posted on November 20, 2002 07:20:30 PM newDidn't ALL of America? Hell he showed it to everyone.
No, he didn't. The Republicans did that all by themselves. In fact, they made a three-ring circus out of something that was no one's business.
And ever since we've had to listen to Republicans & their supporters bleat ad infinitum about the "shame" that Clinton brought to the US!
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
[ edited by bunnicula on Nov 20, 2002 07:21 PM ]
[ edited by bunnicula on Nov 20, 2002 07:22 PM ]
posted on November 20, 2002 09:07:51 PM new
The office of the President of the United States of America is the highest office in the world. It is to be held to the HIGHEST STANDARD of MORALS.
Even the Democrats RAN from the scandals clinton caused and his publically ADMITTED LIES about his ADULTRIOUS AFFAIRS.
How many millions of dollars did he pay to settle sexual harassment law suits?
That may have been perfectly acceptable in Arkansas but NOT in the White House.
posted on November 20, 2002 10:28:37 PM new
Bear, your comments are flawed. That Clinton settled out of court is not indication that he did anything wrong. Lots of court suits are settled in this way. The reason is that a long trial would cost much more than the plaintiff will settle for. This is why the Republicans who have been after him since he left office to revoke his lawyer career have argued that this is some sort of admission of guilt, when eveyday, they and their corporations do the very same thing and there is no admission of guilt. It is only what the gullible want to believe.
>Even the Democrats RAN from the scandals clinton caused
SHAME ON YOU! The record more than clearly shows just how Democrats stuck to him, even though he admitted that he had "fudged" on the truth a bit. That is an outright twisting of historical events. If you can't come up with anything better than outright distorions and lies, Bear, then you had best stop posting in here!
> his publically ADMITTED LIES about his ADULTRIOUS AFFAIRS.
As compared to Ronald Reagan PUBLICALLY ADMITTING that he lied to the Congressional Investigative Committee on Iran-Contra, a FEDERAL FELONY? Talk about comparing a grain of sand to a mountain! And Bush - he's told so many lies in PUBLIC, TO THE PUBLIC, ALL OF THE TIME and gets caught with it, he shrugs his shoulders at it and doesn't give a damn, because you're just a peon compared to him! If this is the best that you can do, you'll end up invoking more crap and hatred in this country towards Bush and the Republicans than I ever could! Try getting your story straight!
>The office of the President of the United States of America is the highest office in the world. It is to be held to the HIGHEST STANDARD of MORALS.
Says Who? Bush? Senior or Junior? Ronald Reagan or "I'm not a crook!" Nixon? So immoral on such a scale that people gasped at the outrages they have perpetrated and brought low the office of the President. Republicans - ON RECORD, have a hundred more times of violations per adminstration since Eisenhower than any Democrat ever did!
I am not a Democrat, but don't lie to ME! I know the FACTS and your lies and outright distortions are for the drivel-minded slobs who support their Republican Over-Lords!
posted on November 20, 2002 11:08:07 PM new
"even though he admitted that he had "fudged" on the truth a bit."
This is known by the euphemism "perjury", which of course, was the real thing everybody was crying about, not the misplaced weenie. The endless "it's about his weenie" stories was the Democratic spin. You don't get impeached for weenie flapping.
"compared to Ronald Reagan PUBLICALLY ADMITTING that he lied to the Congressional Investigative Committee on Iran-Contra"
Gee, when was that speech? We have to contact the press because if he did, you better tell Bob Woodward:
"Reagan and Bush both claimed to have been uninformed about the details of the affair, and no evidence was found to link them to any crime." B. Woodward, Veil (1987)
It's doubtful the "gasp" count is any higher for Republican administrations than Democratic ones.
posted on November 21, 2002 08:16:20 AM new
No, Reagan never did admit that he lied regarding Iran-Contra. Instead, he feigned laryngitis! In fact, he went for 4 months without giving a press conference in order to duck answering questions. Can anyone here guess what the reaction would have been if Clinton had tried that? The howls of protest? The accusations? The adding of another ring to the circus?
The Washington Post,Mar 12, 1987: Speechless at the White House;Resisting Reporters' Questions, Reagan Feigns Laryngitis
"President Reagan, who hasn't held a news conference in nearly four months, has found a new tactic to duck reporters' questions at photo sessions: he is pretending he can't speak because of laryngitis. Reagan used this tactic for a second consecutive day yesterday to avoid answering questions about a Washington Post-ABC News poll showing that a substantial number of Americans are skeptical about the president's explanations of the Iran-contra affair. He has also, with a gesture to his throat, said "I can't talk" in response to questions about aid for the Nicaraguan rebels and about whether select congressional investigating committees should grant immunity to former national security aides.
The president yesterday declined to answer questions on grounds he couldn't talk during a photo session with Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) and other Hill leaders. Fitzwater said Reagan made "a remarkable recovery" after reporters left the room. But while the White House spokesman and reporters bantered about this good-naturedly at the daily briefing, senior officials acknowledged that new White House chief of staff Howard H. Baker Jr. and his aides want to make certain that Reagan is adequately prepared for a news conference.
