If a Republican had lied under oath, especially in the way Clinton did the Republicans would have forced him to resign. Just the same way Livingston was forced to resign. If Bush I had done what Clinton did he would have had no Republican support.

I don't think the anger at what Clinton did as far as the Lewinsky stuff was partisan on the Republican's part. However, the Republican's were partisan when it came to Clinton attacking Serbia and his bombing of Afghanistan. But the attacks on Bush about Iraq are purely partisan.

It angers people but is really just the left screaming and the media giving it credence when they shouldn't. Without watergate the bombing of Cambodia would have been a non issue.

I think the Dems wanted to lynch Clinton. But what happened was, because of the strong economy and Clinton's spinners, the public didn't want Clinton to go. So the Dems had to defend him. If the economy had sucked the Dems would have dumped Clinton like a bad habit, Gore would have replaced him and Gore would still be in office.

It comes up because liberals keep saying that "Clinton lies didn't cause any deaths". As if there was any way that Bush was not going into Iraq.

The anger about Bush lying is being brought up all the time. And the media is buying it. So it is relevent. The Democrat spinners are making it relevent.

I do not think that a president should be allowed to be sued during his tenure in office. However, the Supreme Court disagrees with me. The courts decided that Monicas case should go foward. When Clinton was being deposed it was special because the judge was right there on hand to determine what was relevent. He was directed to answer questions that he lied about. Did you have sex? Where you alone with her? Did you have sexual contact?

As a lawyer, you should know that the only issue is was the case determined valid by the court at the time and were the questions relevent during the case. Just because you think a court case is irrelevent does not mean that you don't have to tell the truth. You can't claim that something was not perjury later because a case was later dismissed. The only issue under perjury was the action valid at that time.

Initially in sexual harassment cases it was ruled that the defendants sexual activities with other employees was irrelevent. However, that changed because feminists argued that it was important to be able to ask the defendent about other sexual relations with employees to discover other cases of sexual harassment and to determine a pattern.

That is why Clintons sexual relations with other employees was relevent in his case.

If you don't think people felt freer to lie under oath after what happened with Clinton, you are a moron. If you think more employers didn't lie in sexual harassment suits after the Clinton case you are a moron.

If Clinton had been removed form office for lying under oath it would have greatly helped our legal system. People would be much more inclined to tell the truth - because you could always say - even the president got convicted of perjury so don't lie.

A great opporunity was missed to show that no man is above the law and that perjury is a serios crime. Why was this opportunity lost? Because of short sighted partisanship on the behalf of moronic Dems.

Interesting
 

I disagree with that as well. Poll numbers are constant indicators of whether the populace is happy with the leadership. Why do you thing the mod. republicans are joining with dems. on the budget? They're distancing from Bush.

Clinton was the master of poling the electorate. Better even than "Diamond" Joe Quimby.

Interesting
 

And you think that markets are an efficient way of allocating goods and resources?

Are you going to make us go through this entire list again, or are you just hoping that, by throwing fifteen misstatements in a row, you'll tire us and we'll concede? So, to just take this one, the sixteen words said that the Brits believed that Iraq was looking for yellowcake, and they still stand by that, and Wilson reported to the CIA when he got back with info that not only didn't contradict that, it supported it.

Go here unless this is all too painful.

Sigh. You too?

Bush specifically said that it was NOT an imminent threat, but that if we waited until it was imminent, it would be too late. Pretty much those exact words.

Well, sure. It's difficult to know how people got confused on that point.

• "But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take."
  
  Source: President Meets with National Economic Council, White House (2/25/2003).
  
  "All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to spray biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicals with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland."
  
  Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).
  
  "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
  
  Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
  
  "On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."
  
  Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).
  
  "The first time we may be completely certain he has a --nuclear weapon is when, God forbids, he uses one."
  
  Source: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House (9/12/2002).

Now. Any citizen receiving these messages? Who listened to vivid imagery of Iraqi planes spreading chemicals over Kansas, or detonating a nuclear bomb within American cities, and chooses to operate from sissified impulse and emotion and equate THAT with an "imminent" threat, when CLEARLY the man said that it's not really imminent, but we can't wait for it to become so, and that therefore, calm, sober and unemotional reflection tells us that we should move now -- well, that citizen is either dumb as a post, so gullible he probably buys anything the devious MSM tells him, or he just can't fuckin' read.

UAVs are way cool.

Dead horses on both sides.

We are now fully deployed in Iraq. The important questoin is not how we got there, but whether we continue or get out. It appears to me that the American people want out, and that the mid-term elections will be all about who will find a responsible way out. So far, I, at least, see the Administration focusing on the dead horses when these questions come up rather than focusing on the strategy for responsible disengagement or on the need for any disengagement that occurs to be done in a responsible manner. They do seem to have learned not to say that we'll be there however long it takes, which was the language being used a couple of years ago. But Bush's, "We did not lie" and "we do do not torture" start sounding like Nixon's "I am not a crook" after a while. These statements avoid the difficult question.

As President, he needs to lead and channel this discussion instead of avoiding it. If he does, I think the Republicans will do well.

All your responses are more political than analytical. As I said, this "you lied, no you lied" stuff is just pure partisanship. Your post makes that very clear.

More Ancient History
 

Cleveland is one of our more unappreciated Presidents.

Imagine Clinton or Kennedy or one of the other "horndog" Presidents actually marrying a 21 year old while in office.

Ah! Franny Folsom! Perhaps that is why Bilmore gets that far-away look in his eyes.

Please. That is the GOP equivalent to Clinton's "legally accurate, but misleading" defense to the answer he gave about having sexual relations with Monica during the Paula Jones deposition.

eta: And I'd be happy to rely on factcheck.org, but I don't think that you really want to do that on some of the other items I mentioned.

Bottom line with respect to WMD: I think that the administration pushed for what they honestly thought was the case (that Iraq had WMD), and exaggerated the stuff supporting that belief ("we found the mobile chemical labs") while ignoring or minimizing contrary information, and used this to persuade the country to support an invasion.

So it was imminent?

And if you don't see the difference between lying in this circumstance and lying to convince your country to go to war, you are willfully blind or an idiot.

I agree with you about not being able to sue a sitting president. It's easy to bring a lawsuit. I'm a little surprised no one has sued W for anything, although I do not wish for this to happen. He seems to have a tough enough time doing his job without the distraction.

Interesting
 

Wrong:
U.S. Congressional Republicans Advance Budget, Tax-Cut Plans


Wrong again:
"House leaders dropped from a transportation measure the designation of $442 million for projects in Alaska, including one dubbed a ``bridge to nowhere,'' in an effort to gain support for the budget-cutting plan. "