The fire of President Clinton

[angela146]

I saw the Fox News interview with President Clinton, in which he lost his temper a little bit over the suggestion that he didn't do enough to stop ObL.

The interview reminded me again why I liked the guy and why I absolutely do not blame him for the sex scandals that marred his presidency.

You see, I've met the man. It was only for a few minutes in a Rose Garden ceremony for my father and several other ranking naval officers. The president spoke individually with most of the people assembled and took an interest in my husband since, at the time, he was a teacher at an inner-city high school.

Mr. Clinton then turned to me, shook my hand and said something like "You must be proud to have a husband and a father both serving our country in such important ways".

In that instant, I felt the raw power of his presence and was glad that I wasn't alone in a room with him. If I hadn't been surrounded by a hundred other people, I would have embarrassed myself and behaved like a sex-crazed teenager.

There's something about him that makes a woman want to throw herself at him. Over the years, I'm sure any number of women have done it in subtle or not so subtle ways and I have to cut him some slack for yielding to the temptation a few times.

Anyway, when I saw the interview, the fire in his eyes and the way he articulated his views made me want to fuck him - and then vote for him.

I turned off the TV, found my husband in the other room, unbuttoned my blouse, and whispered "fuck me" in my best Marilyn Monroe voice. Bill (my husband, not the other Bill) knew better than to ask why. I didn't tell him what had turned me on until several hours later when he had finished the job.

 

[matriarch]

I'm not going to make any comment about the sexual power or otherwise of Bill Clinton, but I saw the interview, and as always, he impressed me with his passion and his confidence. He is, in my opinion as a non-American, still the best president in the recent past, and if I'd been able to vote, he'd have got mine. Every time.

The sex scandal was a complete storm in a teacup. Two consenting adults. The only person who should have had a say on his chastisement was his wife. It most certainly wasn't worth impeaching him for. Sex scandals seem to be the only way that opposition parties, or even enemies within - in any political system, including the UK's - are able to remove someone of whom they don't approve, or like. It's pathetic.

 

[Liar]

The sex scandal was a complete storm in a teacup. Two consenting adults. The only person who should have had a say on his chastisement was his wife. It most certainly wasn't worth impeaching him for. Sex scandals seem to be the only way that opposition parties, or even enemies within - in any political system, including the UK's - are able to remove someone of whom they don't approve, or like. It's pathetic.

Ah, but it wasn't a sex scandal, the Clinton critics say. It was a lying scandal. He was asked under oath about intern nookie, and said he wasn't getting any.

However, the only scandal there, is that they asked. Um...why was it anybody's business, again?

 

[Guest]

Ah, but it wasn't a sex scandal, the Clinton critics say. It was a lying scandal. He was asked under oath about intern nookie, and said he wasn't getting any.

However, the only scandal there, is that they asked. Um...why was it anybody's business, again?

EXACTLY.

no one asked JFK.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I have always suspected Hillary never really gave a damn, but I could be wrong. Their marriage always seemed a bit contrived, more of a business partnership than a romance. Hillary just didn't like having the whole world privy to the fact that her marriage was a sham. It was an ego thing for her. I think that she was mad at Bill for his lack of discretion more than anything else.

Then again, I could be wrong. In any case, if even the spouse doesn't mind, why should we the public give a fucking flip one way or the other? I'm certainly not going to. It's not like I'm Mr. Monogamy myself.

Any problems I've had with Bill are purely political, and mainly about gun control, foreign policy, and economics. Even so, he turned out to be more "fiscally responsible" in strict budgetary terms than Bush, a so-called conservative.

And while I wouldn't fuck him (he's not my type), I'd probably have a beer or two with him.

 

[Joesephus]

As a non-American...

It never fails to amaze me the way some Americans see Clinton. Personally I think he was a disgrace to the office of President and the ideals of the United States. Most of the non-American democratic idealist I know see him the same way. (As the son of a diplomat I've probalby met more than most on this forum.) We understand corruption, and the importance of the rule of law. The idea that no man is above the law is vital, we can see its lack in our own countries.

I can't imagine why people would still say Clinton was impeached for sex. Or that it was okay to lie because he shouldn't have been asked. He was impeached for lying under oath! That's the basis for your legal system and there are, and should be a host of people in jail for doing the same. Clinton was censored and lost his ability to practice law, because he pled guilty to a "high crime!"

