Did Clinton actually lie?

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

Hear, hear, hear.

He should have been attending to the people's business, not taking care of business, while he was on the clock.

That's my biggest problem with it - the unethical behavior. That he lied about it under oath just made it worse.

However, I wonder how much different everything would have been if he'd just came out and said "Yeah, I did - so what?"

mh

Did you have problems with Nixon's lies, with Reagan's lies and with Bush's lies about substantive issues, or are your problems restricted to Democrats' sex lives?

None of them perjured themselves under oath, and Clinton would undoubtedly have gotten a pass (because he's a Democrat, and they are always held to lower standards than Republicans) if he hadn't shafted himself in that way.

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Hear, hear, hear.

He should have been attending to the people's business, not taking care of business, while he was on the clock.

That's my biggest problem with it - the unethical behavior. That he lied about it under oath just made it worse.

However, I wonder how much different everything would have been if he'd just came out and said "Yeah, I did - so what?"

mh

Did you have problems with Nixon's lies, with Reagan's lies and with Bush's lies about substantive issues, or are your problems restricted to Democrats' sex lives?

________________________________

Hell, the politicians of any party, don't lie! They might 'spin' the truth a bit but, they wouldn't lie!


Chuck

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hear, hear, hear.

He should have been attending to the people's business, not taking care of business, while he was on the clock.

That's my biggest problem with it - the unethical behavior. That he lied about it under oath just made it worse.

However, I wonder how much different everything would have been if he'd just came out and said "Yeah, I did - so what?"

mh

Did you have problems with Nixon's lies, with Reagan's lies and with Bush's lies about substantive issues, or are your problems restricted to Democrats' sex lives?

None of them perjured themselves under oath, and Clinton would undoubtedly have gotten a pass (because he's a Democrat, and they are always held to lower standards than Republicans) if he hadn't shafted himself in that way.

That's because presidents all to often get away with having others take the rap for their crimes of state. Nixon, who had no less than 26 top aides (Haldemann, Erlichmann, Dean) and other agents convicted in Watergate, got a "pass" from a grand jury that dubbed him an "unindicted co-conspirator". Reagan's top aide John Poindexter was convicted of 5 felonies committed in office; Ollie North was convicted of 3 felonies committed in office, although they were reversed on appeal on technical grounds (not on their merits). Reagan was damned lucky to have ducked criminal responsibility for Iran/Contra illegalities. He just looked characteristically dumb and kept repeating, "They did what? Well, nobody ever told me about it. Mommy, did I know about that?" "No, Ronnie, my astrologer assures me of that." "See? I didn't know anything about it."

And then there's Bush Lite, who basically answers the "historical fiction" speculation, "What if Nixon had had an all-Republican Congress – what harm to the country might he have actually done?"

Those are just a couple examples. Sure, JFK's and Clinton's sex lives were putrid, and yes, perjury about your marital infidelities is still perjury. Of course it is. But as a citizen of one of the few democratic republics the world has to offer, I feel a whole hell of a lot less threatened by Clinton's lies about his sex life, a topic pursued mainly by enemies out to destroy him personally, than I do about Nixon's and Reagan's and Bush Lite's crimes of state, for crimes of state endanger the very foundation of the Republic.

Whether one is liberal, conservative or (horrors!) moderate, anyone who can't understand the difference between the two categories needs more education in history and civics.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hear, hear, hear.

He should have been attending to the people's business, not taking care of business, while he was on the clock.

That's my biggest problem with it - the unethical behavior. That he lied about it under oath just made it worse.

However, I wonder how much different everything would have been if he'd just came out and said "Yeah, I did - so what?"

mh

Did you have problems with Nixon's lies, with Reagan's lies and with Bush's lies about substantive issues, or are your problems restricted to Democrats' sex lives?

None of them perjured themselves under oath, and Clinton would undoubtedly have gotten a pass (because he's a Democrat, and they are always held to lower standards than Republicans) if he hadn't shafted himself in that way.

mh

Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan all lied to Congress about substantive issues (spy flights over Russia, US troops in Cambodia, Iran-Contra) while subject to their oaths of office. That doesn't bother you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hear, hear, hear.

He should have been attending to the people's business, not taking care of business, while he was on the clock.

That's my biggest problem with it - the unethical behavior. That he lied about it under oath just made it worse.

