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

To: PROCON
For all of you reminiscing about "good old Bill", remember that this scandal was all about integrity in the Presidency. Bill Clinton lied directly, indirectly, and under oath without the slightest flicker of conscience.

All he ever really had to do was 'fess up right away and the firestorm would have subsided - he had the press totally on his side, just like Obola - and he could have kept right on going. Instead, he wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and dragged the investigations out for years all to hide the truth that came out anyway.

Real leaders never lie. He has always had fatal flaws to his personality and we need a better system of selecting our leaders. Don't make noises like you miss the crud that was and is Bill Clinton.

9 posted on 10/11/2014 4:56:32 AM PDT by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Chainmail
Whoa, we're talking best of two evils here: Klinton vs. 0bola.

Hell, if I had my way Ronald Reagan would be resurrected and still be in the white house.

BTW, Semper Fi from an old Army guy!

12 posted on 10/11/2014 5:03:16 AM PDT by PROCON (Ask Yourself This..Are You More Likely to be Infected or Beheaded T boday Than You Were 6 Years Ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Chainmail
Don't make noises like you miss the crud that was and is Bill Clinton.....remember that the Lewinsky scandal was all about integrity in the Presidency. Bill Clinton lied directly, indirectly, and under oath without the slightest flicker of conscience. All he ever really had to do was 'fess up right away and the firestorm would have subsided... Instead, he wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and dragged the investigations out for years all to hide the truth that came out anyway......

AS MACEMAN INSIGHTFULLY POSTED: Then-Pres Clinton pursued his own political advantage at the expense of American interests and national security.

On two occasions, Clinton used military action for the specific purpose of distracting the American public from the fallout of the Lewinsky affair:

• On August 20, three days after Clinton finally admitted publicly to the Lewinsky affair, the news media was poised to focus on that day’s grand jury testimony by Monica Lewinsky.

That same morning, Clinton personally went on national television to gravely announce his bombing of a Sudanese “chemical weapons factory,” and a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. It was the first time most Americans ever heard the name of Osama bin Laden.

The factory bombing in Sudan killed an innocent night watchman, but accomplished little else. It later was proven that the plant was making badly needed pharmaceuticals for people in that poverty-stricken part of the world, but no chemical weapons.

Several months later, the U.S. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, part of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, stated: "...the evidence indicates that the facility had no role whatsoever in chemical weapons development." Kroll Associates, one of the world's most reputable investigative firms, also confirmed that there was no link in any way between the plant and any terrorist organization.

As for the Afghanistan bombing, it failed to do any damage at all to bin Laden or his organization. Clinton’s action was accurately characterized by George W. Bush when he said right after 9-11: "When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.

Clinton’s pointless and murderous military actions did not make Americans safer that day, although they did destroy an innocent life, and for all the good they did certainly could have been delayed in any case. But they did succeed in diverting media attention from Lewinsky’s grand jury testimony for a 24-hour news cycle, which was the main point. So I guess, they weren’t a total loss.

• On December 16, 1998, on the eve of the scheduled House vote on his impeachment, Bill Clinton launched a surprise bombing attack on Baghdad. As justification for this exploit, he cited the urgent threat that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction posed to America, and the need for immediate action.

Almost immediately, the House Democrats held a caucus and emerged calling for a delay in the impeachment proceedings. House minority leader Dick Gephardt made a statement: "We obviously should pass a resolution by saying that we stand behind the troops. I would hope that we do not take up impeachment until the hostilities have completely ended."

Conveniently, a delay so near the end of the House term would have caused the vote to be taken up in the next session – when the newly elected House membership would be seated with more Democratic representation, thereby improving Clinton’s chances of dodging impeachment.

Republicans did, in fact, agree to delay the hearings, but only for a day or two. Amazingly, Clinton ended the bombing raid after only 70 hours -- once it became clear that in spite of the brief delay, the vote would still be held in the current session.

Once the bombing stopped, Clinton touted the effectiveness and importance of the mission. As reported by ABC News: “We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure,” he said.

Defense secretary William Cohen echoed the point: “We estimate that Saddam's missile program has been set back by at least a year.”

Whether or not one buys Clinton’s assessment of that mission, it is difficult to believe that its timing was so critical that it required commencement virtually at the moment the House was scheduled to vote on the impeachment.

I think the most reasonable conclusion is that Clinton cynically deployed US military assets and placed military personnel in harm’s way for purely political reasons. townhsll.com

15 posted on 10/11/2014 5:19:10 AM PDT by Liz ("Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences." Robert Louis Stevenson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Chainmail; Liz
And don't forget about Johnny Chung, who funneled about $100 grand from the Communist Chinese military to the Democrat campaign in the summer of 1996.

Cordially,

35 posted on 10/11/2014 6:42:27 AM PDT by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Chainmail
Thank you for your sanity, Chainmail.

“Bill Clinton, President of the United States and Hilary, First Lady of the United States ” should have never happened to this great Nation. The Clinton Criminal Couple - now there's an accurate description.

43 posted on 10/11/2014 7:53:37 AM PDT by sodpoodle (Life is prickly - carry tweezers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Chainmail

Agreed. Clinton was/is scum.

we had a scandal a week under him just like with Obama.

His lax security got us 9/11.

he and his wife are now running to get away from Benghazi as they take in millions. The sooner we are rid of the poisonous clintons the better.


48 posted on 10/11/2014 8:21:05 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

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