"if they could..." and for the most part their families that have been tragically left behind are echoing the same message.
"if they could..." and for the most part their families that have been tragically left behind are echoing the same message.
<b>krosfyahI still don't understand how being a lawyer is relevant to being impeached.</b> The only relevance is to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt he knew better and that he was disbarred by Arkansas indicates that he lied before the Grand Jury. <b>Anyway, yes, he ultimately was proven to have lied once the politically motivated charges forced him before a grand jury. Why do you feel lying before a Grand Jury is a "high crime?"</b> If he was willing to lie to Hillary, to the American People, and to a Grand Jury, might he be bribeable by some foreign power to cover his pasty A? <b>Giddyup, if the BJ had not happened, would we be having this conversation?</b> Rumor has it that he got other BJs which were not the subject of Grand Jury inquiries. He must have left out the sexual harassment part of the successful formula...
Evidently you missed my answer to major. Try a head-on question next time. Sometimes I'm either too smart or too dumb to fall into these traps. I couldn't figure out why in the hell you were not satisfied by my answers...
I've seen the news stories which demonstrate my point. I've also seen the ones full of regret. They both exist. It is my opinion that the former ones pre-dominate. Will you, at least, admit they exist or are you going to solely lament the wasted death of their loved one who was doing what they wanted all the while knowing that they might be paying the ultimate price? There was a thread about it last week...
I admit that there are families that continue to support the war in Iraq after the deaths of their children serving in the armed forces. I question whether they pre-dominate those families which oppose the war, especially after the way the war has been conducted since the "liberation" of Iraq, and especially after the foot-in-mouth behavior of Dubya ("Mission Accomplished") and Dick Cheney ("The insurgency is in it's last throes"). Americans, especially families of those killed in action, are beginning to see through the chickenhawk BS of this Administration. Gold Star Families For Peace Military Families Speak Out
You've seen the news stories?!?!? No death is worth this war. giddy I'm from a military family; great grandfather, grandfather, father and brother have all served (some for life) I have seen first hand the tragedy of war in families and I don't wish that on anyone. You sit there all smug and flippant about how this war was started and how it's being waged and try to deflect any criticism with bringing up Clinton. It's disgusting
I think you should let those families decide for themselves. Your response is to know for every family... and sometimes that flies in the face of their attitude. Talk about smugness! I admit that both responses are there and both are legitimate. I'm not trying to choose for both sides. My bringing Clinton's lies into this was to counter-balance your assertion of Rovian antics all over the issue. Both sides lie; it's the game they are in professionally.
Yet only one sides' lies have caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people and put our country in it's deepest deficit in history.
how nice it must be to not have to wrestle with your conscience. your admitted partisanship should make you eligible for a gold star, or at least some cookies, courtesy of rove and the boys.
As MadMax and I were saying, in principal I agree with you. But there is no legal connection between being disbarred and impeached. Therefore being disbarred is not justification, in and of itself, for being impeached. Anyway, I think we are arguing semantics here. Notice your usage of "might." Because of Clinton's action's, his credibility on national security MIGHT be in question. Serious indeed, despite the fact it was a witch hunt that put him into the Grand Jury in the first place. He behavior was still inexcusable (with an asterisks, IMO). As opposed to Bush. There is no MIGHT about Bush's actions as they relate to national security. Bush actions DEFINE national security. It doesn't get more serious than starting a war. If Clinton lied, as an average joe on the street, there is no bearing on me...unless of course there was a broader scope of corruption. Maybe there was and maybe there wasn't. As much as he was investigated, I'm thinking there wasn't much more to it. Basically, no impact on me...therefore...not too concerned other than a juicy sex scandal. Remember, I'm Average Joe here. Average Joe regarding Bush. I might get sent to war or a loved one might get sent to war. Federal deficits that impact things like Social Security, education funding, military base closures, etc. Also potentially stirring up new anti-American sentiment overseas in ways that affects me here or while traveling. Average Joe is affected in tangible ways. I'm almost positive he did. But since the Lewinski case WAS NOT A SEXUAL HARASSMENT case, getting a BJ in the whitehouse is not a crime. Lying about it, presumabely to save your marriage, to a Grand Jury is illegal.
Since you know me so well, why don't you tell us what my conscience does and does not wrestle with...
<b>krosfyah As MadMax and I were saying, in principal I agree with you. But there is no legal connection between being disbarred and impeached. Therefore being disbarred is not justification, in and of itself, for being impeached.</b> I never said it was causal. I said it was indicative. In other words, another body (The Great State of Arkansas) found him to be guilty of lying before the Grand Jury too. <b>I'm almost positive he did. But since the Lewinski case WAS NOT A SEXUAL HARASSMENT case, getting a BJ in the whitehouse is not a crime. Lying about it, presumabely to save your marriage, to a Grand Jury is illegal.</b> As MadMax pointed out, it does't matter what your reason or motive for lying before the Grand Jury is. I believe that some aspects of the Lewinski matter were about sexual harassment: as a White House Intern she got "demoted" to the Pentagon as I recall.
you're confusing what clinton lied about, ie having sex with that woman, miss lewinski, with the case in which he lied, which was the paula jones sexual harrassment case. there was no "lewinski case." and the impeachable offense was lying to a grand jury, what he lied about is irrelevant.
paula jones sued clinton for sexual harassment. during the discovery phase, prosecutors decided to try to find if there were other instances where he had done the same to women in subservient roles with him. pretty standard fare for discovery. somehow they found about lewinski. when asked about her under oath, he lied. to avoid the troubling implication that this was a typical pattern with him. that's perjury. lying about a material fact while under oath. lies about sex in sexual harassment cases are quite signficant, as you might imagine.
The event Paula Jones sued Clinton for occured in 1991. It was settled in 1998. Clinton was impeached in what, 99? So correct me if I am wrong, but the "LIE" that they caught Clinton for was NOT during that case. It was in a subsequent Grand Jury. I didn't mean to derride this thread by rehashing Clinton stuff. I was just illustrating that if Clinton can get impeached for issues that do not concern national security, surely Bush should be scrutinized more for starting a war based on lies. I think most of you agree with that premise.