However, I wonder how much different everything would have been if he'd just came out and said "Yeah, I did - so what?"

mh

Did you have problems with Nixon's lies, with Reagan's lies and with Bush's lies about substantive issues, or are your problems restricted to Democrats' sex lives?

None of them perjured themselves under oath, and Clinton would undoubtedly have gotten a pass (because he's a Democrat, and they are always held to lower standards than Republicans) if he hadn't shafted himself in that way.

mh

Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan all lied to Congress about substantive issues (spy flights over Russia, US troops in Cambodia, Iran-Contra) while subject to their oaths of office. That doesn't bother you?

If you believe Bush lied, doesn't it bother you that all those people listed lied too. Do you think Bush could have initiated a war without the support of most of Congress? Do you think they are somehow absolved because they are now backpeddling and trying to distance themselves? Does the fact that someone else lied make it OK for others to lie?

Can I cheat on a test in your class and then be absolved because once caught, I point my finger at a classmate and say "but, but, he did it too"?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hear, hear, hear.

He should have been attending to the people's business, not taking care of business, while he was on the clock.

That's my biggest problem with it - the unethical behavior. That he lied about it under oath just made it worse.

However, I wonder how much different everything would have been if he'd just came out and said "Yeah, I did - so what?"

mh

Did you have problems with Nixon's lies, with Reagan's lies and with Bush's lies about substantive issues, or are your problems restricted to Democrats' sex lives?

None of them perjured themselves under oath, and Clinton would undoubtedly have gotten a pass (because he's a Democrat, and they are always held to lower standards than Republicans) if he hadn't shafted himself in that way.

mh

Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan all lied to Congress about substantive issues (spy flights over Russia, US troops in Cambodia, Iran-Contra) while subject to their oaths of office. That doesn't bother you?

If you believe Bush lied, doesn't it bother you that all those people listed lied too. Do you think Bush could have initiated a war without the support of most of Congress? Do you think they are somehow absolved because they are now backpeddling and trying to distance themselves? Does the fact that someone else lied make it OK for others to lie?

Can I cheat on a test in your class and then be absolved because once caught, I point my finger at a classmate and say "but, but, he did it too"?

Who am I absolving? Where have I written that I think Clinton was OK to lie? I think they are ALL liars.

As far as I can see, only the neo-cons around here try to absolve anyone from lying, and that someone is G.W. Bush.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

the Clinton/Lewinsky affair:

That question should never have been asked in the first place. It had absolutely no relevance to anything.

Unless you believe Paula Jones has a right to file sexual harassment charges against a standing President. Politically suspect or not, the revealment of Clinton's lie resulted in a new trial for her, and this time resulted in a private settlement.

As for trying to believe he didn't lie - ask your wife or girlfriend if monogamy still allows for foreign BJs. It's fine to conclude it wasn't a terribly lie in the analysis of his presidency. It's GWB stupid to believe it wasn't a lie.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hear, hear, hear.

He should have been attending to the people's business, not taking care of business, while he was on the clock.

That's my biggest problem with it - the unethical behavior. That he lied about it under oath just made it worse.

However, I wonder how much different everything would have been if he'd just came out and said "Yeah, I did - so what?"

mh

Did you have problems with Nixon's lies, with Reagan's lies and with Bush's lies about substantive issues, or are your problems restricted to Democrats' sex lives?

None of them perjured themselves under oath, and Clinton would undoubtedly have gotten a pass (because he's a Democrat, and they are always held to lower standards than Republicans) if he hadn't shafted himself in that way.

mh

Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan all lied to Congress about substantive issues (spy flights over Russia, US troops in Cambodia, Iran-Contra) while subject to their oaths of office. That doesn't bother you?

If you believe Bush lied, doesn't it bother you that all those people listed lied too. Do you think Bush could have initiated a war without the support of most of Congress? Do you think they are somehow absolved because they are now backpeddling and trying to distance themselves? Does the fact that someone else lied make it OK for others to lie?

Can I cheat on a test in your class and then be absolved because once caught, I point my finger at a classmate and say "but, but, he did it too"?

Who am I absolving? Where have I written that I think Clinton was OK to lie? I think they are ALL liars.

As far as I can see, only the neo-cons around here try to absolve anyone from lying, and that someone is G.W. Bush.

