Do you agree with Bill Clinton?

[Sparkle]

Do you agree with Bill Clinton that Kenneth Starr ran a partisan, Republican effort to ruin his presidency?

Click here-->
http://www.click2houston.com/news/3967936/detail.html?sidebar=ots

----------

HELL YEAH IT WAS!!

[cincinnati_liberal]

1. Abso-friggin-lutely

That prick had GOP mongrels shoved up his ass like a puppeteer. It was their chance to even out the score for Nixon. Mostly is was just an opportunity for the repukes to gain leverage. Absractly, a blowjob probably cost Gore enough votes to give Bush the win. Did oral sex start two wars? I think so. History will be the judge.

[bobweaver]

2. Of course... and when

The L.A. Times published a well-researched article detailing Schwarzenegger's groping history, during Schwarzenegger's campaign for governor, the Schwarzenegger camp and many Republicans cried out, "That's gutter politics and it has no meaning or place in modern day life" or words to that effect. Even Maria spouted the same line. They conveniently ignored the fact that the Republicans spent the entire eight years of the Clinton administration in a continuous state of character assasination. Can the Republicans please explain this: how is it gutter politics for the LA Times to research and publish reports of Schwarzenegger's sordid groping activities, while it is not gutter politics for Kenneth Starr to report intimate details of Clinton's activities with Monica?

[ebayfool]

20. I had the same 'whaaa???' reaction!

goose = gander
Of course if the offending goose is GOP, well ... we are not supposed to ask those questions. Personally, I think *ush needs to get some, er, action. Might calm his arse down some, keep him laid back instead of looking for wars to start!

[southpaw]

3. Is this a trick question?

[Sparkle]

4. No. But it's not surprising that it's from a Houston website.

[genius]

5. Yes. Of course. Still, Bill was an idiot for giving him an excuse.

[Gothmog]

6. done

Yes is at 65%

[donheld]

7. There is not 1 teeny tiny doubt in my mind

that's exactly what it was.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkle]

9. I'll be honest and answer probably....

but only until a crime was committed. In Clinton's case the only crime was adultery. And he really was telling the truth when he answered that stupid question given to him by the repukes. He did not have sex with her according to the examples given.

[Virginian]

13. He did not have SEXUAL RELATIONS with her.

The Republicans have abbreviated it to his saying he didn't have sex with her, but what he said on TV was that he didn't have SEXUAL RELATIONS with her -- which is true, if you believe, as I do, that Sexual Relations is intercourse. This is not to say that he didn't have a sexual relationship with her -- that was exactly what it was.

I still need to read his book. I believe he explains the definitions that were put forth by the Whitewater investigators. Maybe I'll have time after Christmas.

[Hekate]

23. Parsing definitions of sex like a high-school kid

The belief that all that making out and petting is not "having sex" unless you "go all the way" -- sheesh.

It might be a Southern-boy-grown-up thing. Newt performed similar verbal convolutions -- had a mistress he used to meet with in hotels but he wouldn't spend the night because he wanted to be able to swear with a straight face that he had "never slept with" this woman who was not his wife.

Anyhow, I always felt that (a) it was nobody's business but Hillary's, (b) certainly did not rise to an impeachable level of high crimes and misdemeanors, and (c) demonstrated incredible prurience on the part of the Republicans and the "news" media.

Bill, Bill, Bill. Maybe the permanent White House staff should include a shrink for the Big Guy.

Hekate

[Pepperbelly]

29. horseshit ...

words DO mean what they mean and when one is TESTIFYING in court and the judge provides operational definitions of words for use during testimony, that definition is what is meant by the words used.

The reason that the word 'parse' comes up, is that Clinton was 100% right in his answers and the righties HAD to find some way to obscure that fact.

[faithnotgreed]

10. wait a second

is this the same bill clinton who publicly said what a great campaign bush just ran? but when it comes to clinton, he can publicly state that starr was partisan and tried to ruin his "presidency"?

bush is ruining DEMOCRACY and our COUNTRY and everything good in it!

for several reasons i havent posted on any of the "what do you think about bill clinton" or the ones asking "what do you think about what bill clinton just said" etc

im sorry but i just get frustrated with all this stuff. after everything that has happened, and a couple odd statements coming from him during the past months, and after hearing clinton say in dan rather intervriew that he did what he did with monica " because he could", i have had it with him. i certainly wasnt crazy about him and his republican like policies but i gladly voted him and i know things were far better with him than what republicans weve had for a long time...

sorry dont mean to hijack your thread and i dont mean to get into any argument with anyone here. in fact this is probably the strongest thing ive written since ive been here.

but i should say i dont know the half of what clinton went through after he "chose" to get into the whole monica mess. and we cant say anyone masterminded that

again sorry im venting here and i dont usually do that. apologies to op
its a complicated topic to be sure and not one that is cut and dry. those are certainly the ones that cause the most emotion, esp in light of what has been and continues to go on in this country!

i guess i really want some leadership and integrity. wheres jimmy carter again?

on edit: added "publicly" in first sentence

[Sparkle]

11. I know how you feel but as far as Clinton's comments about

President Dumbass, Clinton's only trying to be a statesman. Everyone knows that he has to focus on his future actions, it's the only way to erase what those rabid ass republicans did to his reputation while in office when in fact he was a very good president. But if you'd listen to the repukes, you swear he was evil incarnate. I don't blame Clinton at all for being stern with that sap on ABC (Peter Jennings) who told Clinton that historians polled him as last on morality. Because of the way the repukes assasinated Clinton's character, that is why these so called historians rated him that way.

