UK Parliament to investigate Blair

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

He was originally assigned to investigate Whitewater, not Lewinski. Get your facts straight.

 

He was hired after another independant (yet, Republican) council had found absolutely nothing wrong with the Clintons' Whitewater dealings. He was hired because they thought he'd be more likely to find something wrong about it. He didn't.

 

Get your facts straight before you start to argue.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Bush Sr. cut taxes until he literally couldn't anymore. You're utterly mistaken.

 

Bush Sr. was ideologically blind as it was, though... so he's not a great example. However, Clinton's only two "liberal" initiatives -- that is, gays in the military and universal healthcare -- were literally abhorrations in his spectrum of politics. The guy was primarily out to protect his interests and the interests of his business partners, ala Bush. However, Bush took himself a step farther towards conservativism by pushing deregulation of our infrastructure, whereas Clinton simply pushed it in other countries (that is, vis a vis globalization and the World Bank).

 

I think you're utterly idiotic by supporting the right wing attack machine and then calling CLINTON an unhonorable man... from the very start of his presidency, the republicans used dirty, unethical means to attempt to defame and entrap Clinton. Is that honor? Is that honest?

I must've misunderstood what happened in 1990 when he raised taxes. I could've sworn that Dems used that against him in 1992 a little. You know, that whole "Read My Lips" thing.

 

I might be WAY off here on that, though.

 

Clinton's only real policy WHATSOEVER was health care. Everything else was simply waiting to see what was proposed by others, polling constantly, and putting his name behind the front-runner.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't know that the GOP forced Clinton to lie under oath, to fire the White House travel staff for no reason, to keep files on about 1000 Republicans in the White House, et al. I didn't know that innocent, good ol' Bill was FORCED to do those things.

 

What "dirty", "unethical" things did the GOP do to "get" Clinton?

-=Mike --- Who wonders what happened to the whole "most ethical administration in history Clintnon vowed"

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I didn't know that the GOP forced Clinton to lie under oath

 

They didn't force him to lie, but they sure as hell did everything they could to get him into that position. What, exactly, did Monica Lewinski have to do with Paula Jones, Mike?

 

The Paula Jones sham, which was fully funded by Republican leaders, was the gateway to investigate Clinton's personal affairs and try to find any possible infidelity that has absolutely and positively NO BEARING on his ability to run the country. So he lied under oath about fucking an intern... well shit, that's unbelievably important information, after all!

 

to fire the White House travel staff for no reason

 

BAHAHAHAHA!!! You're ACTUALLY bringing up Travelgate? Jesus, there's my laugh of the day.

 

to keep files on about 1000 Republicans in the White House, et al.

 

Document and explain how this is dirty or unethical, please.

 

What "dirty", "unethical" things did the GOP do to "get" Clinton?

 

Documented about a hundred thousand times in this thread... but for example, let's bring up the Trooper story, which was a big crock of shit. Richard Mellon Scaife, Republican funder extraordinaire, PAID THESE GUYS to talk about Clinton's "sex life" to get it out in the public. It was 100% bullshit, and it was aired in front of the entire world because the Repugs needed something on Clinton.

 

How about the Vince Foster sham?

 

How about the alleged Clinton "drug running" operations that were aired in the media, courtesy of witnesses paid off by Scaife and other Republican benefactors?

 

How about the Paula Jones lawsuit, which was complete and utter bullshit?

 

For the record, I don't particuarly like Clinton either... but what the Republicans did to him was absolutely and utterly despicable.

Edited June 12, 2003 by Tyler McClelland

[Guest JMA]

You better be prepared to wait a LONG time. 

I'm prepared to wait my whole life.

[Guest JMA]

Well of course you don't. I'd be utterly shocked if you did.

 

I don't feel bad for him NOW, frankly, but I felt bad for him during the investigation, when he was villified beyond all others (except, perhaps, Linda Tripp) for DARING to actually, you know, investigate a CRIMINAL act that had been committed.

Ken Star is just another nut that hates liberals and wants them gone (which will never happen). Hell, he praises books which put forth pro-conservative, anti-liberal propoganda. To put it bluntly: he's biased. Very, very biased.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I didn't know that the GOP forced Clinton to lie under oath

 

They didn't force him to lie, but they sure as hell did everything they could to get him into that position. What, exactly, did Monica Lewinski have to do with Paula Jones, Mike?

 

The Paula Jones sham, which was fully funded by Republican leaders, was the gateway to investigate Clinton's personal affairs and try to find any possible infidelity that has absolutely and positively NO BEARING on his ability to run the country. So he lied under oath about fucking an intern... well shit, that's unbelievably important information, after all!

 

to fire the White House travel staff for no reason

 

BAHAHAHAHA!!! You're ACTUALLY bringing up Travelgate? Jesus, there's my laugh of the day.

