case? After being badgered, smacked around, and railroaded by Ken Starr and the rest of the funboys who were gunning for his ass and forcing him to go through a ludicrous trial with no merit? Whitewater -- the land scam deal with which he lost money, that nobody gave a shit about except the punditocracy? Or are we gonna drag out the supposed murder of Vince Foster?
NOTHING Clinton did was worse than the violation of his marriage vows to Hillary Clinton. That was pretty bad. But, y'know what? That was HIS business, and hers, and Chelsea's, and Monica Lewinsky's.
And, in the middle of an administration that is willfully, gleefully, publicly shredding the Constitution, doing everything it can to violate everybody's privacy and torture people in multiple locations around the world, giving handouts to corporations and the obscenely rich at the expense of the poor and middle-class, fucking up the environment every way it can, destroying our reputation around the world, accusing those who disagree with it of treason, and, oh, yeah, waging a fucking illegal war for the past three and a half years, I am SICK TO THE FUCKING TEETH of hearing how much of a goddamn crook Clinton was.
Bring it.
Re: Wrong Answer.
Date: 2006-08-19 08:14 pm (UTC)Re: Wrong Answer.
Date: 2006-08-19 08:27 pm (UTC)It might also be added that Waco was on his watch. While he didn't pull any triggers, he was the man in the responsible position.
You are assuming that a dislike of Clinton implys a like of Bush. Far from it. Clinton deserved a slap from his wife, maybe a divorce and a nice fat alimony bill. Bush deserves a cold hard cell to rot in. Killing him would be a mercy and I do not favor capital punishment. I might add a constant group of Iraqi Mothers to scream at him for slain children. On even days we can have American Mothers scream at him for their slain children.
But Clinton is a politician, and therefore deserves two terms. One in office and one in prison.
Re: Wrong Answer.
Date: 2006-08-19 08:49 pm (UTC)Dude, you called Clinton a crook. Name the crime. Be specific.
Or cop to the fact that you shot your mouth off and libeled a man without anything to back it up.
But this "he's a politican" crap isn't cutting it. This "it's not really worth the effort" crap isn't cutting it. They spent the effort, they spent the money, and they couldn't even come up with enough to indict him. How much would they have to spend before you'd admit there was nothing to find?
Re: Wrong Answer.
Date: 2006-08-19 09:35 pm (UTC)An ATF raid went bad. The reason the ATF was raiding was because Koresh had promised to surrender but then failed to do so. After the raid, a stand off started. A Branch Davidian told the FBI that there was a suicide plot inside the compound. The decisions was made to force the issue, and the BD's set fires that resulted in massive death.
Had an overzealous ATF PR Agent not leaked news of the raid, Koresh would probably be sitting in a jail cell and Waco would be known mainly for a rodeo.
If you are going to hold Clinton criminally responsible for Waco, shall we hold Reagan criminally reponsible for the Beirut Marine Barracks bombing?
Re: Wrong Answer.
Date: 2006-08-19 09:45 pm (UTC)Also, do keep in mind that these same people lied in their reports to Washington D.C., understating the cultists resolve, overstating their position, and claiming that negotiations were proceeding well (when, in fact, they were undermining negotation so as to provoke a response), so when Reno gave them the authority to invade _IF THEY MUST AND IF ALL AVENUES OF NEGOTIATION FAILED_ (her words on the final order) it was based on false information provided by the men in charge, who later got cushy job in companies owned by Bush croneys.
If you keep that in mind, then any attempt to lay the blame of Waco on Clinton show just how ignorant you are.
Now come on, tell us another crime clinton committed. Come on! Be specific!
Re: Wrong Answer.
Date: 2006-08-20 03:45 am (UTC)Koresh was stupid. Getting the place burned to the ground was stupider and totally avoidable. "Smart" was in short supply all around.
And yes, I hold Regan responsible for every US soldier that died on his watch. Look up "Commander in Chief" and see what it means. What business did we have in Beirut in the first place?
Re: Wrong Answer.
Date: 2006-08-20 04:12 am (UTC)Re: Wrong Answer.
Date: 2006-08-20 07:45 am (UTC)Nope, sorry. He gave a weaselly lawyer's answer in the grand jury--and, I might point out, the exact same weaselly lawyer's answer that every single one of his persecutors would have given under the same circumstances. What he did not do was commit perjury.
Do not buy in to the Big Lie. The Big Lie about Clinton was that he was a perjurer. He wasn't, period, end of statement.
Re: Wrong Answer.
Date: 2006-08-29 08:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-19 08:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-19 08:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-19 08:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-19 10:09 pm (UTC)And don't forget, if you try and count "obstruction of justice", then by the established definition and practices they charged Clinton with, Bush _personally_ did that and worse on no less than 14 occasions (that we know of, who knows how many more are classified as top secret?)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-20 03:36 am (UTC)I realize this idea is not very popular. I have never altered my ethics based on the popular.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-20 04:02 am (UTC)Oooooo, that makes me so mad, I'm going to make some ice cream to cool down. Grrrrrrrrrr!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-20 10:44 pm (UTC)Impeachment
Date: 2006-08-20 02:30 am (UTC)Re: Impeachment
Date: 2006-08-20 03:30 am (UTC)Bush, who should not just be impeached but tried for gross treason, maleficence of office and other crimes will not be impeached because his political friends control Congress.
Impeachment has nothing to do with Justice. Clinton, who didn't deserve it was. Bush who of any man does deserve impeachment will not be. Not even if the Congress was turned 100% Democrat tomorrow do I believe it will happen.
Personally Bush should be tossed into the Potomac with the National Debt tied around his neck. Except that would kill the fish, and who did they hurt?
People lighten up.
Re: Impeachment
Date: 2006-08-20 04:05 am (UTC)Maybe Tom should put up a big sign reading "VENT HERE--BUT ONLY IN VERSE!" then he might get a good song or two out of it.
Re: Impeachment
Date: 2006-08-20 05:31 am (UTC)Is it because you think he is guilty of worse crimes than the average man in his office or in Washington (or in America for that matter)? If so, could you please name the last 2 presidents who were guilty of only lesser crimes?
Is it because you think he is guilty of something that personally offended you, and if so, could you please get around to telling us WHAT?
Or is it because you want to throw enough accusations around that we all get inured to them, like the villagers listening to the boy cry wolf? I'd really rather focus our attentions on Bush's attacks on the Constitution.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-19 08:50 pm (UTC)I can never forget his birthday because it's the day before my daughter's :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-19 09:07 pm (UTC)Glad to see you're doing good work, mostly. Now get back up to Connecticut and campaign on behalf of the REAL Democrat there, since you did so much to hurt him in the first place.
Thanks,
Me. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-29 08:47 pm (UTC)