Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHILE CLINTON SLEPT
Boston Globe ^ | 1/2/2002 | By Scot Lehigh

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]

IF NEWSPAPERS ARE indeed the first draft of history, Bill Clinton's chance for a favorable reappraisal of his presidency is in trouble.

His supporters have hoped that as time adds perspective, Clinton's personal peccadilloes will shrink in memory, while underappreciated accomplishments will grow in importance.


(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: anniegetyourgun
However, I couldn't help but notice the obligatory "he was distracted by those mean Republicans" statement imbedded herein.

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!

61 posted on 01/02/2002 7:32:26 AM PST by blackbart1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Good point! If he continues to investigate Clinton, he'll run into all the material he can tolerate!!!!
62 posted on 01/02/2002 7:34:54 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
Here's the full NY Times article: Many Say U.S. Planned for Terror but Failed to Take Action
63 posted on 01/02/2002 8:18:06 AM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
I agree with you to an extent, but had certain republicans and democrats not even made Lewinsky an issue, (Remember Condit was one of Bubbas harshest critics) they would have had much more success. but they seized on the Lewinsky perjury issue to make more political hay, and ended up getting burned by the revelations about Newt, Hyde and Livingston. It made them all look like hypocrites in the eyes of the uninformed majority of Americans and they lost all credibility with them.
64 posted on 01/02/2002 8:52:20 AM PST by ProudGenXLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Tymesup
I actually heard John Kerry of MA refer to TWA 800 as a terror attack during an appearance on TV following Sept. 11th. The topic was airline security and he said that we had tried to upgrade security following Pan Am 103 and TWA 800........he went on and NO ONE mentioned his comment.
65 posted on 01/02/2002 10:52:38 AM PST by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: katykelly
The one scrap I saw - TWA FLIGHT 800 - go to post 468

"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

66 posted on 01/02/2002 10:55:29 AM PST by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

I THINK THIS IS APPROPRIATE!

67 posted on 01/02/2002 11:00:58 AM PST by KLT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost; Mr. Bird
Sure they couldn't resist taking a snipe at the GOP & Newt but in the final analysis the Boston Globe writer BLAMES Clinton:

"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

68 posted on 01/02/2002 11:10:34 AM PST by JulieRNR21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProudGenXLibertarian
You keep saying the same thing over and over. Do you not understand the extent to which the Democrats control the media? Here's a direct quote from Peggy Noonan:

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.

69 posted on 01/02/2002 12:37:16 PM PST by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: SerpentDove
Again you slander Kay Baily Hutchinson. Didn't you see where I corrected you before?

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?

70 posted on 01/02/2002 12:38:11 PM PST by PeaceBeWithYou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ProudGenXLibertarian
Remember Condit was one of Bubbas harshest critics

Show me your proof of this statement. Otherwise, I call it liberal media pony poop.

71 posted on 01/02/2002 12:39:24 PM PST by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
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.

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.

72 posted on 01/02/2002 12:45:59 PM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
I'll give Hutchinson and Gramm cheers for voting Guilty on Perjury and Obstruction. Will you give them boos for voting to allow only three witnesses at the trial?
73 posted on 01/02/2002 12:54:14 PM PST by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
>> Again you slander Kay Baily Hutchinson. Didn't you see where I corrected you before?<<

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 NOwitnesses 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.

74 posted on 01/02/2002 1:21:07 PM PST by SerpentDove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
...while underappreciated accomplishments...

A little help here. Can anyone enlighten me on what the h&ll are they talking about?

75 posted on 01/02/2002 1:22:10 PM PST by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tymesup
The vote for calling witnesses was 56-44 along party lines with the exception of the lone democrat, Russell Feingold who voted with the 55 Republicans. Part of that resolution was that live witnesses be called for clarification of any questions the jurors had. All other witness testimony was already deposed, which is done every day all over the nation.

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

76 posted on 01/02/2002 1:48:11 PM PST by PeaceBeWithYou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ
It's real easy to spread blame. If the sins of Clinton were so heneous, why weren't these problems job one for Pres. W? If our nation was so bare and succesptible to attack, how can a president take a one month vacation in his first seven months in office (was there really time for a one month hiatus- during which Osmam Bin Laden spoke of an imminent attack that was published in the London Times).
Lots on blame to go around- begin with Reagan's defeat in Lebanon and secret payments to Iranian terrorists, followed by Bush I's failure to follow through against Baghdad and then the giant flops of Clinton. Like I said this is a long story of failure involving problems on both sides of the aisle. Focusing on just a few players for the sake of partisanship does nothing to solve the problem and gives support to those whose failures were partially responsible.
77 posted on 01/02/2002 1:56:17 PM PST by dogcatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SerpentDove
You are the bent one.

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

78 posted on 01/02/2002 2:03:24 PM PST by PeaceBeWithYou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
>>...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. <<

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.

79 posted on 01/02/2002 2:04:49 PM PST by SerpentDove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom
America is learning the truth about the liar. Cover your head libs- incoming!
80 posted on 01/02/2002 2:13:10 PM PST by AlGone2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson