I also can be somewhat sympathetic and perhaps even a little emphathetic to the personal and emotional element here, but I also find it impossible to overlook the fact that Bush has never expressed that sentiment in his condemnation of parents whose children may have and/or may create problems. He has rather chosen to make family values a political issue, yet when a situation arises that would specifically involve himself in the political dialogue, he pleads exemption. You simply can't have it both ways. Neither do I think that Bush has the least understanding of the complex difficulties that confront contemporary families, nor does he care to entertain meaningful dialogues about those problems on a national level.
Either he's a liar, a hypocrite, or he doesn't know what he's talking about.
That's a good summation, krs. Dubya's apologists who argue for his intelligence may be his worst enemies, and would be wiser to go with the doesn't know what he's talking about defense. That would at least remove some culpability.
posted on June 2, 2001 10:49:34 AM new
I dont think national security was stored in clintons drawers. Monica doesn't strike me as the type that would fish for info, nor has the brains to figure out what he may have said in the throes of passion anyway. Point is, she wasnt his mistress to tell secrets too. She was a temporary and convenient "vessel". The one to worry about it Bush. No telling what HE will say, in passion or idiocy.
posted on June 2, 2001 11:23:26 AM new
I would rather see the genie pushed back into the bottle. I wish that the Republicans had never started this slamming of presidential family members thing. Now every president's wives, kids, brothers, sisters, in-laws are all held up to public scrutiny and are expected to be "morally" better than the rest of us. After the Republicans slammed Jimmy Carter's brother so loudly in the media, now it is common for journalists to pick on family members. Maybe this Republican Predisdent ought to be the one to try to push that genie back into the bottle (no pun intended)!
posted on June 2, 2001 11:29:39 AM new"I was always taught that if you can't say something nice about someone then it would be best not to say anything at all."
Please send your remarks to someone who cares at this web address:
They have a history about making not-so-nice remarks about people and threatening to sic the FBI on anyone who makes not-so-nice remarks about them (Trent Lott's remarks to the press concerning a Saalon article that showed Henry Hyde's unfaithfulness while Clinton was on senate trial).
posted on June 2, 2001 11:34:02 AM new
First of all, his daughter paid for the crime the first time, paid court costs and doing her community service thing, secondly, when he was caught umpteen years ago, he paid for the crime, didn't balk or have daddy get him out of it. I, personally, don't believe that he would try to get anyone to look the other way while his daughters broke the law. In addition, I do not think his daughters actions and their punishment should be the topic of his discussion. I don't think he should use them as an example of what to do or what not to do, unless the girls allow him to do so.
I also feel that this whole thing is being blown out of proportion. When I was in college, several, well, ok, many years ago, this was VERY common behavior. For 90%+ of the students. I think the press and everybody else is making a huge deal out of nothing.
Regarding Clinton and Monica, the only thing I can say to that whole thing is that, in my eyes, his behavior deems him untrustworthy; if your own wife can't trust you, if your wedding vows mean nothing to you, then how can I trust you, (which I don't) and what does the oath of the president mean? Not to mention the fact that in most places, if you do those things in your office, you would be fired, no questions asked. I still marvel at the fact that, people think George W is dumb, yet Clinton had to ask for a definition of 'is'
I know that most people who post here will not agree with my opinions, but I would ask that you at least respect them, just as I have respected everyone elses. I do not think I have not attacked anyone, and I ask for that same courtesy in return.
posted on June 2, 2001 11:52:12 AM new
Well if the Clinton thing was a matter of "trust", then what can we say about Bush's daughter ?
Scofflaw ? Hypocrites ? frauds ? Character flaws ?
The Bush daughter broke the very law her father signed into being. Where are the Bush's family values ? Perhaps instead of an expensive clinic, they should send their daughter to a church brainwashing program, as GW wants for all the poor people in this country.
The Republicans started the witch hunts in politicians personal lives, now the chickens have come home to roost.
The first time should have been overlooked. The second time presents a problem.
If the Bushs and their supporters can't take it, don't dish it out.
posted on June 2, 2001 12:01:29 PM new
I don't think the Clinton 'thing' and this have much to do with each other. I brought it up, because someone else had brought Clinton and that 'thing' up.
I think President Clinton, when asked 'Did you have sex with xxxx?' his answer was
'Define sex'
I think, I don't remember all of that what happened.
I do remember he did say 'no' and then retracted? that with, 'I did have sex with her' (not exact quote)
posted on June 2, 2001 12:17:13 PM new
Well if Clinton had "sex" with Monica, then try this next time you're at the doctor's office:
Ask the Dr.- Can a female get pregnant from having sex ?
The Dr. will reply generally- "Yes", but the smart Dr. will ask what you mean by "having sex".
Particularly in the South and at catholic girl's schools, the machinations Clinton and Monica did were not "having sex".
