Tell me please (ethical, Kerry, military, biased)

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by pimpsgangtasandhustlas

Because republicans play dirty. Kinda like arguing with women(spouse)....they'll say and do what it takes to win, without any regard to reason and logic. Then they'll blame you for not having any regard of reason and logic. And so on.....

I'm not a Republican, though I once was, but I am a fiscal conservative. I will challenge you to a friendly debate on fiscal policy, based entirely on logic, reason and facts anytime and we'll see who starts with the personal attacks first.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

He was brought in front of a grand jury because of Paula Jones' civil lawsuit. This in of itself wasn't a big issue, until he lied to the grand jury. Then, it becomes a crime and he should've been removed from office for committing this crime, IMO.

Clinton's mistake was not taking the 5th, which he didnt due to his personal need to be liked by everyone. Staying silent would have alienated feminists and he was scared of offending anyone because of his need to be loved. This was/is the primary flaw in his character.

The Paula Jones suit would have never come to anything had Starr not been so desperate to pin ANY sort of charges against Clinton whatsoever.

To me, Clinton's taste in women was by far his worst crime, but thats not something someone could be tried for in a US court. If Clinton's taste was more like JFK's, I wonder if as many would have been upset about the scandal.

[Amaznjohn]

I don't know that anyone, except a select few, was really concerned about his lovelife. I sure didn't care. But, when the President, the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the country breaks the law by trying to deceive the citizens of a grand jury, I believe he should no longer have such a position as President.

[Dedalus]

He should never have been asked the question in the first place.

There's some interesting stuff about Monica Lewinski in Maureen Dowd's book, "Are Men Necessary?" Apparently, she had a determined agenda, in becoming an intern, to hoover up the Executive Anaconda. She has been viewed in certain circles as a victim of a sex-mad predator, but that view seems less and less likely to me, from that and other things I've read.

[vademsandi]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

I don't know that anyone, except a select few, was really concerned about his lovelife. I sure didn't care. But, when the President, the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the country breaks the law by trying to deceive the citizens of a grand jury, I believe he should no longer have such a position as President.

So by your logic, lying to all citizens to go to war with Iraq is cause for Bush to "no longer have such a position as President"? I know the double standard, of course you don't think so.

[greatbasinguide]

I find it curious, but entirely understandable that the most heinous Republicans will wrap them selves in the flag and stand beside the cross while they lie cheat and steal and kill to further their agenda.

At least Democrats seldom demonstrate such hypocrisy.

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by vademsandi

So by your logic, lying to all citizens to go to war with Iraq is cause for Bush to "no longer have such a position as President"? I know the double standard, of course you don't think so.

I keep this around for chuckles when the "Bush Lied" topic comes up:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

[MOVIN-n-012]

STOP will ya,
Your gona scare off some of the funiest posts Iv ever read with such trivial little details!

[spunky1]

Originally Posted by Dedalus

He should never have been asked the question in the first place.

There's some interesting stuff about Monica Lewinski in Maureen Dowd's book, "Are Men Necessary?" Apparently, she had a determined agenda, in becoming an intern, to hoover up the Executive Anaconda. She has been viewed in certain circles as a victim of a sex-mad predator, but that view seems less and less likely to me, from that and other things I've read.

Ah Muareen Dowd, now there is an unbiased source of information.

[spunky1]

Originally Posted by Dedalus

He should never have been asked the question in the first place.

There's some interesting stuff about Monica Lewinski in Maureen Dowd's book, "Are Men Necessary?" Apparently, she had a determined agenda, in becoming an intern, to hoover up the Executive Anaconda. She has been viewed in certain circles as a victim of a sex-mad predator, but that view seems less and less likely to me, from that and other things I've read.

And, I guess you are saying that since, in your view, "He should never have been asked the question in the first place, " it is OK that he lied under oath. . that our President of the United States lied to a grand jury. . that is the part that makes democrats lose their credibility, that they will excuse this point. Will NOT address this point but will keep up with that argument that it shouldn't of been asked. If democrats would concede that THEIR MAN is a lyer and a cheat but they STILL excuse him and they still want him, and they do not care that he lied, that it is fine with them. Then we can talk. . .