What kind of ethics and integrity allows folks to ignore these sorts of things? Oh, and before you claim that my sex views are at the basis of my feelings about Clinton read my stories!

Having said that, a man who doesn't keep his word is dangerous. A powerful man who lies is even worse. Oh, and Europeans don't carry about things like Clinton did? Look at what's happening in Hungry right now!

Clinton didn't have to answer Starr's question. He could have said "It's none of your business!" He lied and his lack of character cost him. If that lying is nothing, I assume you would have been okay with Rove or the man (Libby?) facing jail for lying going free too?

I guess the old sayings are true. There really is "none so blind as those who will not see," and "You can fool some of the people all of the time."

 

[Liar]

It never fails to amaze me the way some Americans see Clinton. Personally I think he was a disgrace to the office of President and the ideals of the United States. Most of the non-American democratic idealist I know see him the same way. (As the son of a diplomat I've probalby met more than most on this forum.) We understand corruption, and the importance of the rule of law. The idea that no man is above the law is vital, we can see its lack in our own countries.

I can't imagine why people would still say Clinton was impeached for sex. Or that it was okay to lie because he shouldn't have been asked. He was impeached for lying under oath! That's the basis for your legal system and there are, and should be a host of people in jail for doing the same. Clinton was censored and lost his ability to practice law, because he pled guilty to a "high crime!"

What kind of ethics and integrity allows folks to ignore these sorts of things? Oh, and before you claim that my sex views are at the basis of my feelings about Clinton read my stories!

Having said that, a man who doesn't keep his word is dangerous. A powerful man who lies is even worse. Oh, and Europeans don't carry about things like Clinton did? Look at what's happening in Hungry right now!

Clinton didn't have to answer Starr's question. He could have said "It's none of your business!" He lied and his lack of character cost him. If that lying is nothing, I assume you would have been okay with Rove or the man (Libby?) facing jail for lying going free too?

I guess the old sayings are true. There really is "none so blind as those who will not see," and "You can fool some of the people all of the time."

No, it's not ok to lie under oath. Not even when asked an irrelevant question that is nobody's bloody business. You have the option to answer truthfully, or decline to answer. Clinton did a dumb thing and went for option 3.

To compare that to what happens in Hungary now (Wasn't it Bulgaria? Oh whatever), a lengthy, intentional and systematical decption of an entire nation (on an issue that is very much every citizen's bloody business), to one man's jucidial boo-boo in the witness booth, that's beyond comedy.

But again, I ask: Why was he asked? No, seriously. I don't mean the let's-discredit-Clinton reason, but the official reason. What was the issue on the stand, and what did the location of the presidential wiener have to do with that issue?

 

[ishtat]

??

If anyone wants to criticise Clinton perhaps better grounds would be that he pardoned 100 unmitigated crooks(and good mates) on his last day in office.

 

[Joesephus]

Why was Rove asked who leaked the CIA lady when the S C already knew? What does it matter except to those who want to "Spin" the truth?

What matters isn't the question or the reason for the question. I saw an angry Cilton on Sunday. I saw the tape of Clinton lying. There was no defense or reason to lie!

In my country "understandings" keep the powerful from little things like having to obey the law or tell the truth. Is that really what you want here?

Why is it so important to defend lying?

Look, if you want to defend the rest of the Clinton years great. We can debate that, and I will agree on some Kosovo and disagree on others, Tax hikes. Those items are indeed debateable. To say someone, anyone, should get a pass for lying under oath is morally bankrupt at best, isn't it?

Isn't this conceding the moral high ground that liberals alway maintain is theirs?

 

[Liar]

Why was Rove asked who leaked the CIA lady when the S C already knew? What does it matter except to those who want to "Spin" the truth?

What matters isn't the question or the reason for the question. I saw an angry Cilton on Sunday. I saw the tape of Clinton lying. There was no defense or reason to lie!

In my country "understandings" keep the powerful from little things like having to obey the law or tell the truth. Is that really what you want here?

Why is it so important to defend lying?

Look, if you want to defend the rest of the Clinton years great. We can debate that, and I will agree on some Kosovo and disagree on others, Tax hikes. Those items are indeed debateable. To say someone, anyone, should get a pass for lying under oath is morally bankrupt at best, isn't it?