The witch hunt attorneys were rather stupid to ask the questions in the manner they did, and only rephrased their questions later after they realized their mistake.
When being deposed, you are instructed to answer only the question asked, and in that regard, Clinton told the truth.
Clinton may have played the legal game to the nth degree, but all good lawyers do, and I would expect any attorney I hired to do the same thing.
posted on June 2, 2001 12:53:46 PM new
well he wasn't at a dr office, and he WAS the President. His attorneys or advisors should never have told him to 'lie' or rather, answer the question with a question
Why did he later then tell the people that he did have 'sex' whichever way he defined it.
Why didn't he just tell it like it was when first asked?
posted on June 2, 2001 01:17:58 PM new
Hiya Antiquary, always good to see you. I like you and respect you more than I like and respect Bush ( ), but I can't be too hard on him about this issue.
I disagree with his standards about family values. You do too, I think. If we both think Bush's standards are the wrong ones, how can we insist that he should hold himself to these wrong standards? Maybe he deserves it, I dunno. But I do know that in those few moments when I think there might be a God, the thing I pray to Him for is that I never get what I deserve. That would be a cruel punishment indeed.
Anyway, it's one thing for any sleazy politician to drag out his cute kids for photo ops and use them to promote his own image of wholesomeness (I don't know if Bush has done that in the past, but it's a standard political thing), but it's quite another to tie them up to the whipping post (even if you put yourself on the adjoining post) for public condemnation to promote your own image of non-hypocrisy. If Bush has any real family values at all, I'd hope those values would preclude him from doing that.
posted on June 2, 2001 01:45:47 PM new
His attorneys didn't tell Clinton to lie and he didn't lie- he did not have "sex" with Monica. You can get pregnant from having sex.
Since when does a President give up his Constitutional rights in a private law suit ?
You are under no duty to offer extra information or guide your adversaries in their case during a deposition or otherwise.
If you were testifying in a car collision case and an attorney asked you how fast the Van was going that hit the car, and you knew it wasn't a Van- what do you say ? Define Van ? Or say you don't know ? Or say you have no information about a Van hitting a car ? Answer the question with a question and do their work for them - Do you mean a car rather than Van ? And then what if the attorney insists it was a Van ?
posted on June 2, 2001 03:04:11 PM new
You read me like a book, donny. It's good to see you posting here again.
You will be grateful to know though that in the Bush hypocrisy matter I briefly entertained a plot involving an ant hill and honey, wonderful symbolism there, but yielded to my more humanitarian compunctions.
So you see, I do try to provide a good example for our current political leadership, hoping that the Bush theocratic oligarchy will take note and at least toss a few conservative crumbs of compassion to the unwashed masses below them.
The Latest Study By Gays Finds That Republicans Can Change Their Orientation Through Counseling.
Define Orientation
A Republican (or Democrat) can have many orientations, personally I like my philosophical orientations exactly where they are. (also my sexual ones too)
And I was not born this way! I like it, so I don't want to change.
However I have been thinking of rearranging my office, maybe I'll change the orientation of my desk, so I face east or south, would counseling help me with that?
posted on June 2, 2001 06:37:59 PM new
I was just having a discussion with some teenagers----thye thought I was some sort of idiot when I tried to tell them that Oral Sex was having sex. They of course do not call it Oral Sex.
So--by definition of those in the under 20 age bracket--Clinton was telling the truth when he said he did not have sex.
These were Canadian teenagers who don't know and don't care who Clinton is.
Jenna and Barbara are 19 years old, to me, their actions have little, if no reflection on their father. If they were my daughters, I would not trust them now. But, IMHO that does not mean I do not trust their father.
As for Clinton, I know that this doesn't matter to most of you, and again, it is MHO, but if my boss and I were caught playing with cigars or having oral sex in his office, on company time, when we were both being paid to perform our jobs, our butts would be long gone, and our 'privacy' would be too.
I don't mind my privacy being invaded, I'm not doing anything that I'm ashamed of or don't mind others knowing about.
posted on June 2, 2001 07:28:22 PM new"but if my boss and I were caught playing with cigars or having oral sex in his office, on company time, when we were both being paid to perform our jobs"
Where is the relevance in that? Do you mean to say that a president punches a timeclock or that a home office is not a home, or that you know that Monica was in pay status during the event?. The statement is meaningless.
On the tail of that is:
"I don't mind my privacy being invaded, I'm not doing anything that I'm ashamed of or don't mind others knowing about"
which is also irrelevant to any aspect of the event(s) under discussion.
posted on June 2, 2001 08:01:01 PM new
I don't understand what relevance anyone's
sexual activity has to this topic, which is
the drinking and problematic behavior of the
President's daughter.
), but I can't be too hard on him about this issue.