Clinton continues to put foot in mouth

[Skinzaholic]

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=388706&section=news




Give us all a break you whipped husband loser.

I can see it now....

(Strike up sad violin music)

Clinton: I tried and tried to warn him... I begged him to save the lives of countless Americans (wipe tear for dramatic effect)... and still he wouldn't listen. He just laughed and said he was going to crush Iraq.


You are such a patetic loser it stinks. Makes me disgusted to be a fellow American with you. When did you care so much about the American people? Was it before or after you were begging Monica to swallow under the desk in the Oval Office?

You are a fat bag and need to take the example the great Presidents before you.... once you are out of office... go live a QUIET life and shut up! No one cares what you think anymore.

[lakewinola]

Clinton's lie about his personal life has yet to cost a single american life overseas. Can Bush say the same? Get over Clinton already, I'll take 8 years of peace and prosperity any day.

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by lakewinola
Clinton's lie about his personal life has yet to cost a single american life overseas. Can Bush say the same? Get over Clinton already, I'll take 8 years of peace and prosperity any day.


Give me a break.... better yet, try to come up with a new justification for Clinton's stupidity. 8 years of peace and prosperity????? What we are suffering from now is a direct result of Clinton and his "peace and prosperity"... basic Trickle-Down Economics.

Bush's lie... an assumption.
Billie's lie... an admission.

[Spence]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
[url]You are such a patetic loser it stinks. Makes me disgusted to be a fellow American with you. When did you care so much about the American people? Was it before or after you were begging Monica to swallow under the desk in the Oval Office? It is your contention that no public official who has had an extramarital affair cares about his country? I don't undertand the connection between President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky and caring about the American people.

On the terror matter, you should consider reading a book called "The Age of Sacred Terror." It's gotten some very good reviews and I read it a few months ago. It's big, but well worth the effort. It's a pretty exhaustive account of America's terror war in the 1990s and what to do in the future.

I can't speak for what conversations Mr Clinton and Mr Bush may have had, but Condoleeza Rice has admitted that she was told by her predecessor, Sandy Berger, in January 2001, that the Bush administration would spend more time on terrorism than anything else and that Al Qaeda would be their top priority. Make of that whatever you like.

[Skinzaholic]

I must admit that my connection between Clinton's affair and a lack of concern for the American public stems mostly from personal convictions... but they are still legitimate points.

I take Clinton's affair much more serious then it seems others do simply for the fact of where and how it took place. As the leader of the nation, he is a role model for most Americans (or should be). By committing the goss moral misconduct he portrayed, he revealed strong character flaws which threaten the Nation's moral fiber as a whole. His total lack of respect for history and time-tested traditions (not to mention basic human dignity) demonstrates a total lack of concern for the American people in general, in my opinion.

I know not everyone has this same point of view... and that there are several people who simply see Clinton's choices as dumb... yet not affecting their personal lives. I believe this viewpoint is narrow in focus and fails to see the longterm affects of this "man's" actions.

That is why I cringe everytime he opens his fat face. He has already demonstrated low integrity and disregard for morality as a whole. He speaks as a saint, yet his actions say different.

I am not suggesting that every leader must be perfect... nor that our current leaders have no moral stumbles in their lives... but more that Bill Clinton has conveniently dismissed his choices as "a personal mistake" ... even hinting that no repercussions will be felt by anyone.. and then goes even further and actually pretends he cared about us all. His goons and mindless supporters chant behind him... while the world rolls their eyes at his babble.


Check out the book, "Fatal Neglect" by Larry Klayman for some eye opening details into the Clinton Administrations cover ups regarding Bin Laden and Bill's "claims" to warning President Bush.

[Spence]

Kevin, the world does not roll its eyes at Clinton. Fox News viewers roll their eyes at Clinton. Or worse. The world loves Clinton. Travel abroad sometime and find out what I mean. The guy is treated like a combination of the Pope and a rock star everywhere he goes. You may not like it or understand it, but it's a fact. Heck, just ask Seebs on this website what people in Europe think of Clinton. It's GW Bush that the rest of the world laughs at. [When they're not wondering which country he'll bomb next and what flimsy excuse he'll use for doing it.]

I thought Clinton's affair was a stupid mistake and a reflection of his personal weakness with women. I don't really see a long-term effect from his actions. I'm pretty sure adultery, which was rampant long before anyone had ever heard of Bill Clinton, won't go up one little bit because of what he did.

People who are outraged by Clinton's affair with a consenting adult puzzle me. They're never outraged by Reagan trading arms for hostages with murderers who had oceans of American blood on their hands--and then blatantly lying about it to the American people. They're not outraged that is has become clear the Bush administration lied constantly about the "threat" from Iraq. They're not outraged that the Bush administration committed a felony by revealing the identity of a CIA operative, thus endangering the lives of every foreigner known to work with her and destroying all her work--just so they could intimidate her husband, who had first blown the whistle on the administration's lies. The outrage of the right-wing moral police is very selective. Personal lies by a Democrat enrage them, but policy lies by a Republican are of no concern. It's so obviously hypocritical that it makes it impossible for people like me to take any of it seriously.

Kevin, you're not going to compare Larry Klayman to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon [the authors of "The Age of Sacred Terror"], are you? Mr Simon holds advanced degrees from Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, and Oxford. He was a long-time State Department diplomat under Republican and Democrat administrations who has served in senior positions on the National Security Council for five years. Daniel Benjamin holds degrees from Harvard and Oxford and worked for the Wall Street Journal and Time magazine before entering government to serve on the National Security Council.