 

to keep files on about 1000 Republicans in the White House, et al.

 

Document and explain how this is dirty or unethical, please.

 

What "dirty", "unethical" things did the GOP do to "get" Clinton?

 

Documented about a hundred thousand times in this thread... but for example, let's bring up the Trooper story, which was a big crock of shit. Richard Mellon Scaife, Republican funder extraordinaire, PAID THESE GUYS to talk about Clinton's "sex life" to get it out in the public. It was 100% bullshit, and it was aired in front of the entire world because the Repugs needed something on Clinton.

 

How about the Vince Foster sham?

 

How about the alleged Clinton "drug running" operations that were aired in the media, courtesy of witnesses paid off by Scaife and other Republican benefactors?

 

How about the Paula Jones lawsuit, which was complete and utter bullshit?

 

For the record, I don't particuarly like Clinton either... but what the Republicans did to him was absolutely and utterly despicable.

1) What did Paula Jones have to do with Monica? Well, considering that a court went along with it, apparently something.

 

It's actually called pattern of behavior. They were trying to prove that his actions towards Jones happened before and have happened since. That is a very basic move in ANY sexual harassment suit. And his inability to control his libido can have an impact on his ability to run the country.

 

BUT, the conservatives never once argued it had anything to do with his ability to do his job. It had A LOT to do with him lying under oath which is bad for ANY citizen --- but even worse for the PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A

 

2) I dare to mention what he did wrong? Well, gee, heaven forbid. I seem to remember a court dismissing charges against Billy Dale in rather short order.

 

3) How is this dirty or unethical?

 

TO HAVE FBI FILES ON ANYBODY IS ILLEGAL. Chuck Colson went to PRISON for having ONE during WaterGate. The Clintons had about 1000 an nobody seems to know how they got there. A running pattern for them, mind you.

 

4) Can you provide even a SHRED of evidence about the Scaife thing? I mean even the tiniest, most miniscule shred of proof behind this.

 

You see, what Clinton did IS provable.

 

What you're alleging is not.

 

If you're relying on Brock's "book", then you really have nothing to stand on.

 

The Vince Foster sham? Theories abound. Who has control over that? There were questions. It'd be like blaming Democrats because of JFK theorists.

 

And what media outlet covered the "drug running" Thing --- heck, I never even HEARD of it until you mention it here.

 

The Jones suit? I can only mention that her case was stronger than, say, Anita Hill's.

 

The GOP got him for what he did. They were better to him than the Dems were to Thomas or Bork.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Well of course you don't.  I'd be utterly shocked if you did.

 

I don't feel bad for him NOW, frankly, but I felt bad for him during the investigation, when he was villified beyond all others (except, perhaps, Linda Tripp) for DARING to actually, you know, investigate a CRIMINAL act that had been committed.

Ken Star is just another nut that hates liberals and wants them gone (which will never happen). Hell, he praises books which put forth pro-conservative, anti-liberal propoganda. To put it bluntly: he's biased. Very, very biased.

Amazingly enough, BEFORE this, Starr was held in high-esteem by BOTH parties. But, he does his job and the left goes insane. Figures.

-=Mike

[Guest Crazy Dan]

My problem with Ken Starr stems fromm the fact that he spent over forty million to find out that the President got a hummer. Forty million of our tax dollars I might add. When we have schools going broke, roads that are riddled with pot holes, I feel that forty million could have gone to better causes. And even if he did his job, his job was awaste of time and tax payers money.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

My problem with Ken Starr stems fromm the fact that he spent over forty million to find out that the President got a hummer. Forty million of our tax dollars I might add. When we have schools going broke, roads that are riddled with pot holes, I feel that forty million could have gone to better causes. And even if he did his job, his job was awaste of time and tax payers money.

Hmm, no heat on the Clintons for stonewalling.

 

I guess they showed what Nixon should have known --- even if guilty, stonewall EVERYTHING.

 

Oh wait, Nixon had members of his own party who would hold his feet to the fire for his misdeeds.

 

The Dems clearly would NEVER do that.

-=Mike --- Who wonders how the DNC can look themselves in the face after selling out women so badly to defend Bill

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Amazingly enough, BEFORE this, Starr was held in high-esteem by BOTH parties. But, he does his job and the left goes insane. Figures.

 

I'll reply to the rest in a second, but I'll throw in this tidbit.

 

You ignored the fact that a much MORE respected council was thrown off the case after NOT FINDING ANYTHING WRONG. Well, no shit! They're gonna take issue when you FIRE another council for not finding anything wrong.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

1) What did Paula Jones have to do with Monica? Well, considering that a court went along with it, apparently something.

 

2) I dare to mention what he did wrong? Well, gee, heaven forbid. I seem to remember a court dismissing charges against Billy Dale in rather short order.

