Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-13-2011, 12:26 PM
 
4,911 posts, read 3,430,619 times
Reputation: 1257

Advertisements

Remember after 9/11 the right started claiming that Clinton should have had the same emphasis on fighting terrorism as Bush did after 9/11? (yeah, AFTER 3,000 people were killed) Well Newt was the Speaker of the House back then, why hasn't anybody asked him why if fighting terrorism was so damn important back then then why was his top priority impeaching President Clinton? Also why did the Republicans totally oppose all efforts Clinton made to fight terrorism? Clinton got zero support from the Republicans while Bush got 100% support from both parties, and he wasn't being impeached either
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2011, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,364,082 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmjv
while Bush got 100% support from both parties
your intent here is to be facetious, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2011, 12:35 PM
 
12,436 posts, read 11,950,438 times
Reputation: 3159
Newt and herman are just after more book deals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2011, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,274,487 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
your intent here is to be facetious, right?
I'm thinking that the OP doesn't know what Clinton was being impeached for and that not many Democrat Congress critters were in favor of what he did in Iraq. Oh yes, many of them like Hillary and Carry talked tough but they only did so because they knew there was a chance that there were WMD available and they were playing the political game.

I can't wait to see Newt get high enough in the polls for THEM to start bringing up his relations with his wife. That has been one of their favorite topics for years and they don't know that he had to leave the House because of what he did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2011, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Apple Valley Calif
7,474 posts, read 22,884,016 times
Reputation: 5684
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
Newt and herman are just after more book deals.
...and you are scared to0 death that one of them can/will kick you god's a$$...
You are supporting a corrupt loser who has no chance of being reelected...!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2011, 01:00 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,847,766 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
Remember after 9/11 the right started claiming that Clinton should have had the same emphasis on fighting terrorism as Bush did after 9/11? (yeah, AFTER 3,000 people were killed) Well Newt was the Speaker of the House back then, why hasn't anybody asked him why if fighting terrorism was so damn important back then then why was his top priority impeaching President Clinton? Also why did the Republicans totally oppose all efforts Clinton made to fight terrorism? Clinton got zero support from the Republicans while Bush got 100% support from both parties, and he wasn't being impeached either
you forget that it is the presidents responsibility to order the military into action, and NOT congress. the president also controls the intelligence community as well, again NOT congress.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2011, 01:09 PM
 
4,911 posts, read 3,430,619 times
Reputation: 1257
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
your intent here is to be facetious, right?
No it is not
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2011, 01:11 PM
 
4,911 posts, read 3,430,619 times
Reputation: 1257
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
I'm thinking that the OP doesn't know what Clinton was being impeached for and that not many Democrat Congress critters were in favor of what he did in Iraq. Oh yes, many of them like Hillary and Carry talked tough but they only did so because they knew there was a chance that there were WMD available and they were playing the political game.

I can't wait to see Newt get high enough in the polls for THEM to start bringing up his relations with his wife. That has been one of their favorite topics for years and they don't know that he had to leave the House because of what he did.
It doesn't matter why he was impeached, all that matters is that he was. If the Democrats had ever impeached Bush after 9/11 the cons would have screamed bloody murder
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2011, 01:14 PM
 
4,911 posts, read 3,430,619 times
Reputation: 1257
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
you forget that it is the presidents responsibility to order the military into action, and NOT congress. the president also controls the intelligence community as well, again NOT congress.
No I did not forget nor did I ever say it was Congress's responsibility. Congress does have a say in the matter however, just ask Clinton about Somalia (The Republican Congress cut off the funding) and Clinton was using the intelligence community, as much as he could anyway
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2011, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,488,320 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
No I did not forget nor did I ever say it was Congress's responsibility. Congress does have a say in the matter however, just ask Clinton about Somalia (The Republican Congress cut off the funding) and Clinton was using the intelligence community, as much as he could anyway
wow how could some one be so ignorant of the facts

1. to th solamia issue...NEITHER congress cut funding (and it was a DEMOCRAT controlled congress at the time (1992) it became a UN issue from 1992 to 1995

2. clinton FAILED the terrorism issue...he thought santions (oil for food) and bombing would sove the issue...it didnt and half a million iraq CHILDREN DIED under clinton santions

3 clinton was impeached not because of monica, but because he is a SEXUAL HARRASSER and sexual ASSAULTER of paula jones..the "lie" that got him was about monica, but part of the sexual assault case of jones, which he paid a big amount of money to shut her up
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:41 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top