The Clinton Library

[Guest Cerebus]

The media was harder on Clinton than they've been on Bush. Regardless of who you support, it's hard to debate that. Dubbya has basically gotten a free pass.

 

I know, I know, Dan Rather, but Dan Rather doesn't represent the entire media. By a longshot. What about CNN? Peter Jennings? Tom Brokaw? MSNBC? Fox?

[Guest Loss]

You're a petty child.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Loss is spot-on here. People love Clinton now that he's no longer president and hindsight reveals how silly the scandal all was, but the last two years of his term were filled with more venom than I've seen anyone point towards our current president. The media ate it all up. Additionally, the fashion in which the media latched onto shit like Vince Foster hasn't yet been mirrored for Bush's presidency. I'd say the national guard stuff comes closest.

[Guest MikeSC]

The media was harder on Clinton than they've been on Bush. Regardless of who you support, it's hard to debate that. Dubbya has basically gotten a free pass.

 

I know, I know, Dan Rather, but Dan Rather doesn't represent the entire media. By a longshot. What about CNN? Peter Jennings? Tom Brokaw? MSNBC? Fox?

You could not conceivably be more incorrect without changing your name to INXS or C-Bacon.

 

I didn't see the press attempting to claim that Clinton had a hand in the failing of massive corporation that he, in fact, played NO ROLE in the demise of (Enron)

 

I didn't see the press concocting lies about a "draft" that wasn't coming.

 

I didn't see the press ignoring credible witnesses to Bush's misconduct (as they did to Kathleen Willey and Juannite Broadrick). Nor did I see them suddenly decide that charges that were ultra-serious when made about a Supreme Court Justice with absolutely no corroboration were "no big deal" when said about the President.

 

I didn't see the press attempt to claim that Clinton lacked a mandate when he never once gained a majority.

 

I didn't see faked memos used to attack Clinton. Nor did I see his flat-out dodging of the draft used to attack him in his RE-ELECTION bid. Hell, they ignored it in his first bid.

 

The press seemed to have few qualms claiming all of the leaks in the investigation came from Starr --- when the leaks were usually false and, thus, highly unlikely to have come from anybody who WASN'T looking to discredit the investigation.

 

Funny how the economy was the shits for Bush's re-election and something amazing during Clinton's --- considering that almost every indicator had the economy stronger in 2004 than in 1996.

 

I didn't see the press believing the word of a Bush friend to discount an incriminating audio tape, as they did for Clinton when the Gennifer Flowers tape surfaced.

 

I seem to remember the press thinking Chuck Colson having one FBI file on a Democrat in the 1970's was the end-all, be-all of evil --- but Clinton having about 900 FBI Files about Republicans was just a "bureaucratic SNAFU" (because, as we all know, the FBI is loose and free with giving out their files to anybody).

 

I didn't see the press basically ignore one of the biggest fund-raising scandals in modern electoral history for Bush (though, in their defense, Bush didn't COMMIT a massive fund-raising scandal).

 

Don't even waste my time making this claim as it is patently false.

Loss is spot-on here. People love Clinton now that he's no longer president and hindsight reveals how silly the scandal all was, but the last two years of his term were filled with more venom than I've seen anyone point towards our current president. The media ate it all up. Additionally, the fashion in which the media latched onto shit like Vince Foster hasn't yet been mirrored for Bush's presidency. I'd say the national guard stuff comes closest.

When the hell did the press fixate on Vince Foster? They reported on his suicide because it is a big story. They did not spend much effort reporting on the rather questionable activities of Clinton people taking files from his office.

 

The press fellated Clinton his last 2 years. Starr was evil. The Republicans were obsessing over nothing. They were violating the Constitution.

 

It takes a special kind of blindness to actually believe the press has given Bush a free pass or treated Clinton with a tiny fraction of the venom.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

I didn't see the press attempting to claim that Clinton had a hand in the failing of massive corporation that he, in fact, played NO ROLE in the demise of (Enron)

This isn't logical. Had Clinton had a hand in the destruction of a corporation (even if he hadn't, but there was evidence to say he was), it would have been exploited for the sake of ratings.

 

I didn't see the press concocting lies about a "draft" that wasn't coming.

 

The Internet is now part of the press?

