how is that relevant? when you take an oath, you tell the truth. let your yes be yes and your no be no. no matter who administers the oath. when you're sued for sexual harassment and you lie about sexual relationships with employees/underlings, you're perjuring yourself. why would we want to expect LESS from those that occupy seats in our goverment? by the way...i really like bill clinton. i voted for him the first time. i think he has a huge heart. i think he had some gigantic flaws, but most of the rest of us do, too...including me. i think he has some insecurities that you can still see in his eyes. i think he truly cares about other people.
first you said the original case that starr is investigating is not relevant but then you bring up that clinton was being sued for sexual harassment? was monica suing him?
WTF!!! So, you CAN be results oriented when Clinton was in office, before any MAJOR terrorist attack and with the GOP thwarting his attempts to get funding, but you CAN'T be results oriented with Bush? Bush has had carte blanche to do virtually everything he has wanted to do, was provided with immense resources and, during the action in Afghanistan, had the support of the entire world. But you can't be results oriented. What a bunch of partisan hooey. Yeah, OBL was so out in the open during the Clinton years that despite a Presidential order for assassination, he was not spotted. As he should have. OBL and AQ killed 3,000 Americans and we believed Bush when he spouted off his "dead or alive" nonsense. If Clinton had been in office and had been given the level of support and the resources that Bush has, I am confident that OBL would be dead or in custody now. Mostly because Clinton would not have gone hunting snipes in Iraq, he would have stayed in Afghanistan and gotten the job done. As has been detailed ad nauseum, Clinton NEVER "had the chance." He was thwarted by the GOP Congress, not the polls, and he didn't send ground troops in after the Cole because there was a new administration coming in. Instead, he put together plans to take out AQ, plans that were completely ignored by Bush because a tax cut was first, second, and third priority with terrorism not even remotely on the radar. Bush had the same opportunity and blew it just as badly.
again...what was kenneth star originally appointed to investigate....and how did he get to become involved in a sexually harassment suit. Please tell me how whitewater and sex are related....
It was directed to basso. I find it...oh, how did his buddies Heckle and Jeckle like to put it? Oh yes...TELLING that he's yet to answer. VERY telling. I guess all that cowering in terror takes alot out his day.
i'll acknowledge that kenneth starr over-stepped his bounds. i don't have any doubt of that. i'm not going to tell you that investigation was handled well. i'm not going to tell you that there wasn't abuse. but when you lie under oath, it's called perjury. nothing you're saying excuses the idea that he lied under oath.
President of the United States (please select the word that does not belong)- 1. pervert 2. liar 3. torture 4. empire 5. politician 6. integrity 7. arrogant 8. cover-up 9. scandal 10. immoral
he perjured himself in a deposition taken by paula's attorneys. paula's attorneys learned of monica through linda tripp. tripp provided the same information to kenneth starr. of course, because starr looked into it, it's ok to lie under oath.
wow...where did i say any of that??? for the record, i do think it undermines our government. and i think it's very upsetting when the people we trust to occupy these positions abuse the very system they've sworn to protect. i don't care if they're democrats or republicans, i can't stand that crap. but when someone lies under oath, they ought to be held accountable for it. you and i sure would be.
What a complete joke. The reason Bin Laden is not dead is because they (the CIA) doesn't wan't him dead.
lets say some one lied about a CONSENTUAL bj under oath VS someone lying about starting a war with non existent wmds and non existent links to 911 attacks /spying on citizens/torture which kills almost 3000 americans not under oath if you can only choose one, who ought to be held accountable?
Killing Bin Laden may make the war on terror more fierce due to those Islamic extremists wishing to do anything to avenge his death. If anything, it could make the situation worse. I doubt it's going to cause his followers to lose hope and give up on the fight. So, while America may be exacting their vengeance on the perpetrator of 9/11, they may be creating the situations for another 9/11 down the road. Yes, their trying to do that now. But, I think they would try harder if Bin Laden were found and killed. That's the way it works with them. So, tough sh*t.
DO YOU SEE ME GIVING BUSH A PASS FOR THIS?????? HOW IS THAT REMOTELY RELEVANT TO THE CONVERSATION??? WHERE DID YOU EVER SEE ME MAKING A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO??? i'm not at all suggesting either one is a good thing. geez!!!! it's like arguing with a wall. i'm saying lying in a case to save your ass, under oath, while your president is not a good thing. i'm saying it's absolutely breaking the law. where in the world did the bush/iraq thing come in. i always liked scooby doo cartoons on saturday morning, but hate that my son can't watch looney toons on saturdays. saturday cartoons, as i knew them, are virtually dead. they're a non-event. of course, with networks like Disney and Nickelodeon, every morning is saturday programming. frank stallone loves dolphins. one more thing...if you're ever prosecuted for theft...telling the court that other people have done worse is really not a valid defense.