Isn't this conceding the moral high ground that liberals alway maintain is theirs?

Uh, again, I'm not debating that Clinton's lie under oath was the right thing to do. It was not. Ok?

But do you seriously claim that this one lie is as bad or worse as the routine of deception that has been unravelling in Hungary? Look at the factual situations and magnitude of the actons, instead of staring yourself blind at symbolism.

I was just asking for someone in the know to remind me what the rationale was to bring his sex life to court. Cause I can't recall.

The question and the reason for the question matters, if there is no legally ethical and defendable rationale behind asking it. Because then it's a matter of abuse of a legal institution for political reasons. Which is just as bad, if not worse.

 

[Liar]

If anyone wants to criticise Clinton perhaps better grounds would be that he pardoned 100 unmitigated crooks(and good mates) on his last day in office.

I'm more impressed that he was on good-mate basis with a 100 unmitigated crooks. That's more than I have regular good mates.

 

[JamesSD]

I can't imagine why people would still say Clinton was impeached for sex. Or that it was okay to lie because he shouldn't have been asked. He was impeached for lying under oath! That's the basis for your legal system and there are, and should be a host of people in jail for doing the same. Clinton was censored and lost his ability to practice law, because he pled guilty to a "high crime!"

Clinton was impeached for politics. If the Dems controlled the house, Bush would have been impeached by now. (Which, as much as I would like that, I do to a degree respect the will of the odd American people who voted for the Shrub again).

Juxtapose Clinton against either George Bush. My God, the man looks amazing. Best President of my lifetime thus far (since 1978)

 

[izabella]

I was just asking for someone in the know to remind me what the rationale was to bring his sex life to court. Cause I can't recall.

Two parallel legal investigations/cases. Paula Jones sexual harrassment suit regarding activities that happened while he was governor in Arkansas - that's where Monica's name was first identified. While that case was being investigated and tried, Starr was appointed to investigate Whitewater, a real estate venture the Clintons were involved in, also in Arkansas.

Somehow, the scope of Starr's Whitewater investigation was increased to include the Clinton testimony in the Jones case and whether he perjured himself in his depostion in that case.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I too met Bill Clinton. It was when he was governor of Arkansas and there was rampant speculation that he would run for President. I spoke with him one on one for about 15 minutes. He's a very charming fellow in person. I didn't have any urge to have sex with him though.

 

[Pure]

CNN for a change had a nice analysis of the Clinton thing, almost as good as Jon Stewart (who pointed out how all the conservative news outlets ignored the content of Clinton's reply.)

Gergen said, Bill was trying to show how Dems should deal with right wingers--counter punch. I think he's right. While Bill's handling of Osama wasn't perfect he *was* getting varying assesmements as to whether to kill him. It's only after the fact--100% accurate hindsight that says, "Yes, for sure."

I think it's also true that in the first 8 mos, GWB did nothing, and certainly ignored the famous memo saying "Osama plans to attack US." We forget that 'counterterrorism' was a *Very* low agenda item for GWB until 9-11.
---

Bill does not turn me on, but he impresses me with his intelligence and articulateness. Even now, in his 'causes' he's also very good at nonpartisanship, e.g. cooperating with Bush Sr. on some efforts.

 

[cantdog]

I have always suspected Hillary never really gave a damn, but I could be wrong. Their marriage always seemed a bit contrived, more of a business partnership than a romance. Hillary just didn't like having the whole world privy to the fact that her marriage was a sham. It was an ego thing for her. I think that she was mad at Bill for his lack of discretion more than anything else.

Then again, I could be wrong. In any case, if even the spouse doesn't mind, why should we the public give a fucking flip one way or the other? I'm certainly not going to. It's not like I'm Mr. Monogamy myself.

Any problems I've had with Bill are purely political, and mainly about gun control, foreign policy, and economics. Even so, he turned out to be more "fiscally responsible" in strict budgetary terms than Bush, a so-called conservative.

And while I wouldn't fuck him (he's not my type), I'd probably have a beer or two with him.

I bet if they spent $40 million, they could get the goods on any fellow.

 

[rgraham666]

I bet if they spent $40 million, they could get the goods on any fellow.