 

I didn't see the press ignoring credible witnesses to Bush's misconduct (as they did to Kathleen Willey and Juannite Broadrick). Nor did I see them suddenly decide that charges that were ultra-serious when made about a Supreme Court Justice with absolutely no corroboration were "no big deal" when said about the President.

 

Who said this?

 

I didn't see the press attempt to claim that Clinton lacked a mandate when he never once gained a majority.

 

I can't think of any actions Clinton took that didn't involve his personal life where he didn't have a mandate. That was, in many ways, the story of his Presidency.

 

I didn't see faked memos used to attack Clinton. Nor did I see his flat-out dodging of the draft used to attack him in his RE-ELECTION bid. Hell, they ignored it in his first bid.

 

I could counter this by saying that I didn't see the Democrats paying off Linda Tripp to get information from a young intern about her sexual relationship with the President. Nor has any scandal been exploited by the press for the sake of television ratings.

 

The press seemed to have few qualms claiming all of the leaks in the investigation came from Starr --- when the leaks were usually false and, thus, highly unlikely to have come from anybody who WASN'T looking to discredit the investigation.

 

An investigation that never should have happened. An investigation that never should have been newsworthy. A story that should have entirely been written off as meaningless.

 

Funny how the economy was the shits for Bush's re-election and something amazing during Clinton's --- considering that almost every indicator had the economy stronger in 2004 than in 1996.

 

This is technically correct, but Bush is the first President in decades to lose jobs. "The economy" isn't a blanket statement and it doesn't fully describe the entire picture.

 

I didn't see the press believing the word of a Bush friend to discount an incriminating audio tape, as they did for Clinton when the Gennifer Flowers tape surfaced.

 

The Gennifer Flowers story was extremely well-publicized. Bush's relationship with the Bin Laden family, along with the fact that he flew members of the family out of the country on 09/12 and 09/13, has gotten almost no coverage from the mainstream media.

 

I seem to remember the press thinking Chuck Colson having one FBI file on a Democrat in the 1970's was the end-all, be-all of evil --- but Clinton having about 900 FBI Files about Republicans was just a "bureaucratic SNAFU" (because, as we all know, the FBI is loose and free with giving out their files to anybody).

 

One point among all this. So far, just one point.

 

I didn't see the press basically ignore one of the biggest fund-raising scandals in modern electoral history for Bush (though, in their defense, Bush didn't COMMIT a massive fund-raising scandal).

 

That was hardly ignored. It was covered extensively.

 

Don't even waste my time making this claim as it is patently false.

 

Is it? You know, the media made a field day out of Clinton's private life, to a point where his wife and his daughter were publicly humiliated when they didn't deserve it. The trouble the Bush twins got into was barely even covered, nor should it have been covered. The media had no conscience with Clinton -- they destroyed the life of an intern who was young and stupid and made an astronomical mistake by beating the story to death in the press. They nearly destroyed a marriage. Imagine how Chelsea felt having all of that be so public. When Bush didn't want to talk about his DWI until it was uncovered by the press for fear of his daughters finding out, his point of view was understood, and people empathized with him. No one ever gave Bill that luxury.

 

It takes a special kind of blindness to actually believe the press has given Bush a free pass or treated Clinton with a tiny fraction of the venom.

      -=Mike

 

I'd like to know what you were watching after 9/11. The media was AFRAID to speak out against the President.

[Guest MikeSC]

I didn't see the press attempting to claim that Clinton had a hand in the failing of  massive corporation that he, in fact, played NO ROLE in the demise of (Enron)

This isn't logical. Had Clinton had a hand in the destruction of a corporation (even if he hadn't, but there was evidence to say he was), it would have been exploited for the sake of ratings.

Nor has any scandal been exploited by the press for the sake of television ratings.

Except a case could FAR more easily be made that Clinton's people had a hand in Enron's demise (the problems started under him. His people lobbied Bush to bail out Enron) than Bush. And Bush, not Clinton, was the one the press tried to slime with that claim until they realized that they didn't have even the tiniest sliver of evidence.

I didn't see the press concocting lies about a "draft" that wasn't coming.

The Internet is now part of the press?

The networks reported on it as well. CBS Evening news did a story on it.

 

Gee, CBS again. Yet FNC has the rep of being partisan. Odd.

I didn't see the press ignoring credible witnesses to Bush's misconduct (as they did to Kathleen Willey and Juannite Broadrick). Nor dd I see them suddenly decide that charges that were ultra-serious when made about a Supreme Court Justice with absolutely no corroboration were "no big deal" when said about the President.