I didn't say you were absolving anyone. I asked if you thought other liars should be absolved. I think that's a fair question considering you bash GWB at a ration of about 5000:1. Very rarely have I heard you bash anyone else.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hear, hear, hear.

He should have been attending to the people's business, not taking care of business, while he was on the clock.

That's my biggest problem with it - the unethical behavior. That he lied about it under oath just made it worse.

However, I wonder how much different everything would have been if he'd just came out and said "Yeah, I did - so what?"

mh

Did you have problems with Nixon's lies, with Reagan's lies and with Bush's lies about substantive issues, or are your problems restricted to Democrats' sex lives?

None of them perjured themselves under oath, and Clinton would undoubtedly have gotten a pass (because he's a Democrat, and they are always held to lower standards than Republicans) if he hadn't shafted himself in that way.

mh

Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan all lied to Congress about substantive issues (spy flights over Russia, US troops in Cambodia, Iran-Contra) while subject to their oaths of office. That doesn't bother you?

If you believe Bush lied, doesn't it bother you that all those people listed lied too. Do you think Bush could have initiated a war without the support of most of Congress? Do you think they are somehow absolved because they are now backpeddling and trying to distance themselves? Does the fact that someone else lied make it OK for others to lie?

Can I cheat on a test in your class and then be absolved because once caught, I point my finger at a classmate and say "but, but, he did it too"?

Who am I absolving? Where have I written that I think Clinton was OK to lie? I think they are ALL liars.

As far as I can see, only the neo-cons around here try to absolve anyone from lying, and that someone is G.W. Bush.

I didn't say you were absolving anyone. I asked if you thought other liars should be absolved. I think that's a fair question considering you bash GWB at a ration of about 5000:1. Very rarely have I heard you bash anyone else.

GWB does more damage to the nation and the world than any other 5,000 people, so his lies are more important than, say one of my students telling me the dog ate his homework.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hear, hear, hear.

He should have been attending to the people's business, not taking care of business, while he was on the clock.

That's my biggest problem with it - the unethical behavior. That he lied about it under oath just made it worse.

However, I wonder how much different everything would have been if he'd just came out and said "Yeah, I did - so what?"

mh

Did you have problems with Nixon's lies, with Reagan's lies and with Bush's lies about substantive issues, or are your problems restricted to Democrats' sex lives?

None of them perjured themselves under oath, and Clinton would undoubtedly have gotten a pass (because he's a Democrat, and they are always held to lower standards than Republicans) if he hadn't shafted himself in that way.

mh

Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan all lied to Congress about substantive issues (spy flights over Russia, US troops in Cambodia, Iran-Contra) while subject to their oaths of office. That doesn't bother you?

If you believe Bush lied, doesn't it bother you that all those people listed lied too. Do you think Bush could have initiated a war without the support of most of Congress? Do you think they are somehow absolved because they are now backpeddling and trying to distance themselves? Does the fact that someone else lied make it OK for others to lie?

Can I cheat on a test in your class and then be absolved because once caught, I point my finger at a classmate and say "but, but, he did it too"?

Who am I absolving? Where have I written that I think Clinton was OK to lie? I think they are ALL liars.

As far as I can see, only the neo-cons around here try to absolve anyone from lying, and that someone is G.W. Bush.

I didn't say you were absolving anyone. I asked if you thought other liars should be absolved. I think that's a fair question considering you bash GWB at a ration of about 5000:1. Very rarely have I heard you bash anyone else.

GWB does more damage to the nation and the world than any other 5,000 people, so his lies are more important than, say one of my students telling me the dog ate his homework.

Congress votes every year to fund the war. How is GWB doing more damage in your opinion than those who continue to support the war this way? First, according to you, they went out and supported his lies and now they allow him to continue. How is that causing any less damage in your opinion?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Congress votes every year to fund the war. How is GWB doing more damage in your opinion than those who continue to support the war this way? First, according to you, they went out and supported his lies and now they allow him to continue. How is that causing any less damage in your opinion?

Paying to clean up the mess is different from creating the mess in the first place. This is Bush's war.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Congress votes every year to fund the war. How is GWB doing more damage in your opinion than those who continue to support the war this way? First, according to you, they went out and supported his lies and now they allow him to continue. How is that causing any less damage in your opinion?