If they give me $40 million dollars I'll confess to being on the grassy knoll.

 

[cantdog]

Bush has also lied under oath, but to impeach you need the House, and to convict you need the Senate. Like Colly said, he's bulletproof on that sort of issue. You may as well ask, she said, for a pony.

 

[Joesephus]

Uh, again, I'm not debating that Clinton's lie under oath was the right thing to do. It was not. Ok?

But do you seriously claim that this one lie is as bad or worse as the routine of deception that has been unravelling in Hungary? Look at the factual situations and magnitude of the actons, instead of staring yourself blind at symbolism.

I was just asking for someone in the know to remind me what the rationale was to bring his sex life to court. Cause I can't recall.

The question and the reason for the question matters, if there is no legally ethical and defendable rationale behind asking it. Because then it's a matter of abuse of a legal institution for political reasons. Which is just as bad, if not worse.

But I do! Is one lie as important as the othere? Who knows. The point here is not the content of the lie or the impact of the lie one society (and one could argue that the impact of Clinton lie was huge because so large a segment of society now accepts lying under other as something less than criminal), but the rule of law. The law says that lying under oath is a "High Crime." period. Clinton was guilty of a high crime. If we get to pick and choose what laws we obey then we have no law. I know what that's like. I've lived where the law is whatever the man in power wants it too be and you have no protection.

Your argument is that he didn't deserve to be impeached because his lie wasn't important. I say lying under oath was a "high crime" and I've seen no effort by Clinton or anyone else to make it less so.

So many Americans don't know how precious it is to have the protection of the written word. Where even Presidents are bound by what the law says. Is losing that worth empeachment? Yes!

 

[Joesephus]

Clinton was impeached for politics. If the Dems controlled the house, Bush would have been impeached by now. (Which, as much as I would like that, I do to a degree respect the will of the odd American people who voted for the Shrub again).

Juxtapose Clinton against either George Bush. My God, the man looks amazing. Best President of my lifetime thus far (since 1978)

I keep hearing that Bush needs to be impeached. I'm not defending Bush. I'm defending the rule of law. If it was politics to impeach Clinton then it was a good thing.

Lying under oath is a felony. That is a high crime and Clinton plead guilty to it. Of course he wasn't convicted and removed from office, but if he was guilty wasn't that wrong? Can a future President be impeached given the example that has been set by Clinton?

I'm sorry, I don't think you understand the lack of morality of the position. How can anyone who says "the law doesn't matter" claim the moral high ground?

 

[Joesephus]

Bush has also lied under oath, but to impeach you need the House, and to convict you need the Senate. Like Colly said, he's bulletproof on that sort of issue. You may as well ask, she said, for a pony.

I've heard this said. I'm not arguing, but I don't know when Bush was convicted, confessed, plead guilty or was charged with lying under oath.

I'm a college student and we live in strange world, so I may very well have missed it.

 

[Joesephus]

CNN for a change had a nice analysis of the Clinton thing, almost as good as Jon Stewart (who pointed out how all the conservative news outlets ignored the content of Clinton's reply.)

This is one of the most interesting items about American society. You don't have the same facts. I try to listen to both sides on talk radio... (but it's getting harder to find Air America) Conservative talk radion and Fox have broadcast the whole interview and talked about lenght about the lack of truth in what Clinton said. The same thing is true for the Wall Street Journal.

The one thing that both sides do is inaccurately protray what the other side is saying. It's really funny to hear someone like Sean Hannity say "Main stream media says this" then listen to the other side. I used Hannity but it's the same thing of the left.

Both sides know different 'facts,' and it's hard to credit the good intention of the other side when you know they're lying because they aren't using your "facts."

It makes me sad.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If anyone wants to criticise Clinton perhaps better grounds would be that he pardoned 100 unmitigated crooks(and good mates) on his last day in office.

Among others.

As a classical liberal I had no use for his "government can solve all your problems" policies. Ditto Bush. At least the post-1994 gridlock constrained spending (no more "stimulus packages.")

Here's what I have always found disheartening: The descent of the women's liberation movement into blind, unprincipled partisanship, which was fully exposed by the movement's failure to condemn in any meaningful way the highest of high executives exploiting a young woman in a situation of such gross power imbalance that it was obscene. Can you imagine the hair-pulling fits that would have ensued if a Republican president had pulled the same stunt?

