If the only thing you could complain about a past-president, is that "he could have done more"; if the only thing the opposite party, 2 houses, and their supporters can attack on a president, is the BJ job he got; it says a lot about his presidency, and it also says a lot about the quality of his opponents and their supporters.
remember when i used to get all mad at this and say, "it's about lying under oath!!!!" ????? those were fun days.
But remember it was those people making him talk about his frigging BJ job under oath? By the way, when I watched TV, and listened to some GOP "leaders" talk about how the BJ job would undermine national security because terrorists would blackmail him etc, I was literaly ROFLOL. Those were the ones who blackmailed him, and blocked his proposals, which led to the "undermining national security". Those were indeed fun days. One can always spin either way. The more important critieria to judge anything is always the action itself and the result it caused. Clinton's 8 years, whether he was damn lucky or 2 GOP controlled houses were extremly competent, US became the sole super power in every aspect in the world. There was peace in Middle East. The world was following US in technology, AND the way of life. The economie was great, and you had a record surplus. The list goes on and on. I don't know why. Somehow I got the feeling, that the world gave Clinton more credit than American people did, although Americans were the ones to enjoy those strong economical years.
a bj from an employee/underling is entirely relevant in a lawsuit for sexual harassment from an employee/underling. this was in the context of testimony regarding that lawsuit. he protected himself by lying under oath. that's called perjury. it's really bad to perjure yourself. particularly if your job is to enforce the law of the land. it bothers me when people attempt to excuse that...because we wouldn't be excused from it. i don't know why we expect LESS from our leaders on both sides of the aisle.
I certainly think it was wrong to be unfaithful to his wife, and it was stupid to involve in office relationship, and it was more wrong to lie under oath. I am not excusing anything he did, but I can't excuse what GOP did. If he was under suspicion of harrassment, he should be investigated, but he was not. Monica didn't report as such. GOP used the power they had over both houses, to point special investigator for that BJ job. It was a pure political attack.
well, in a nutshell, he covered up a lie with a lie. kinda makes bill a liar. and although it doesn't make me throw up in my mouth i concede your point. in other words, i agree with you, we should have drafted VY. otherwise, i'm a huge clinton fan. GO america.
he wasn't being sued by lewinsky. he was being sued by paula jones for sexual harassment. so they asked him under oath about sexual relationships he'd had with other employees/underlings. he lied about lewinsky to avoid them establishing a pattern.
We had already been attacked in an egregious way by then. Two embassies destroyed and a navy ship crippled. I guess Clinton was too busy going around the White House removing the w's from all the keyboards or getting his **** sucked to really go after Bin Laden. And don't give me any of the BS about "Clinton supported the plan of going after Bin Laden". This nation needed action, not talk. We knew where he was and our president was too inept to get the job done.
I won't give you any BS, I will just tell you that it's obvious from your post and the erroneous facts that you cite that you have no idea what you're talking about.
"Dead or alive" That was the quote by GWB in reference to OBL. How has Bush dealt with OBL any better than Clinton?
You can't be results oriented in a situation like this. Bin Laden was in the open alot more during Clinton's tenure. Now he is like a rat hiding underground. Bush has tried alot harder than Clinton did to get Bin Laden. Clinton had the chance but he was worried about the polls. He didn't want to send in ground troops and risk another Somalia public relation disaster. After all, since Al Qaida had only attacked the U.S internationally and not on U.S soil, he wasn't under alot of pressure to nail Bin Laden and lobbing a few cruise missles his direction should suffice. Clinton had the opportunity to prevent 9-11 and blew it.
Did Bush do anything uniquely different from Clinton in the months before 9/11? I can't really think of anything different. In fact, I remember a president that weakened visa requirements so that you could get them through travel agencies instead of embassies (which most of the hijackers did). I also remember a president who said the following during the presidential debates... "I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you. Now, we trust freedom. We know freedom is a powerful, powerful, powerful force, much bigger than the United States of America, as we saw recently in the Balkans. But maybe I misunderstand where you're coming from, Mr. Vice President, but I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course." http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html And he said this as well, "The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders." http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html
First off the W's being removed from the keyboards was a fabrication and didn't happen. The "liberal" media started from one uncorraberated source. Then pack mentality took over, and they didn't want be left out, so they all ran with the story that wasn't. Eventually the GAO took a look and blew the lid off that BS. I have previously listed all that Clinton had done with regards to OBL. I have also repeatedly said that it wasn't enough. But the truth remains that in the more than 8 months Bush was in office prior to 9/11 all the attacks you mentioned had still happened. OBL hadn't gone into hiding, and at any point during that time Bush could have done anything you accuse Clinton of not doing. Bush did not do that. Furthermore Bush didn't even do any of the stuff Clinton had done prior to that. In fact Bush ignored terrorism for those 8 months. Then Bush had the chance to go after OBL in Tora Bora. OBL is still on the loose. How can you not be results oriented in a situation like this? That is all you can be. You need to be results oriented in the war on terror. Even if the results make Bush look bad. We have been attacked by terrorists, who would still love to attack us more. Being result oriented is a must.