Paying to clean up the mess is different from creating the mess in the first place. This is Bush's war.

You're saying that all of those votes are just to clean up Bush's fuck up?

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Congress votes every year to fund the war. How is GWB doing more damage in your opinion than those who continue to support the war this way? First, according to you, they went out and supported his lies and now they allow him to continue. How is that causing any less damage in your opinion?

Paying to clean up the mess is different from creating the mess in the first place. This is Bush's war.

You're saying that all of those votes are just to clean up Bush's fuck up?

It cost a whole lot less to continue the embargo and enforce the no-fly zones than the $trillion or so in treasure and 2656 dead American boys that Bush's incompetence has cost us.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Congress votes every year to fund the war. How is GWB doing more damage in your opinion than those who continue to support the war this way? First, according to you, they went out and supported his lies and now they allow him to continue. How is that causing any less damage in your opinion?

Paying to clean up the mess is different from creating the mess in the first place. This is Bush's war.

You're saying that all of those votes are just to clean up Bush's fuck up?

It cost a whole lot less to continue the embargo and enforce the no-fly zones than the $trillion or so in treasure and 2656 dead American boys that Bush's incompetence has cost us.

I notice you didn't answer the question.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[juanesky 0]

This is the same issue I have about the whole ordeal. Not that he got "some". funny thing his supporters are ok that while he was under investigation for Paula Jones' sexual harrassment lawsuit, he, a lawyer, goes under oath, and try to make this lie, without knowing the consequences? Well, I am not lawyer, but other things I could think off is obstruction of justice....

Well let's the people that are ok with sexual harrasment talk, it has been entertaining how many of these advocates have spoken

Quote

Quote

How about charges of rape?

That one truly DOES depend on the definition.

Did he commit sexual harassment? You BET! He gave special access and privileges to a chick that granted him sexual favors. A President using an intern.

That's not rape in my book, though it is sexual harassment and discrimination - and entirely inappropriate. Trust me, if I was boinking my receptionist and she filed a complaint with the Justice Department, i'd be in some serious trouble with the DOJ.

Guess what? THAT was my main problem with what Clinton did. Then he lied about it, which was problem number 2.

Let's cut the shit about a consenting relationship and view what it was - a middle-aged man who happened to be the most powerful person in the world and a young female intern who lacked a security clearance in the oval office. The "affairs of state" took precedence over the affairs of state.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I thought he didn't lie according to the then going legal definition of "sexual relations".

Which to me means that he did not perjure himself, though to most people (including me) he did lie. I also believe he should never have been asked the question in the first place.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Congress votes every year to fund the war. How is GWB doing more damage in your opinion than those who continue to support the war this way? First, according to you, they went out and supported his lies and now they allow him to continue. How is that causing any less damage in your opinion?

Paying to clean up the mess is different from creating the mess in the first place. This is Bush's war.

You're saying that all of those votes are just to clean up Bush's fuck up?

It cost a whole lot less to continue the embargo and enforce the no-fly zones than the $trillion or so in treasure and 2656 dead American boys that Bush's incompetence has cost us.

Never could have gone to war without support from Congress. Just look at all the liars, according to you who not only supported him initially, but continue to do so even now, yet not a single condemnation from you. I think your arguement is very weak and you know it.

[micro 0]

Quote

I thought he didn't lie according to the then going legal definition of "sexual relations".

Which to me means that he did not perjure himself, though to most people (including me) he did lie. I also believe he should never have been asked the question in the first place.

He's the one that chose to spin it by using the term "sexual relations" instead of just coming () clean and fessing up.

As to your second point, if you think he shouldn't have been asked that in the first place, do you think it was right for him to be getting a hummer in the oval office?

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[wmw999 2,583]

Quote

As to your second point, if you think he shouldn't have been asked that in the first place, do you think it was right for him to be getting a hummer in the oval office?

I'm not the target of that question, but this being SC, I'll answer anyway.

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck if he got a hummer from a paid male prostitude in Air Force 1 while flying to see the Pope. And not from an intern in the oval office, either. Those are places. They are not changed by what happens in them.

Lawrocket has some good points about coercion in superior/inferior relationships in professional situations that are pertinent. That's a separate issue, and is well worth considering.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

As to your second point, if you think he shouldn't have been asked that in the first place, do you think it was right for him to be getting a hummer in the oval office?