The movement's descent has continued to new depths, with only tepid criticism or even apologies for the barbaric atavism that is the status of women in Islam. An article in the NY Times last spring typified the latter, explaining that many Islamic women like their subservient status, the evidence in part being that they don't complain.

I'm tempted to rant about comparisons to ante-bellum slaves in the U.S. dancing behind their slave cabins at night, but I've threadjacked enough.

 

[Pure]

Roxanne,
The descent of the women's liberation movement into blind, unprincipled partisanship, which was fully exposed by the movement's failure to condemn in any meaningful way the highest of high executives exploiting a young woman in a situation of such gross power imbalance that it was obscene.

P: Odd, but the alleged 'victim' did not complain. She's an adult, and if Roxanne is such an individualist she'll treat women of age, like adults. Does she want the gov to stop them from smoking?

It's odd that an Objectivist devoted to 'egoism' would have an essentially paternalistic view of such a sexual situation between consenting adults.

"Power inbalance" , generally speaking, does not render a situation between adults either illegal or immoral. In our society the man often makes more money, so 'power inbalance is as common as birdcrap. I wonder if R is going around worrying about execs who marry secretaries and saying there's "exploitation" where the sec. is not complaining at all.

In a word, I think all the moral outrage over the bj or the lie is manufactured or drummed up. A distraction from the real issues.
I guess the thing will ebb and flow, but clearly apologists for the Republicans are a bit uneasy these days--so time to start discussing Clinton's morals. The edifice of dreams and self deceptions and lies around Iraq is mighty shakey and thousands of lives are lost and Rox and the Republicans get going again on Clinton's dick.

---
PS If Roxanne is wondering why the women's movement didn't join the Republican attack on Clinton... well, duh! And here's another puzzle, Roxanne, they were so 'blind' and 'unprincipled' that they generally did not support Bush in either election. Seems they were having a delusion about him weakening their rights. How silly and partisan!

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Come on, People. It's like no one in power in Washington DC ever had sex? What about Kennedy? What about Eisenhauer and his driver? What about Wilber Mills and the Tidal Pool woman? It's gone on for years and has nothing to do with being a good or bad president. Clinton may have behaved badly, but we did have a booming, stable economy, friends and respect around the world and no war.

If anyone saw Kieth Oberman's response last night on MSNBC it was even more shocking than Clinton's rant with Chris Wallace. It was so pointed and clearly aimed at Wallace and the Republican power brokers I'm surprised he still has a job.

A few highlites:

1) Chris Wallace acted like "a trained monkey" who sold out to the Bush White House and was still trying to act like a "news commentator."

2) The only evidence we have that we are "safer from terrorist attack" is Bush's word, and he's told so many lies no one can believe a word he says.

3) Clinton "tried" while Bush can only lie about not having the report on Osama Bin Laden on his desk when he took office.

4) Bush seems to be claiming he wasn't the President until 9/11 occured. Therefore, it's all Clinton's fault. We all can see the lie there.

5) Bush is so cowardly he can't even level his own false daggers at the opposition. He uses stooges and proxies. (Note: Jerry Falwells "Lucifer" shot at Hilary Clinton yesterday.)

6) The exact same people who witch hunted Clinton over the Lewinski affair are the same ones who now claim Clinton wasn't paying attention and allowed Bin Ladin to attack on 9/11. This is an outright lie according to the published report of the 911 Commission.

7. George Tenant, then head of the CIA, according to the publish 911 Commission Report pleaded with Bush in early 2001 to take Bin Laden seriously, but instead, Tenant was fired.

Oberman's rant went on, but I could not find one word he said that was untrue.

Personally, I'm glad to see Clinton stand up and call it like it is. It's about time someone did. The Bush Administration maintains an aura of fear, not against our enemies, but against honest Americans who disagree with Bush. That's not happened in this country before. Hopefully, I will never happen again after Bush is gone either.

Unfortunately, We can't get rid of Bush. Even if the Democrats take control of both the House and Senate in the November elections, it would take two years minimum to impeach him in the House, then at least another year to try him in the Senate. By then he's long gone and will have left his mess for someone else to clean up.