Who said this?

Good God, compare the coverage Anita Hill got with the coverage Willey and Broadrick got. The only good thing about it is that one can now safely ignore NOW as a partisan joke of an organization.

I didn't see the press attempt to claim that Clinton lacked a mandate when he never once gained a majority.

I can't think of any actions Clinton took that didn't involve his personal life where he didn't have a mandate. That was, in many ways, the story of his Presidency.

He sent us to Kosovo --- where we still are, mind you. He ignored terrorism for 8 years. He tried to ramrod through a health care plan so odorous that even the Congressional Democrats killed it.

 

All this while never ONCE gaining a majority of the popular vote. Yet, nobody said he needed to reach out to Republicans, when he was every inch as partisan as Bush is claimed to be.

I didn't see faked memos used to attack Clinton. Nor did I see his flat-out dodging of the draft used to attack him in his RE-ELECTION bid. Hell, they ignored it in his first bid.

I could counter this by saying that I didn't see the Democrats paying off Linda Tripp to get information from a young intern about her sexual relationship with the President.

I can then counter that Bush managed to keep it in his pants and actually do his job, rather than fucking chubby interns and lying under oath about it.

 

And, mind you, Tripp did it for a book deal and out of concern of possible legal problems in her future.

 

And wasn't it lovely that Clinton tried to smear Monica?

The press seemed to have few qualms claiming all of the leaks in the investigation came from Starr --- when the leaks were usually false and, thus, highly unlikely to have come from anybody who WASN'T looking to discredit the investigation.

An investigation that never should have happened.

Say what?

 

A land deal that defrauded the gov't and taxpayers is quite fair game. Blame the inept Reno for continually adding things onto Starr's plate.

An investigation that never should have been newsworthy. A story that should have entirely been written off as meaningless.

Nice to know that Presidents are, in your eyes, allowed to commit perjury, sexual harass interns, etc.

Funny how the economy was the shits for Bush's re-election and something amazing during Clinton's --- considering that almost every indicator had the economy stronger in 2004 than in 1996.

This is technically correct, but Bush is the first President in decades to lose jobs. "The economy" isn't a blanket statement and it doesn't fully describe the entire picture.

Irony time --- by the time Bush's second inauguration rolls around --- he'll have a net gain of jobs. In spite of the economic sinkhole left to him.

I didn't see the press believing the word of a Bush friend to discount an incriminating audio tape, as they did for Clinton when the Gennifer Flowers tape surfaced.

The Gennifer Flowers story was extremely well-publicized.

And ignored for YEARS because a Clinton crony claimed that he was an investigator and determined that the tapes were forgeries.

 

Needless to say, they weren't forgeries.

Bush's relationship with the Bin Laden family, along with the fact that he flew members of the family out of the country on 09/12 and 09/13, has gotten almost no coverage from the mainstream media.

Because, according to the 9/11 Commission AND FBI --- no bin Laden family member left the US early. Not one.

 

You really shouldn't get your info from Michael Moore.

 

And Bush has no relationship with the bin Ladens. If you REALLY want to go down that path, I will be more than happy to completely annihilate that assumption you erroneously hold. I'll hold off as I don't wish to be mean here.

 

I'll suggest you actually read up on this as you are horribly misinformed here.

I seem to remember the press thinking Chuck Colson having one FBI file on a Democrat in the 1970's was the end-all, be-all of evil --- but Clinton having about 900 FBI Files about Republicans was just a "bureaucratic SNAFU" (because, as we all know, the FBI is loose and free with giving out their files to anybody).

One point among all this. So far, just one point.

Care to reveal a single point you refuted?

I didn't see the press basically ignore one of the biggest fund-raising scandals in modern electoral history for Bush (though, in their defense, Bush didn't COMMIT a massive fund-raising scandal).

That was hardly ignored. It was covered extensively.

BS. It was ignored as much as humanly possible.

Don't even waste my time making this claim as it is patently false.

Is it? You know, the media made a field day out of Clinton's private life, to a point where his wife and his daughter were publicly humiliated when they didn't deserve it.

And whose fault was that? It was their moronic husband and father who constantly did the shit.

The trouble the Bush twins got into was barely even covered, nor should it have been covered.

Being that they were his CHILDREN and not THE PRESIDENT.