Larry Klayman is a lawyer with no expertise in foreign policy or defense matters, who spends almost all his time filing nuisance lawsuits against presidents. I believe he currently has several pending against the Bush administration. Mr Simon and Mr Benjamin are some of the most respected minds in the field of counter-terrorism, weapons proliferation, and intelligence. Larry Klayman is a guy even Republicans have now written off as a goof and a crank. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of the Clinton anti-terror efforts, but Larry Klayman is in no position to make them. He spent the 1990s trying to help Paula Jones get her many stories straight before spreading her legs for Penthouse magazine. Please.

[Skinzaholic]

Tom, I have to disagree with you on several fronts. (I know, I know, tell you something you DON'T know, right?). Although you do have a point in insinuating that my statement about the "world" rolling their eyes at Clinton was a bit presumptuous... it is also a bit far fetched to make the claim that the "world" []loves[/i] Clinton either. Treated like a combination of the Pope and a Rock Star???? Get real. That information could only possibly be gathered by asking people with a left-wing frame of mind. Even Seebs, with all of his culture, can only poll an extremely small portion of Europe (not to mention his homeland is bluntly liberal to boot). Truthfully, I do not see the "world" in love with Clinton anymore then you see them rolling their eyes. Furthermore, to say the world is "laughing" at Bush is also grossly overstated and non-factual. Many reports are coming out of Iraq citing that a majority of citizens applaud Bush's efforts in their region. (I don't have time to find specific articles... just speaking from audible reports I've heard recently).


As far as Clinton's actions affecting our nations morality... I also have to respectfully disagree. History has shown that as the leaders go... there goes the nation. Perhaps it would be unrealistic to simply point to Clinton as the cause for any sizable increase in infidelity in America... but the message it sends is one that continues to degrade the overall decisions of the American People. Will there always be adultry... yes! But... if the leaders of this nation began to make a stand against immoral choices then in time the public at large would follow suit. (Take the current anti-tabacco campaign as an prime example). This process also works in the negative (as history proves).


Thirdly, the comparision of Clinton's selfish sex-fling to Reagan or Bush is incredibly unintelligent to me. Both Reagan and Bush made choices with positive ends in mind. Even the opinion that they caused the "oceans of American blood" is total speculation and assumption. I can't understand why the Democratic Party continues to justify Clinton's gross misconduct by comparing it to previous world leaders who sought out the best means possible to rectify a bad situation. One was selfishly satisfying his urges under a portrait of Abraham Lincoln... while the others we making difficult decisions in order to save lives. Big Difference! That Democratic defense is getting stale.


Lastly, I would not go as far as to compare Larry Klayman to the impressive records of Benjamin/Simon. I am not even familiar enough with their work to do that. I AM aware of Klayman's record... but even that in itself wasn't my point. My point in bringing up that book was to show that there are opposing sides to the success/failure of the Clinton Administration... Yet, asking most Democrats, you would walk away thinking only one side existed.


In the end we will always disagree on these (and many other) subjects... and YET I throughouly enjoy debating and discussing these things with you, Tom. I must admit that I walk away having learned much after hearing your nonsen(oops... I mean point of view..:D ).

Truthfully, I respect your viewpoint... and would hope that other posters from this (and other) websites could take notice...

just because other people are wrong... doesn't mean they deserve to be disrespected. I know some very smart people who are sincere abou what they believe.... just sincerely wrong.

[Keino]

Wasn't Solomon known as the wisest of the kings? Wasn't his main sin not being able to Control his urges as they related to Women?
Don't get me wrong, Im not saying that Clinton is in anyway Solomon, but you get my point...I hope.
If I were to buy that Reagan and Bush had positive ends in mind, Do you believe that the ends justify the means? I don't. If I believed that, then I would call for the release of every inner-city crack dealer who is locked up, they were only trying to feed their families.......My point, having a positive end in mind can only reach a positive ending if reached thorugh positive means. Otherwise you become a victim of unplanned consequence.

[Skinzaholic]

All that you say is very true Keino... but there is also another saying... "Positive is in the Eye of the Beholder" (actually it is beauty, but it fits). When Reagan made his "deal" for the hostages, it meant life to those individuals and their families. To them it was a positive step to a positive end. I do not believe that the end justifies the means in every situation... but there are some situations where that does pertain.

[BigCountry]

If it was a Republican president, would you really have felt so strongly about the issue, honestly?

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by BigCountry
If it was a Republican president, would you really have felt so strongly about the issue, honestly?


I will be honest (like many cant) and say that the fect that I dispise everything Clinto stood for in his FIRST term made it alot easier to attempt to impeach him due to this act.

But, I will also say that I would feel the same way for a Republican President who did this. I would want them out and they (the Administration) would lose my vote.

Thats just me though. Maybe I've seen the destructive results due to this a bit too much.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic

Check out the book, "Fatal Neglect" by Larry Klayman for some eye opening details into the Clinton Administrations cover ups regarding Bin Laden and Bill's "claims" to warning President Bush.

I suggest every Bush hater read that book and then just maybe you'll see that Bush is helping this country more than you think.
All the "lies" that you people seem to think you find are almost completely moot.
It's just funny how most people don't see how bad Clinton really was.
Its sad that the Democrats pull off brainwashing minds to think the republicans are evil.

I'd take 10 GW Bush's before I'd take one Clinton.