 

So, on the one hand, the court is right... and on the other hand, the court is "manipulated" by the Clinton administration. Which is it, Mike?

 

It's actually called pattern of behavior. They were trying to prove that his actions towards Jones happened before and have happened since. That is a very basic move in ANY sexual harassment suit. And his inability to control his libido can have an impact on his ability to run the country.

 

That doesn't okay a fishing investigation to ask him anything and everything that may or may not be true in any way. They were throwing things out there as evidence that were totally bullshit, and finally got one with Monica. So he lied about it... what husband wouldn't?

 

For the record, there's only ONE known and proven incident of Clinton boinking another woman. ONE.

 

BUT, the conservatives never once argued it had anything to do with his ability to do his job. It had A LOT to do with him lying under oath which is bad for ANY citizen --- but even worse for the PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A

 

BULLSHIT. That was the Conservatives' MAIN concern -- as the party of the Religious Right -- because they didn't think an amoral man could run the country.

 

TO HAVE FBI FILES ON ANYBODY IS ILLEGAL. Chuck Colson went to PRISON for having ONE during WaterGate. The Clintons had about 1000 an nobody seems to know how they got there. A running pattern for them, mind you.

 

Great, so now you use an allegation as credo. Care to prove it was the Clintons', Mike?

 

4) Can you provide even a SHRED of evidence about the Scaife thing? I mean even the tiniest, most miniscule shred of proof behind this.

 

You see, what Clinton did IS provable.

 

What you're alleging is not.

 

If you're relying on Brock's "book", then you really have nothing to stand on.

 

Yeah, God forbid EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS be used as evidence.

 

The Vince Foster sham? Theories abound. Who has control over that?

 

The Republican Congress and the "liberal media". The Congress pressed through quite a few investigations of it in the house -- they even made it one of the things Starr was supposed to investigate -- and nothing ever came of it. Guess what? It was still being harped upon as late as 2001.

 

And what media outlet covered the "drug running" Thing --- heck, I never even HEARD of it until you mention it here.

 

It was picked up by a few papers, most notably the Washington Post. The paper issued a retraction afterwards, of course, because it was absurd.

 

The Jones suit? I can only mention that her case was stronger than, say, Anita Hill's.

 

Hardly. Anita Hill's case wasn't the strongest -- of course, when the Republican Senators demonized her witnesses, it didn't turn out so well for her -- but it's not as if she had nothing. It was proven that they could very well have been true; Thomas was -- and probably still is -- an avid porn watcher, and had seen all the films referenced in the Hill hearings. Paula Jones, on the other hand, was in the midst of a huge he-said she-said bullshit case that should've never been brought to court. However, of course, it was funded by the Republicans because they saw it as an "in" to Clinton's sex life. Wonderful ethics there.

 

The GOP got him for what he did. They were better to him than the Dems were to Thomas or Bork.

 

Yeah, because each of these guys was almost thrown in jail and Thomas was impeached.

 

Wait, no they weren't.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

1) What did Paula Jones have to do with Monica? Well, considering that a court went along with it, apparently something.

 

2) I dare to mention what he did wrong? Well, gee, heaven forbid. I seem to remember a court dismissing charges against Billy Dale in rather short order.

 

So, on the one hand, the court is right... and on the other hand, the court is "manipulated" by the Clinton administration. Which is it, Mike?

 

It's actually called pattern of behavior. They were trying to prove that his actions towards Jones happened before and have happened since. That is a very basic move in ANY sexual harassment suit. And his inability to control his libido can have an impact on his ability to run the country.

 

That doesn't okay a fishing investigation to ask him anything and everything that may or may not be true in any way. They were throwing things out there as evidence that were totally bullshit, and finally got one with Monica. So he lied about it... what husband wouldn't?

 

For the record, there's only ONE known and proven incident of Clinton boinking another woman. ONE.

 

BUT, the conservatives never once argued it had anything to do with his ability to do his job. It had A LOT to do with him lying under oath which is bad for ANY citizen --- but even worse for the PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A

 

BULLSHIT. That was the Conservatives' MAIN concern -- as the party of the Religious Right -- because they didn't think an amoral man could run the country.

 

TO HAVE FBI FILES ON ANYBODY IS ILLEGAL. Chuck Colson went to PRISON for having ONE during WaterGate. The Clintons had about 1000 an nobody seems to know how they got there. A running pattern for them, mind you.

 

Great, so now you use an allegation as credo. Care to prove it was the Clintons', Mike?

 

4) Can you provide even a SHRED of evidence about the Scaife thing? I mean even the tiniest, most miniscule shred of proof behind this.

 

You see, what Clinton did IS provable.

 

What you're alleging is not.

 

If you're relying on Brock's "book", then you really have nothing to stand on.

