WHILE CLINTON SLEPT (AND DID OTHER THINGS)

9-12-03 | DICK MORRIS

[cardinal4]

Bill Clinton and his Satanic bride bear about 75% of the responsibilty for 9/11. The other 25% goes to the Clintonistas in various government offices. Quit shilling for them. They are criminals who serve only themselves. They care not a lick for anyone but themselves. Id rather swallow lye, than defend those two grifters on this forum.

[RightRules]

"Was Larry Flynt also correct for exposing the lack of character of several Republicans?"

Any politician is accountable for character issues. It is prudent, however, to know that the people he smeared did the honorable thing and stalked away in shame. The clintons denied and lied, even under oath.

I laugh everytime you people invoke Larry Flynt and march him out as your waterboy. Keep doing that! It speaks volumes about the character credibility of the Democrat party.

[cyncooper]

Exactly, Bob. I don't care either, but when I mentioned him as criticising Clark, out came that information from the poster in an attempt to undermine Koch's words.

[cyncooper]

It just seem to me that if "character counts" we should welcome those that expose the character weaknesses of all our politicians, not just Democratic politians.

Since you put the phrase in quotation marks, it appears you do not agree that character counts?

As someone else pointed out, the motive for a slimy person out to maliciously dig up dirt is relevant. Further, not all transgressions are equal.

If you wish to associate yourself with the likes of Flynt more power to you. I say he is a disgusting pig, and look who turned to him? Why clinton! If clinton wants to cavort with Flynt that says even more about his sick character. And I guess you want to align yourself with them.

Too bad for you. That is a poor choice.

[Doe Eyes]

Since you put the phrase in quotation marks, it appears you do not agree that character counts?

No, my point is that character is important, regardless of how and by whom thier faults are exposed.

As someone else pointed out, the motive for a slimy person out to maliciously dig up dirt is relevant.

Do you really think no one exposing Clinton's many infidelities had malicious intent?

[cardinal4]

I would further like to add, that any General who was close to Clinton, just cant be trusted. Clintons disdain for the Military is well documented. So why would Clark hitch his wagon to Clintons[tarnished] star? No, Clark is an opportunist whos Military service wasnt about serving America, it was about serving himself. His entry into the race is the DNC's, read Clintons, way of saying,"Hey, we have a liberal Democrat General, who will do a better job in Military matters. A caring and compassionate Military leader, one who see that the US Services can not only defend Freedom, but who will also have the troops building roads, schools and Libraries in third world countries. Its time for a non-threatening Military, that wont scare other nations!"

Mark my words, that is how he will be presented.

[BossLady]

Slick was impotent in all areas except the one that mattered least..... ;)

[alrea]

Dick, I wouldn't plan any hunting trips to Arkansas for a while. Particlarly if you're flying in a light aircraft.

leave the handguns in the safe while you're at it

[cyncooper]

No, my point is that character is important, regardless of how and by whom thier faults are exposed.

Despite your assertions to the contrary, every single person here agrees that character is important, no matter the party affiliation.

Do you really think no one exposing Clinton's many infidelities had malicious intent?

First, you use the deceptive tack of implying that clinton's only character flaws are of a sexual nature. And no, I don't think the intent was malicious and purely personal and partisan. Disagree all you like, but I don't think it was malice at all, but a warranted exposure of a very bad man. Plus, I'll not equate investigators working for the DOJ, the independent counsel, the Jones' lawyers, and so on, with Flynt. And the American Spectator had every right to launch their investigative journalism. Thank God they did. It would have been best if more reporters had done some research and exposure.

[Doe Eyes]

I laugh everytime you people invoke Larry Flynt and march him out as your waterboy. Keep doing that! It speaks volumes about the character credibility of the Democrat party.

I'm not a Democrat and Larry Flynt is not my waterboy. I brought up his accusations to make a point and to invoke intelligent discussion.

[cardinal4]

Character does indeed count. In 2002 Arkansas voters elected a Dem senator, because the repub favorite had an affair with his young staffer. That little mentioned point in the media, escapes most. That vote speaks volumes for a Candidates moral requirements in Arkansas these days, considering they foisted Clinton on us. Proving to me that masturbating in a sink, is not the acceptable behavior, you liberals would like us to see it as.

[Campion]

So there are different morals applied to the opposition (the Democrats) than to the Republicans.

Absolutely. That's why Robert Byrd, a former KKK member, can stay in the Senate Democratic leadership, while Trent Lott can make one comment expressing support for Strom Thurmond's 1948 Presidential run and be on the end of a plank.

Totally different moral standards. Republicans who do one thing wrong are scum. In fact, Republicans who don't do anything wrong are still scum. Democrats can do anything they want. They're just naughty boys having fun.

[Eva]

I believe that you may be right about the effect of the impeachment trial Clinton helping embolden America's enemies, but Clinton was actually doing a fine job of that all by himself. The Clintons believe that playing patty cake with dictators is an effective foreign policy. The left complains that the Bush administration doesn't understand that the MiddleEast is not ready for Democracy and not capable of handling their own gov't, so the dictators are necessary evils. How's that for logic? If Democrats had a brain, they wouldn't be Democrats.

[sweetliberty]

"the director of the CIA, R. James Woolsey, later said he had not had a single private meeting with President Clinton through all of 1993 and 1994."

How many you reckon he had about Monica, Paula, Gennifer, Kathleen.....?

[sweetliberty]

"none of their efforts would have succeeded but for the fears, worries, and phobias that raged inside Bill Clinton's mind: fear that if he led American troops into a battle with casualties, his own draft record would return to bite him politically; worry that he would alienate his Hispanic constituency if he cracked down on illegal aliens; concern that an increase in the price of oil could spell his political doom; hesitation in the face of European intransigence and worry that his own foreign-policy experts would leak that he was incompetent and too political; willingness to believe he had a deal with North Korea when all he had was a vague and misleading statement of intentions; unwillingness to go to war with Saddam Hussein; trepidation that civil libertarian criticism would undermine his domestic support; and, finally, a morally relativist refusal to see Saddam, al Qaeda, or Kim Jong Il as forces of evil."

Such an altruist. And this is the guy the democRATs hail as such a great president. Unbelievable.

[sweetliberty]

"In any other country, the Clintons would've been put on trial."

Or they would have risen to power as ruthless dictators. I have often suspected that they envy tyranical despots.

[sweetliberty]

There is a very big difference in holding a president accountable for real crimes committed on his watch and politicians who compete with each other based on nothing but who can smear the current president with the most vile of false accusations. The only problem with the trial of Bill Clinton is that he was not physically removed from the White House and imprisoned along with that barracuda he is married to who, even as we discuss it, is scheming for the reacquisition of that power to finish the destruction of America that they started.

[sweetliberty]

"As messy as it was, it exposed Clintons for the self serving narcissists they are."

Not to mention that it exposed the democRAT party loyalists for the sewer dwellers that they are. Unfortunately, it also exposed Republican lawmakers as spineless twits.

[sweetliberty]

"Clinton didn't go to the WTC in '93, but he did go in 2001. WHY?"

2 Words: photo op.

[duckln]

What do you mean by "neo attitudes"?

Sorta like neo W. Kristol and bunch, militarily establishing a NWO.

Germany, likewise IMO, with the Frence intoe, has expanded into the Balkans with a mini EU NWO agenda of their own.