The media had no conscience with Clinton -- they destroyed the life of an intern who was young and stupid and made an astronomical mistake by beating the story to death in the press.

Clinton first smeard Monica, calling her a stalker. The left always seem to forget that little nugget.

 

He then lied to the American people saying he didn't do it. He lied to a grand jury saying he didn't do it.

 

ALL THE WHILE knowing that he DID do it.

 

He didn't want to embarrass his wife and kids? Then maybe he should have tried thinking with his big head once in a while.

 

And why was this relevant? Because he was charged with harassment by Paula Jones --- another man his people smeared simply because she was not rich --- and one of the bigger things you do in those cases is demonstrate a HISTORY of such behavior. And Clinton obviously DID harrass her as he paid her a nice chunk of money to end the suit.

They nearly destroyed a marriage.

And whose fault is that? Gee, the MAN FUCKING AROUND ON HIS WIFE seems like a damned good person to blame. But, Hillary was a total doormat and deserved every inch of humiliation heaped upon her. She should never be President BECAUSE she's such a total doormat.

Imagine how Chelsea felt having all of that be so public.

Again, whose fault was that?

When Bush didn't want to talk about his DWI until it was uncovered by the press for fear of his daughters finding out, his point of view was understood, and people empathized with him. No one ever gave Bill that luxury.

Bullshit. The story didn't last because Bush didn't KEEP ON DOING IT OVER AND OVER.

 

Clinton had people to handle "bimbo eruptions" for a good reason.

It takes a special kind of blindness to actually believe the press has given Bush a free pass or treated Clinton with a tiny fraction of the venom.

      -=Mike

 

I'd like to know what you were watching after 9/11. The media was AFRAID to speak out against the President.

I suppose all of those NY Times stories attacking any actions against terrorism and all of the networks trying to claim that action in Afghanistan and Iraq were quagmires within 48 hours of action starting kinda disproves that.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Mike, please show the proof of Soros' funding of Kos. I'll believe you!!!!

[Guest Loss]

Except a case could FAR more easily be made that Clinton's people had a hand in Enron's demise (the problems started under him. His people lobbied Bush to bail out Enron) than Bush. And Bush, not Clinton, was the one the press tried to slime with that claim until they realized that they didn't have even the tiniest sliver of evidence.

Jeez. You people will be blaming Clinton for everything that goes wrong until 2020. Just like you found a way to credit Reagan with everything positive that happened in Clinton's time in office. Just like Carter was blamed for everything in the 80s. I don't understand why it's such a novel concept to hold people accountable for what happens in their term and not blame those in public services for things that happen when they're not even in office anymore.

 

The networks reported on it as well. CBS Evening news did a story on it.

 

Gee, CBS again. Yet FNC has the rep of being partisan. Odd.

 

CBS is a joke. CBS is not "the media".

 

Again, what about Jennings? Brokaw? CNN? Fox? MSNBC?

 

Good God, compare the coverage Anita Hill got with the coverage Willey and Broadrick got. The only good thing about it is that one can now safely ignore NOW as a partisan joke of an organization.

 

Is NOW required to be non-partisan? Does NOW even suggest that they're non-partisan? You act as if unbias is what's expected of these groups. I only expect unbias from the press.

 

He sent us to Kosovo --- where we still are, mind you. He ignored terrorism for 8 years. He tried to ramrod through a health care plan so odorous that even the Congressional Democrats killed it.

 

All this while never ONCE gaining a majority of the popular vote. Yet, nobody said he needed to reach out to Republicans, when he was every inch as partisan as Bush is claimed to be.

 

Clinton's approval rating was at 63% when he left office. There was no major opposition to actions in Kosovo. He didn't act directly against a large portion of the population. Internationally, he's put on a pedestal.

 

I can then counter that Bush managed to keep it in his pants and actually do his job, rather than fucking chubby interns and lying under oath about it.

 

And I can counter that by saying that Clinton never should have been asked about his personal life under oath in the first place. It was irrelevant and had nothing to do with how he was performing his job.

 

There's plenty to slam Clinton about. Plenty. The increased oil drilling. An atrocious free trade policy. Signing the Defense of Marriage Act. Just to name a few. I never needed to know about who he was or wasn't having sex with. Nor did anyone else.

 

And, mind you, Tripp did it for a book deal and out of concern of possible legal problems in her future.