 

Yeah, God forbid EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS be used as evidence.

 

The Vince Foster sham? Theories abound. Who has control over that?

 

The Republican Congress and the "liberal media". The Congress pressed through quite a few investigations of it in the house -- they even made it one of the things Starr was supposed to investigate -- and nothing ever came of it. Guess what? It was still being harped upon as late as 2001.

 

And what media outlet covered the "drug running" Thing --- heck, I never even HEARD of it until you mention it here.

 

It was picked up by a few papers, most notably the Washington Post. The paper issued a retraction afterwards, of course, because it was absurd.

 

The Jones suit? I can only mention that her case was stronger than, say, Anita Hill's.

 

Hardly. Anita Hill's case wasn't the strongest -- of course, when the Republican Senators demonized her witnesses, it didn't turn out so well for her -- but it's not as if she had nothing. It was proven that they could very well have been true; Thomas was -- and probably still is -- an avid porn watcher, and had seen all the films referenced in the Hill hearings. Paula Jones, on the other hand, was in the midst of a huge he-said she-said bullshit case that should've never been brought to court. However, of course, it was funded by the Republicans because they saw it as an "in" to Clinton's sex life. Wonderful ethics there.

 

The GOP got him for what he did. They were better to him than the Dems were to Thomas or Bork.

 

Yeah, because each of these guys was almost thrown in jail and Thomas was impeached.

 

Wait, no they weren't.

 

1) Umm, what, EXACTLY, are you trying to argue? A court said that Lewinsky was material to the Jones suit and a jury acquitted Dale in short order. That's a "gotcha" on me in what way exactly? The Clinton people filed an abusive suit against Dale and it was summarily spiked. Anybody can file ridiculous claims all day long.

 

2) They didn't "fish" around". They asked SPECIFIC questions about SPECIFIC people. That is HARDLY "fishing". I could be mean and you ask to defend him on Juanita or Willey -- but I won't do that. It is a prosecuting attorney's job to pursue ALL evidence that will bolster their client's case. It is, you know, how the legal system works.

 

"He lied. What husband wouldn't?" Well, a husband UNDER OATH TO A GRAND JURY --- a husband who was BEGGED BEFORE-HAND NOT TO DO SO -- would hopefully not do so.

 

3) I love that you understand "the religious right" enough to fully grasp their beliefs. Did they LIKE Clinton? No --- but he was dumb enough to give them material to hang him with. Who's fault is that? It'd be like saying that the Dems were wrong to pursue Nixon.

 

4) It was IN the friggin' Whie House --- which isn't exactly the most lax place to get into. Jesus, Nixon would have NEVER had problem if he had this mindset. It's not an allegation as the FBI SAID it friggin' happened.

 

"Prove it was the Clintons"?!?!? You are clutching here and it's painful.

 

IT WAS THEIR ADMINISTRATION IN THE WHITE HOUSE! Clinton was, by ALL accounts, hands-on in every conceivable area of the W.H. He was NOT a hands-off guy --- and even if he WAS --- they were HIS people.

 

God, who ELSE could it be?

 

FBI-file fairies leaving them in the dead of the night? Oh, I know --- Republicans trying to frame him put them there, huh?

 

Dang GOP!

 

5) I could quote Dick Morris to slam Clinton --- but I don't put a heck of a lot of stock in what he says, so I don't do so.

 

And EVERYBODY knows that Brock was HARDLY an "inner circle" kind of guy. I put more stock in Morris' comments --- and I don't buy a word THAT guy says.

 

6) Being a liberal, you might wish to avoid criticizing investigations a you can still NEVER defend the attempt to investigate the "October Surprise".

 

Or, to quote Speaker Foley, "There is no evidence there and that is why we must investigate".

 

And Starr ACTUALLY said it (the Foster theories) didn't happen in one of his reports.

 

Thought you'd like to know.

 

7) As well they should. I'm sure it was absurd. So be it.

 

8) She had witnesses? Amazingly enough, the only person she told about it was told it happened at a COMPLETELY different time while Jones told SEVERAL people the day of her incident.

 

And let's pretend that Thomas watches porn. What, on God's Earth, does that have to do with ANYTHING? You gripe that neocons "demonize" Clinton and yet you mention THAT? How does that make him a harrasser?

 

You see, Clinton had a TRACK RECORD. Thomas did not.

 

Do you NOT see your hypocrisy here?

 

Does ANYBODY not see it?

 

9) Bork and Thomas were SMEARED for no reason other than the Dems disagreed with their politics --- something the Dems do with savage joy to this very day.

 

Why was Clinton impeached? Because he lied under oath. Not sex. And he was not in any real danger of going to jail --- but he has been disbarred.

 

He did SOMETHING, apparently.

-=Mike