Posted on 01/02/2002 5:59:06 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:07:13 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
You are so right and I really think those[obligatory] statements will always be there but the truth WILL come out in spite of the OS!
"I checked out this thread to see if anyone had commented on the Dick Morris appearance on Hannity & Colmes a couple nights ago. He was talking about how little Clinton did about terrorism and one of his examples of terrorist acts was "the bombing" of flight 800. Neither Alan Colmes nor Joe Scarborough (sitting in for Sean Hannity) said a word to question the "bombing". It reminded me of the slip up by George Steph..(sp?)...s right around Sep 11 who said the same thing.
Now there are 2, that I know of, Clinton insiders calling the downing of TWA 800 a bombing but the media is ignoring it.
468 posted on 12/29/01 2:33 PM Pacific by NEPA
"And yet, whichever way one slices it, the root cause of that politically debilitating scandal was the mind-numbing lack of self-discipline on the part of a man who gambled his future for a dalliance with an intern less than half his age.
In musing about how history will treat him, Clinton and his advisers have noted that he wasn't confronted with the sort of grave foreign-policy crisis whose successful resolution defines presidents as great in history's gaze.
But in retrospect, Bill Clinton did face a dangerous foreign adversary. He was president when Al Qaeda went global and started to make the United States the target of its terrorism.
That was one of the principal international challenges of the last decade - and it's far more our misfortune than his that Bill Clinton didn't do more to meet it."
This is truly amazing......coming from the ultra liberal Boston Globe. BTW a better title whould have been: "While Clinton Fiddled (with Monica)" but perhaps I ask too much......LOL
Last summer at the political conventions, a person long respected on Capitol Hill, a former Democratic operative, told me that conservatives all complain about liberal bias in the networks, but we don't know the half of it. He told me that I couldn't imagine how closely the Democrats work with the media. "I'm a socialist, I don't give a damn," he said. (He didn't actually say "damn," but this is a family newspaper's Web site.) But he was amazed that conservatives complain so much and know so little. - 'Give Him a Peabody' 4/6/2001
It was "about sex" because the Democrat media made it so, just as the Republicans "shut down the government" in 1995, when in reality it was Clinton that shut down the government by refusing to sign the spending bills which would continue the flow of money:
The shutdown was triggered Monday night when Clinton vetoed legislation necessary to maintain regular government spending, saying he did so because it would have raised Medicare premiums. A White House meeting that lasted until the midnight hour failed to resolve the impasse.
Earlier, he vetoed a measure necessary to extend government borrowing authority, citing provisions he said would restrict Rubin's ability to manage the government's finances. Despite the uncertainty, the financial markets reacted calmly to the events in Washington. - from 1995
==============================
I had to dig to find that clear statement just above. Much of the mainstream media representation is fogged with the Clintonite spin about the Republicans being the responsible parties.
Here's how the Senators from Texas voted:
Texas
Kay Bailey Hutchinson [R]
Perjury - GUILTY
Obstruction - GUILTY
Phil Gramm [R]
Perjury - GUILTY
Obstruction - GUILTY
Both Kay and Phill wanted clinton removed either by resignation or impeachment before the House had voted on the articles of impeachment.
Kay also was key in pushing for the public getting to see the proceedings instead of them being kept secret.
Is that what is bothering you?
Are you really a closet clinton supporter?
A liberal or a lover of them?
Show me your proof of this statement. Otherwise, I call it liberal media pony poop.
If there were no other reason that X42's perversion fit the mold of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" then this one is sufficient. Had X42 bothered to use the Presidency to serve the American People rather than himself, George W. Bush might still be facing articles about whether he is the legitimate president.
(Of course, I believe that President Bush would gladly give up his current approval rating to have the WTC back with all those who worked in it alive and well. But that's beside the point.)
It's Character, Stupid!
Shalom.
Where did I post this before?
Here's how the Senators from Texas voted:
Texas Kay Bailey Hutchinson [R] Perjury - GUILTY Obstruction - GUILTY
Kay also was key in pushing for the public getting to see the proceedings instead of them being kept secret.
Is that what is bothering you?
No, what bothers me is that she voted to have witnesses on the Senate floor, thus guaranteeing a SHAM TRIAL. Any arguments that a trial with no witnesses isn't a sham??? HMMMM??????????????????????
Are you really a closet clinton supporter?
Those are fighting words.
A liberal or a lover of them?
Get bent.
A little help here. Can anyone enlighten me on what the h&ll are they talking about?
Given that there was no 2/3rds majority that would remove clinton, and the testimony of all deposed witnesses is in the record, it matters little if they were all called to testify in person. 44 sinator(RATS) wouldn't have removed clinton if the Lord himself had told them to do so.
As it is, the best thing that could have happened did happen. We have GWB instead of algore, and clinton is sinking futher into his true legacy every hour of the day and night.
So no, I can't say I blame Kay, or Lott, or any of the Senators for being realist and dragging the Office of the Presidency down farther than clinton already had, in an attempt to rid us of one RAT(clinton) for another RAT(gore) that would have prolly sailed into a further 4, 8, or more years of RAT rule.
Pax vobiscum
Where do you get your venom?
Do you not understand what deposed testimony is?
To clarify Kay's position, she said that witnesses may not be neccesary that she would have to examine it. She did vote for them as the vote was 56-44(All Republicans and 1 democrat) for witnesses- deposed with options to call live witnesses to answer any and all questions not answered in the deposed testimony. There were 3 such witnesses called.
Pax Vobiscum
Here's where we differ on this:
I AGREE that the Demon-Rats wouldn't have suddenly sprouted integrity and voted him out of office.
HOWEVER...don't think for a MINUTE that David Schippers, McCollum(?) et al weren't LOADED FOR BEAR with questions to ask the witnesses, and most importantly, in full view of the public. They fought tooth and nail to get witnesses on that floor.
Ted Stevens is the one who said that even a video tape of Bill Clinton raping a woman wouldn't result in 67 votes to remove. He and others circumvented a trial "for the good of the party".
This is the worst type of political whoredom; allowing a President to commit multiple felonies, and then having a "sham" trial to allow him to get away with it, with an eye to the upcoming election.
But there WERE men with integrity who wanted justice. Honorable men like James Rogan, etc., who didn't give a flying $%%^& about the "good of the party" but had a broader view, and knew that the "good of the country" meant holding the highest office-holder in the land to thge same laws the "peasants" live under.
I stand by what I said. Those who voted for a SHAM trial compromised their integrity for political gain. At its mildest, this is corruption.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.