 

Tripp was bribed.

 

And wasn't it lovely that Clinton tried to smear Monica?

 

Clinton has said publicly many times that he is to blame for what happened moreso than Monica.

 

Say what?

 

A land deal that defrauded the gov't and taxpayers is quite fair game. Blame the inept Reno for continually adding things onto Starr's plate.

 

I thought you were referring to the Monica scandal and not Whitewater. My mistake.

 

Nice to know that Presidents are, in your eyes, allowed to commit perjury, sexual harass interns, etc.

 

I don't condone Clinton lying under oath. I criticize him even being questioned about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky under oath.

 

Irony time --- by the time Bush's second inauguration rolls around --- he'll have a net gain of jobs. In spite of the economic sinkhole left to him.

 

Economic sinkhole? He was left a surplus.

 

And ignored for YEARS because a Clinton crony claimed that he was an investigator and determined that the tapes were forgeries.

 

Needless to say, they weren't forgeries.

 

Again, Gennifer Flowers was an issue in his personal life and was an attempt at a character assassination. It's not something I really cared about. He can sleep with whoever he wants.

 

Because, according to the 9/11 Commission AND FBI --- no bin Laden family member left the US early. Not one.

 

You really shouldn't get your info from Michael Moore.

 

And Bush has no relationship with the bin Ladens. If you REALLY want to go down that path, I will be more than happy to completely annihilate that assumption you erroneously hold. I'll hold off as I don't wish to be mean here.

 

I'll stay away from it, but I'm guessing if I mention the refusal to declassify 29 pages of the 9/11 Commission's findings, you'll claim that's a Moore lie too.

 

And whose fault was that? It was their moronic husband and father who constantly did the shit.

 

And it was Hillary and Chelsea who paid for it.

 

Clinton first smeard Monica, calling her a stalker. The left always seem to forget that little nugget.

 

He has since tried to alleviate her of much of the blame. Many, many times.

 

He then lied to the American people saying he didn't do it. He lied to a grand jury saying he didn't do it.

 

It had no bearing on his job as President. He can keep it secret if he chooses.

 

ALL THE WHILE knowing that he DID do it.

 

Again, this had no bearing on his job. What Clinton does in his own time is his business.

 

He didn't want to embarrass his wife and kids? Then maybe he should have tried thinking with his big head once in a while.

 

The situation would have probably been much easier to deal with had it been dealt with privately.

 

And why was this relevant? Because he was charged with harassment by Paula Jones --- another man his people smeared simply because she was not rich --- and one of the bigger things you do in those cases is demonstrate a HISTORY of such behavior. And Clinton obviously DID harrass her as he paid her a nice chunk of money to end the suit.

 

Paula Jones was the Cato Caelin of politics. She was using the entire scandal in an attempt to become a celebrity. We've seen her do celebrity boxing. She showed up at a party in Hollywood during the entire fiasco. This discredits her just as much as it does Clinton settling out of court. In fact, if she was truly sexually harrassed, why would she accept a settlement?

 

And whose fault is that? Gee, the MAN FUCKING AROUND ON HIS WIFE seems like a damned good person to blame.

 

Bill was to blame for what happened. The media was to blame for the public humiliation.

 

But, Hillary was a total doormat and deserved every inch of humiliation heaped upon her. She should never be President BECAUSE she's such a total doormat.

 

Because she didn't divorce him?

 

Perhaps she was trying to protect marriage. Republicans should be thrilled.

 

Again, whose fault was that?

 

Had the media not covered it, the entire thing could have been handled without Chelsea even knowing about it. The fact that Chelsea even knew what happened is the fault of the media.

 

Bullshit. The story didn't last because Bush didn't KEEP ON DOING IT OVER AND OVER.

 

Clinton had people to handle "bimbo eruptions" for a good reason.

 

Because attacking him for the job he was doing would be too easy?

 

I suppose all of those NY Times stories attacking any actions against terrorism and all of the networks trying to claim that action in Afghanistan and Iraq were quagmires within 48 hours of action starting kinda disproves that.

        -=Mike

 

Never heard such claims against Afghanistan. It was months before the war in Iraq was criticized. I don't the media said a single strong word against Bush in 2002.

