Hi. I always wondered why everyone hates Bill Clinton. I know he lied under oath. But if you think about it, there was no reason for there to be an oath. Wasnt kenneth star hired to dig up mud on clinton? And whats he gonna say when confronted with the issue? What would you say if you had a wife and daughter that would hear that?
Yes, I know that cheating on your wife is a despicable thing. It goes against my system of beliefs, and my catholic faith. Of course, Id never ever cheat on my wife (when I get one - im only 18). But the reason I will look past that for Clinton is because I would think that we are to view him in his official capacity, as president. Not as a priest, saint, or role model. He actually led the country quite well, if Im not mistaken. Why not just look at him as a leader who is doing his job? Who cares about their personal lives? I dont. That may be different for you, you may care. If we are to view him without this mess of cheating and lying under oath, we see a rhodes scholar who did damn well in office.
Clinton is NOT the first ever to cheat on his wife. FDR cheated on Eleanor with his secretary. JFK cheated too. Looking internationally, who doesn't? Jacques Chirac has mistresses that TRAVEL WITH HIM AND HIS FAMILY!!!!! :rolleyes:
Yet no one went through the muck raking process like Clinton. I dont remember the history books saying FDR was Impeached or that JFK was brought to trial. And hey, the europeans simply accept that this just happens with powerful men, as do their wives.
No question, it was scummy of Clinton to cheat, but I think bringing him to trial over something he doesnt want to tell his family is quite a punch in the nuts and a cheap shot. Why can't or couldn't we just see him for who he is - a president who did his job pretty well?
PS - dont get too upset when responding - these are just words written on a page by me, someone you dont know at all. Ive seen the animosity that exists on this part of the board - Im not interested in it. Thanks.
Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member
From my perspective; he did nothing time after time when America was attacked and took the easy road out for eight years. Had a Republican been in office prior to 9/11 and a democrat taken over for him, you can sure as sh!t bet they (the rats) would've pointed an accusing finger back at the former President.
I never hated clinton when he was in office and the monika thing only bothered me to the extent that he lied about it publicly. That and the fact he did it in the White House, which was a lowlife thing to do.
To my mind clinton is like the good relationship that went bad....the further removed from it you are the clearer you see it. And again, to my mind it was an economy riding on eggshells (when we were all so happy that we had tons of cash in our pockets) and a surplus at the expense of letting our enemies get away with murder and that came around to haunt us.
I heard a comedian on the radio two years ago put it in a funny context....clinton is like the fat chick you screwed when you were drunk off your ass....when you finally sober up you say, "what the fuq was I thinking!"
I always thought the clinton's were lowlifes and something I read in the NY Times back in '94 confirmed it. 1994 was the 50th anniversary of the D-Day landings and they had great celebrations (I taped them all). Everyone was wondering how clinton would handle himself, being he left the country to escape the draft and all. And he did a reasonably good job. The problem came to light after the trip over. The clinton's and their friends sailed over on the USS George Washington. A week after the celebrations stories came to light that the clinton's guests had stolen the towles, robes and slippers from the ship as they were monogramed with the vessels insignia. I thought that was pretty pathetic and the shape of things to come.
Good question Andrew but do me a favor.....[b][i]never[/i][/b] associate and American President (yes even clinton) with any of those pissants from france!
To get technical, Clinton wasn't impeached for just getting a BJ, as many of his supporters now seem to characterize it. He was impeached for [b]lying under oath during a criminal trial[/b]. What he lied [i]about[/i] was an affair he had had with Monica, which was germane to the Paula Jones trial inasmuch as it helped establish a pattern of infidelity and sexual misconduct for Clinton and was a window into his character, all of which is fair game in these types of trials and, truthfully, standard procedure. You were only 12 or 13 years old when the Paula Jones trial started getting underway, but she claims that he sexually assaulted her and her claims were backed up by Arkansas state troopers and security guards present at the time of the alleged incident. Paula Jones was able to accurately describe Clinton's genitals (including a distinct and embarassing "bend" that was fodder for many late-night comics at the time). The judge thought that there was enough evidence to go to trial and when called upon and asked about the nature of his relationship with Monica, Clinton lied. If you want to get REALLY techincal about it, Mr. Clinton knowingly and deliberately violated Ms. Jones civil right to due process by providing false testimony while under oath. This is not good conduct for a sitting President.
During this time, several women came forward to testify that Mr. Clinton had made similar advances towards them and mamy others came forward to alledge that they had had affairs with Mr. Clinton.
Now, this should answer your question as to why there "was an oath." The GOP didn't find out that Billy got a hummer and cheated on his wife and decide to impeach him. Mr. Clinton was accused of sexual assault (while Governor of Arkansas) by a private citizen and his conduct during that trial is why the impeachment proceedings occurred. Then, during the impeachment trial, Clinton obfuscated and (IMO) lied AGAIN, during the famous, "Depends on what the definition of is is" testimony.
All that taken into consideration, AND accouting for the fact that I am a conservative who did not vote for Clinton, I have to say that the impeachment process was probably the low point of my political life, as a staunch conservative. I think the GOP trivialized what was intended to be a serious law for high crimes against the country, and I do not think what Clinton did was at that level, even though it is clear he did commit a crime. I think the Starr Report and all of the salacious details going public were a desparate attempt by the GOP to try to embarass Clinton out of office, or at least sully his legacy to the point where they could win in 2000. I did not agree with it at all. But you should understand that he wasn't impeached for "getting a BJ" or simply "having a mistress." That is revisionist history by the current left and a gross oversimplification.
[quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Jan 13 2004, 10:40 AM
[b] I don't understand all you conservatives. Many of you rant and rave about what a ***** Hilary is and some have even protested her at book signings. Shouldn't Bill be justified in cheating? ;) [/b][/quote]
You know, you're right!
It's Hilliary's fault that he allowed missile technology to be sold to the [color=red]Red[/color] Chinese. It's Hilliary's fault that he gave money to aid the North Korean nuclear programs.
And when those two faux paus come back to bite America in the a$$ and, God forbid, more American troops have to die -- we'll know exacty who to blame!
Or, if you liberals have your way, swearing an oath of loyalty to Chairman Mao in our new adopted language Korean or Chinese.
[quote][b]It's Hilliary's fault that he allowed missile technology to be sold to the Red Chinese. It's Hilliary's fault that he gave money to aid the North Korean nuclear programs.
Well one of the knocks on Bill Clinton was that many believed Hilary was setting the agenda all along. Similar to how a lot of people feel Cheney is really the one in charge now.
[quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY+Jan 13 2004, 09:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Come Back to NY @ Jan 13 2004, 09:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--AJPerg[/i]@Jan 13 2004, 08:31 PM
[b] Thanks guys, wow, I really didnt know all that. :blink:
Now I understand. Thanks. Bill seems more to me like a tragic hero of ancient greek drama now. Just a human who pays dearly for/because of his flaws. Very interesting!
And youre right. I was 13 when this happened, and obviously more interested in my N64 than the news.
Andrew :) [/b][/quote]
what is N64? [/b][/quote]