I don't see it as right or wrong, I see it as non of anybodies business. It doesn't relate back to his job. As a matter of fact, I would think that all the attention on a blowjob took away from his ability to effectively carry out his job.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

As to your second point, if you think he shouldn't have been asked that in the first place, do you think it was right for him to be getting a hummer in the oval office?

I'm not the target of that question, but this being SC, I'll answer anyway.

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck if he got a hummer from a paid male prostitude in Air Force 1 while flying to see the Pope. And not from an intern in the oval office, either. Those are places. They are not changed by what happens in them.

Lawrocket has some good points about coercion in superior/inferior relationships in professional situations that are pertinent. That's a separate issue, and is well worth considering.

Wendy W.

No the place isn't changed Wendy. That wasn't my point in asking the question. But is that the behavior you want YOUR president to be engaging in, in the Office wherein he needs to be doing the business of the country? You honestly wouldn't give a "fuck" if he was getting a blow job from a hooker on Air Force One?

Wow. Just.... wow.

Yes, Lawrocket's points are quite salient. And they were behind my question... they are tied into the LOCATION of the act.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

As to your second point, if you think he shouldn't have been asked that in the first place, do you think it was right for him to be getting a hummer in the oval office?

I don't see it as right or wrong, I see it as non of anybodies business. It doesn't relate back to his job. As a matter of fact, I would think that all the attention on a blowjob took away from his ability to effectively carry out his job.

REALLY? A form of adultery isn't seen by you as either right or wrong? Abusing his power AND his office isn't seen by you as being right or wrong? And you don't see how this relates back to his JOB? He's willing to take advantage of a much younger intern and you don't see how that relates back to his job, a man who at the time was the most powerful man in the world? How 'bout the perjury? Was that also neither right or wrong?

The investigation may HAVE affected his ability to carry out his job... I don't know... but he brought it on himself. To blame it on anyone else is just shirking responsibility.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[wmw999 2,583]

Lawrocket's points were tied into his position as her superior; the power of the situation is too much in his hands, and makes it less consensual. From how I read it, they had nothing to do with the oval office, just with his position as the President.

But no, I really don't care if if my President engages in (particularly consensual sexual) activities I personally disapprove of. Whether it's hummers, or bondage, etc. To me it has nothing to do with his job performance. I realize that it's not the same for everyone, but that's how it is for me.

The consensual part is important. I wouldn't be nearly as cool with someone who did lines in the White House, even though I"ll admit I think most drug laws should be repealed, and turned into opportunities for taxation.

Having a relationship with someone who doesn't have the power to leave it is different, and that did make me think.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Lawrocket's points were tied into his position as her superior; the power of the situation is too much in his hands, and makes it less consensual. From how I read it, they had nothing to do with the oval office, just with his position as the President.

But no, I really don't care if if my President engages in (particularly consensual sexual) activities I personally disapprove of. Whether it's hummers, or bondage, etc. To me it has nothing to do with his job performance. I realize that it's not the same for everyone, but that's how it is for me.

The consensual part is important. I wouldn't be nearly as cool with someone who did lines in the White House, even though I"ll admit I think most drug laws should be repealed, and turned into opportunities for taxation.

Having a relationship with someone who doesn't have the power to leave it is different, and that did make me think.

Wendy W.

Take the same situation but change the place. Suppose he went to China and got caught getting a BJ in Chen Shui-bians private office. Would this be acceptable behavior in your opinion?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

REALLY? A form of adultery isn't seen by you as either right or wrong? Abusing his power AND his office isn't seen by you as being right or wrong? And you don't see how this relates back to his JOB? He's willing to take advantage of a much younger intern and you don't see how that relates back to his job, a man who at the time was the most powerful man in the world? How 'bout the perjury? Was that also neither right or wrong?

He didn't perjure himself. Show me the conviction and I will gladly give you that point.

I have my thoughts on adultery, but that is neither here nor there. I don't see how this relates back to his job. Did him getting a blowjob affect his job performance?

many men use/abuse their "power" to get women to sleep with them. Cops, firefighters, soldiers, business men. Many women tend to be attracted to power, just look at how many women on these forums start salivating when uniforms are mentioned. Do you think they should all explain themselves in front of cameras and all the world to see? Do you think they should all be removed from their positions?