[Guest BDC]

Just for the record, someone posted on these boards a while back about Jennings commenting that he "didn't realize people wanted impartial anchors" or some such garbage. I can't seem to find the thread, though.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I wouldn't want Dan Rather as my emperor either.. it would be hotter than a Texas tamale

[Guest MikeSC]

Except a case could FAR more easily be made that Clinton's people had a hand in Enron's demise (the problems started under him. His people lobbied Bush to bail out Enron) than Bush. And Bush, not Clinton, was the one the press tried to slime with that claim until they realized that they didn't have even the tiniest sliver of evidence.

Jeez. You people will be blaming Clinton for everything that goes wrong until 2020.

It was irrelevant and had nothing to do with how he was performing his job.

Loss, this is a simple fact of life. These corporate accounting scandals occurred under Clinton and came to light shortly after Bush came to office.

The networks reported on it as well. CBS Evening news did a story on it.

Gee, CBS again. Yet FNC has the rep of being partisan. Odd.

CBS is a joke. CBS is not "the media".

CBS is a major player in the MSM, whether you wish to admit it or not.

Again, what about Jennings? Brokaw? CNN? Fox? MSNBC?

Do you REALLY want to go into the wonderful work of the other networks or their "fair" coverage?

 

I could mention that MSNBC is the home of Keith Olbermann, presently one of the leading conspiracists.

Good God, compare the coverage Anita Hill got with the coverage Willey and Broadrick got. The only good thing about it is that one can now safely ignore NOW as a partisan joke of an organization.

Is NOW required to be non-partisan?

National Organization for Women tends to INDICATE non-partisanship. You know, that whole "for WOMEN" thing, not "for women we agree with". They sided with a harasser OVER a woman, simply because it was politically convenient.

Does NOW even suggest that they're non-partisan? You act as if unbias is what's expected of these groups. I only expect unbias from the press.

If you're "National Organization for Women", you should be for women, not men. Just like the NAACP should be all for blacks, not liberal blacks --- even though they're not.

He sent us to Kosovo --- where we still are, mind you. He ignored terrorism for 8 years. He tried to ramrod through a health care plan so odorous that even the Congressional Democrats killed it.

 

All this while never ONCE gaining a majority of the popular vote. Yet, nobody said he needed to reach out to Republicans, when he was every inch as partisan as Bush is claimed to be.

Clinton's approval rating was at 63% when he left office.

The only poll that matters is the election. When he NEVER got a majority. Unlike a certain current President who "lacks a mandate".

There was no major opposition to actions in Kosovo.

There was actually was.

I can then counter that Bush managed to keep it in his pants and actually do his job, rather than fucking chubby interns and lying under oath about it.

And I can counter that by saying that Clinton never should have been asked about his personal life under oath in the first place.

What side made sexual harrassment a huge deal when Thomas was about to be named a Justice? Harrassment became a major problems for bosses to have to deal with. Clinton was quite guilty of doing this --- and Jones had every right to file a suit for this and Clinton had no right to refuse to answer.

And wasn't it lovely that Clinton tried to smear Monica?

Clinton has said publicly many times that he is to blame for what happened moreso than Monica.

After she was rumored to be a stalker right after the story broke.

Say what?

 

A land deal that defrauded the gov't and taxpayers is quite fair game. Blame the inept Reno for continually adding things onto Starr's plate.

I thought you were referring to the Monica scandal and not Whitewater. My mistake.

Whitewater was what Starr was initially investigating. Reno just kept piling on what he had to look into, including Monica.

Nice to know that Presidents are, in your eyes, allowed to commit perjury, sexual harass interns, etc.

I don't condone Clinton lying under oath. I criticize him even being questioned about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky under oath.

Blame the feminists who made harrassment suits so prevalent.

Irony time --- by the time Bush's second inauguration rolls around --- he'll have a net gain of jobs. In spite of the economic sinkhole left to him.

Economic sinkhole? He was left a surplus.

A stock market that was tanking. An economy rushing towards recession. A corporate accounting scandal on the verge of exploding.

 

Bush was given an economic bomb.

And ignored for YEARS because a Clinton crony claimed that he was an investigator and determined that the tapes were forgeries.

 

Needless to say, they weren't forgeries.

Again, Gennifer Flowers was an issue in his personal life and was an attempt at a character assassination. It's not something I really cared about. He can sleep with whoever he wants.

Infidelity is a character issue. And Clinton was the one who chose to deny things. Bush, wisely, refuses to discuss his past.

