Some of y'all are being extra-idiotic today. The initial investigation that led to Clinton's impeachment was not about perjury. It was about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton just gave the witch-hunting, partisan conservatives the ammo they needed for impeachment when he lied about it, since investigations Whitewater, Travelgate, so on and so forth couldn't bring Clinton down. The fact that some of you think that Starr's investigation was OK, but an investigation into how 9/11 came to be is astounding and downright sickening.
Dude, we KNOW why they died, 20 crazy terrorists hijacked those planes. This is arguably the dumbest thing I've ever read on this BBS. If you wrote a game, and one day it deleted the player's hard drive, would you say: 1) We don't need to figure out why - we KNOW what caused it. The software decided to delete the hard drive. End of story. or 2) We need to find the cause of the deletion so we can prevent it in the future. If you picked #1, you're a horrid software developer. If you picked #2, your statement above is hypocritical. If you know ANYTHING about history (perhaps you don't?), you know how vital Pearl Harbor and other investigations were in improving U.S. military capabilities and security for the next time. Do you think we should have stopped and said "we know why Pearl Harbor happened - the Japanese attacked us!"!??! We shouldn't have looked into the failures so that we could improve for the next time? I can't believe anyone (except people that just have to sit and justify every decision for the administration without any self-thought) actually is arguing that we don't need to learn from our mistakes.
Ummm...I was lead to understand that Clinton's testimony...in which he committed perjury...came during an investigation into another woman's allegations that he had sexually harrassed her. That was where he lied...on the stand...in his own interests. And even if your version was accurate, which it isn't, does that in your mind excuse his actions, or make them less illegal?
Meant to say that i agree 100% with our last paragraph, obviously. It actually amazes me how little some in here try to disguise how defending the actions of the administration is their only interest.
No it doesn't. But it doesn't make his activities any more investigation worthy than the worst terrorist attack on United States soil. Regardless, if the Republicans wouldn't have cared about Clinton's private life, the perjury never would've happened. It doesn't excuse it, but to say that it bears investigating while 9/11 doesn't because of the potential partisan games that could be played with it (when that's all any of the Clinton stuff was), is disturbing. Clearly, these people didn't lose loved ones on 9/11, nor, honestly, do they really care that it happened.
I thought it was the Paula Jones Civil lawsuit that started the investigation process: <a HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/timeline.htm">Jones v. Clinton</a>
I stand corrected. Doesn't change my belief that if the conservatives had not have been performing a partisan witch hunt, the perjury never would've happened. Nor does it change my belief that questions about his private life are not more important than questions about the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
The total cost of Independent probes of Clinton Administration was nearly $80 Million (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/01/counsel.probe.costs/). But investigating the causes of 9/11 is only partisan politics?
Apparently, some conservatives, including a few on this board, care more about a stained dress than the deaths of 3,000 innocent people. It's sickening.
As I've indicated before, I tend to defend Bush because so many of you here just constantly criticize him... yet you only question <b>my</b> motives. What's wrong with that picture? We know what happened on 9/11. We even know how it happened. We have a very good idea why it happened. What is this inquiry going to find out? It hasn't happened again. I don't care to put a national tragedy in the middle ring of the circus-- the blue dress, fine. This has nothing to do with what I care more about. Do you really think that?
As I've indicated before, I tend to defend Bush because so many of you here just constantly criticize him... yet you only question my motives. What's wrong with that picture? Nothing's wrong with that picture. If you admit that you're defending someone not because you agree with him but because you don't like that lots of people are piling on, then you're going to have to reach and make up crappy arguments... and you're going to get called on it. We know what happened on 9/11. We even know how it happened. We have a very good idea why it happened. What is this inquiry going to find out? It hasn't happened again. No, we have VERY little idea of what went wrong (if anything) on 9/11. If you think we do, you're simply delusional. "It hasn't happened again" - that's your argument? Wow. It hadn't happened before 9/11, yet it still happened on 9/11. I don't care to put a national tragedy in the middle ring of the circus And you're willing to increase our risk of another terrorist attack, and many more people dying, in order to avoid a circus. Glad to see you have your priorities straight.
There's been lots of name-calling from all sides, but I've yet to see a convincing argument why Republicans should block the investigation.
There isn't one. Too bad some Democrats have to pollute the salient issue by bringing up Clinton's errors.
wow, that sounds like an opinion and an assumption. well, sh*t. why investigate anything when all we need are opinions and assumptions to get to the bottom of things? i can't believe i'm hearing some of this partisan bullsh*t concerning this investigation. "i'm all for an investigation, but i don't want it to tarnish GWB so closely to election time!" good to see yall's heads are on straight.
I thought the genesis of the independent counsel for CLinton and hence Starr's investigation was whitewater.
But the only thing those who want to close down the Commission have in common is that they are Republicans and they obviously fear any info coming out of the Commission will damage their electability or that of Bush. No Independents are using the mechanics of legislation to pre-empt the Commission. No Dems are saying "You've had enough time." No Taoists are saying enough info is known. It's all and only Republicans. More than that, it's only the President, his staff, and the Congressional leadership. Nothing wrong with the title.