Officials said that there has been some discussion of holding a news conference on March 19 although it could slip a few days. They said the March 19 date was penciled into Reagan's schedule several weeks ago when Nancy Reagan, citing instructions from doctors, insisted this was the earliest day on which the president could hold a news conference. Reagan last held a news conference on Nov. 19. This four-month gap without one is the second-longest hiatus of his presidency. The longest gap was from July 24, 1984, to Jan. 9, 1985, a 5 1/2-month period without news conferences that was prompted largely by the desire of Reagan's reelection managers to keep him away from the press.
White House officials acknowledge that Reagan's last news conference, which was held the week before Attorney General Edwin Meese III announced that proceeds from the arms sales to Iran had been diverted to aid the contras fighting the government of Nicaragua, was extremely damaging to the president and caused his poll ratings to plummet. Pressed during the Nov. 19 conference on Israel's role in the clandestine arms sales, Reagan denied repeatedly that any "third country" had been involved. After the news conference, the White House corrected the president.
"We want to avoid any repetition of that fiasco," a White House official said yesterday. "The president is rebounding, and needs a strong performance at his next news conference to help him.
So, no, Reagan never did admit he lied--instead, he chose to be seen as a dull-witted idiot puppet who had no idea that a shadow government was running things behind the scene...
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on November 21, 2002 08:41:19 AM new
Does the meaning of the word INTEGRITY mean anything.
Clinton surely didn't & still does not know.
In case you don't know:
Integrity....Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
Moral soundness; honesty; freedom from corrupting influence or motive; -- used especially with reference to the fulfillment of contracts, the discharge of agencies, trusts, and the like; uprightness; rectitude.
posted on November 21, 2002 08:45:09 AM new
However, for you "integrity" seemes to be something only some should have. I guess Republicans should have more leeway in your book... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on November 21, 2002 09:42:53 AM new
Does anyone have links to this board or news articles of all the Republicans that were proven to have had affairs and caught with their zippers down? There were quite a few! Wasn't Newt one of them?
Bush most likely has a penis as big as his brain. Tiny!
posted on November 21, 2002 10:10:47 AM new
Lately, no matter what the topic, the question of sex becomes THE issue. It is used as a measure of everything...integrity, morality, responsibility, intelligence and leadership ability.
I asked the other day, What good deed has George Bush done since he became president? Apparently the answer is that he has his zipper under control.
posted on November 21, 2002 02:56:38 PM new
It always pours when it rains! First, a slow week or so and I got to post here a lot. Then, this week suddenly it's pouring in the business from ALL directions - even old businesses which I no longer do as a matter of course, old customers are banging at my doors to give me work to do.
And in the midst of all of this chaos, I have to take a moment to come back in here and educate LAZY people. Yes, lazy because all one has to do is to go to Google anmd type in such things as: "Ronald Reagan" +li +Iran-Contra
Big Deal.
Yet, too lazy to do this, instead others post here denoucing what they are completely ignorant about!
Try some of these URLs. JESUS! It only took 30 seconds to do this, folks! Why don't you check you facts BEFORE you go posting denunciations?
I'm sorry, but I don't have more time than this. This is the beginning of your journey into the foul depths that lead to the lies of the Republican Party concerning Ronald Reagan. Don't just quote from these two links: keep reading - become EDUCATED. Talk like you ACTUALLY KNOW SOMETHING!
posted on November 21, 2002 03:14:42 PM new
We may indeed be quite ignorant, but at least we know one thing: editorial comments are "proof" of nothing. A seemingly simple fact that you constantly stumble over. Such methodology makes it highly doubtful you could educate anybody.
Just a few excerpts of everyone having a memory problem...
Asked specifically about the November 1985 HAWK shipment to Iran, President Reagan said he recalled a plan in which the Israelis would turn their plane around in mid-delivery of the weapons if no hostages were released.53 He did not recall when he became aware of the November 1985 HAWK shipment; 54 he did not recall Poindexter telling him in November 1986 that others in the White House were having trouble remembering when they learned of it.55
President Reagan also claimed virtually no memory of the November 1986 period in which his top advisers were scrambling to limit public exposure of the Iran arms sales. He only generally recalled telling members of Congress about the arms sales on November 12, 1986.56 He could not remember receiving any information from Poindexter for any of his presentations on the matter in that time.57 The former President could not remember asking Poindexter to assemble the facts on the arms sales.58 He could not recall that Poindexter briefed the House and Senate intelligence committees on November 21, 1986.59
Defense counsel's questions suggested that their client had significant exchanges with the President during the arms-sale period and its aftermath. But Reagan's lack of recollection, and lack of specificity when he did remember events or individuals, left those questions unresolved.
Asked again whether he approved the destruction of alteration of any Iran/contra records, President Reagan said: ``And this, I cannot answer. I cannot recall because it is the possibility that there were such papers that would violate the secrecy that was protecting those individuals' lives.'' 76 President Reagan had denied in response to the earlier written interrogatories that he approved the destruction and alteration of documents; when confronted with his previous testimony he stated that it was truthful.