Because, according to the 9/11 Commission AND FBI --- no bin Laden family member left the US early. Not one.

 

You really shouldn't get your info from Michael Moore.

 

And Bush has no relationship with the bin Ladens. If you REALLY want to go down that path, I will be more than happy to completely annihilate that assumption you erroneously hold. I'll hold off as I don't wish to be mean here.

I'll stay away from it, but I'm guessing if I mention the refusal to declassify 29 pages of the 9/11 Commission's findings, you'll claim that's a Moore lie too.

Too bad the fully declassified 9/11 Commission report states, CLEARLY, that NOBODY left the US early. Not one single person. And the person who had the bin Laden get out of the US early was Richard Clarke alone. The decision was not made by Bush.

 

The "not yet declassified 29 pages" is what is commonly called a red herring.

And whose fault was that? It was their moronic husband and father who constantly did the shit.

And it was Hillary and Chelsea who paid for it.

Blame Clinton for their problems.

Clinton first smeard Monica, calling her a stalker. The left always seem to forget that little nugget.

He has since tried to alleviate her of much of the blame. Many, many times.

Only because she covered for him. When he thought she might not --- he attacked her. Something he did with women in his life on a regular basis.

He then lied to the American people saying he didn't do it. He lied to a grand jury saying he didn't do it.

It had no bearing on his job as President. He can keep it secret if he chooses.

Lying under oath IS a problem. And having legal problems you bring upon yourself obviously affects one's ability to do the job.

ALL THE WHILE knowing that he DID do it.

Again, this had no bearing on his job. What Clinton does in his own time is his business.

Since the argument is that such things as the impeachment paralyzed his administration --- yeah, his personal actions had SIGNIFICANT bearing on his job.

He didn't want to embarrass his wife and kids? Then maybe he should have tried thinking with his big head once in a while.

The situation would have probably been much easier to deal with had it been dealt with privately.

Somebody sues you and that right of yours is shot to hell. Even worse is if you commit perjury while trying to eliminate her rights.

And why was this relevant? Because he was charged with harassment by Paula Jones --- another man his people smeared simply because she was not rich --- and one of the bigger things you do in those cases is demonstrate a HISTORY of such behavior. And Clinton obviously DID harrass her as he paid her a nice chunk of money to end the suit.

Paula Jones was the Cato Caelin of politics. She was using the entire scandal in an attempt to become a celebrity.

Ironically, all Clinton had to do was to say she did nothing wrong and apologize for the implication to end all of his problems.

We've seen her do celebrity boxing. She showed up at a party in Hollywood during the entire fiasco. This discredits her just as much as it does Clinton settling out of court. In fact, if she was truly sexually harrassed, why would she accept a settlement?

Because she got a sweetheart deal that included even more than she initially asked for.

And whose fault is that? Gee, the MAN FUCKING AROUND ON HIS WIFE seems like a damned good person to blame.

Bill was to blame for what happened. The media was to blame for the public humiliation.

No, Bill was to blame for the public humiliation.

But, Hillary was a total doormat and deserved every inch of humiliation heaped upon her. She should never be President BECAUSE she's such a total doormat.

 

Because she didn't divorce him?

 

Perhaps she was trying to protect marriage. Republicans should be thrilled.

Is the sky blue in your fantasy world?

Again, whose fault was that?

 

Had the media not covered it, the entire thing could have been handled without Chelsea even knowing about it. The fact that Chelsea even knew what happened is the fault of the media.

Chelsea was well aware of her dad's philandering as Bill and Hillary had OFTEN fought about it. Hell, the ONLY reason they didn't divorce was that it'd kill Bill --- and, consequently, Hillary's --- political aspirations.

Bullshit. The story didn't last because Bush didn't KEEP ON DOING IT OVER AND OVER.

 

Clinton had people to handle "bimbo eruptions" for a good reason.

Because attacking him for the job he was doing would be too easy?

Clinton not actually doing anything was his biggest protection.

I suppose all of those NY Times stories attacking any actions against terrorism and all of the networks trying to claim that action in Afghanistan and Iraq were quagmires within 48 hours of action starting kinda disproves that.

        -=Mike

Never heard such claims against Afghanistan. It was months before the war in Iraq was criticized. I don't the media said a single strong word against Bush in 2002.

Then you were willingly ignorant to reality.

-=Mike