"There's not any example of where I ever disgraced this country publicly. I made a terrible public-personal mistake, but I paid for it, many times over. And in spite of it all, you don't have any example where I ever lied to the American people about my job, where I ever let the American people down, and I had more support from the world, and world leaders, and people around the world, when I quit than when I started."

[faithnotgreed]

22. i understand sparkle but to be honest i have never seen or heard him

take real responsibility for pretty much anything hes done. some of the things were definitely planned and manipulated by his enemies but some werent. how on earth can he say "theres not any example of where i disgraced this country publicly"? whats that mean? he disgraced us in private? i dont get why he made that statement above.

and about being a statesman. one of my main points is that i notice that hes "diplomatic" when it comes to other people, but when it has to do with people calling out his actions, well then he doesnt hesitate to actually get angry and speak as if it matters. i wish he would express how much this election matters and how much democracy matters and this insane war. i wish he would get some of that fight going when it has to do with these things rather than get pissed off at jennings et al. when he feels the media is still judging him. which of course they are but thats nothing new.

im a member of the green party and i absolutely cringed during the whole debacle back then. i hated what it was, what it all became and yes, how ugly the other side helped make it. it was fuel for their ugly fire and still resonates today

i recall vividly when during this time clinton attended a prayer breakfast - may have been congressional black caucus - and one that was very public because clinton was there to ask some sort of forgiveness i believe. i watched that and i watched while this group (with clinton up on the podium) was asked by a minister to bow and pray during that. religion aside for now, i saw clinton 2 times during the prayer raise his eyes up a bit to see what was going on. not once during his speech that day or at any point did i see or hear real contrition from him.

anyway. i think we lose focus of this if we compare presidents. this is strictly my thoughts on clinton. definitely not about bush because there just isnt any comparison of course. so i dont want this to be anything like that. you know the idea, you get far more disappointed in people you had such high hopes for when they mess up, and who could have and should have known better.


yes he did great things while president. and not ever ever could he be compared to the monster we have now. and in no way do i want to compare them. but no amount of what good things he did and wanted to do can gloss over the other stuff he did all by himself. the republicans were awful to him and to the country - they still are. but that is one thing clinton did all by himself. i just expected better. and no thanks to either side, our country was taken down in the mud with them while that circus was going on

i just really wish from him the emotion about our consititution and this horrific war and about how much we need true leadership. when he can discuss these things with the same passion he exhibits when the topic is about him, then i can call that statesmanship. but until then i just see it as the hypocrisy that is politics.

[loyalsister]

34. Not only that

In the real world of politics, you have to face facts.
As much as I hated the opponent we had in the local campaign I worked on, I knew the general public found him likable.

[journalist3072]

12. YES, YES, and YES

The Republicans never forgave Bill Clinton for winning. I believe they felt a sense of 'entitlement,' that the White House was theirs.

And then comes along Bill Clinton. They could not paint him as your average 'liberal' (don't they just love that word). He was pro-death penalty, tough on crime. And they never forgave him for winning.

They knew he did not commit any crimes. They looked to the area of his life that they knew was his achiles heel--his sex life, and tried to criminalize it.

[texpatriot2004]

14. I absolutely agree with Bill Clinton about this. 100%

[shesemsmom]

15. It sure as hell was n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

16. yes and I hate them for it

[stackhouse]

17. yea why not

Kenneth Starr, Republican effort to ruin his presidency as well as mess with future damages?

[greenohio]

18. DLC Bill? The guy who cost us congress? The guy behind

Terry McCauliff? I thought we hated DLCers here?

[Forkboy]

19. Nah...they're lovable losers

kind of like the Bad News Bears,only without a good pitcher to come through in the end.

[greenohio]

21. People are sooo complex....

this is giving me a headache.

[rman]

27. the question is "do you agree with Clinton " - not "do you love Clinton"

or is the asumption that everything said by those we dislike is a lie?

[greenohio]

30. If you hate someone, their fate is less important to you.

I personally think Clinton rocks and Starr is toe jam. That said, there are some who said they were mad at Starr but on other threads, blamed Clinton for moving the party right and thus our demise.

[VOX]

24. Of course I agree with Big Dog; BUT, Starr was just one spear-carrier...

in a much larger right-wing production to discredit Clinton -- one that continues to this very day. They tried to deny him the presidency, and now they are trying to deny him his rightful legacy.

[V. Kid]

25. Yup

Yeah I think it was pretty obvious. Granted his co-opting of traditional Republican ideological territory hurt the Democratic Party (by making it too republican-lite) -- but the Republicans couldn't live with that since its all power all the time for them, they just don't understand long term planning unless its contained in 200 words or less. Starr is just a cog in their wheel.

[The Flaming Red Head]

26. One good thing. Starr won't ever be on the Supreme Court , now

He might as well have gotten a blow job, too.

Edited to add: Clinton may have gotten screwed, but Starr screwed himself.

[rman]

28. regarding Whitewater

David Brock is on the record admitting the accusations were a complete fabrication, a lie.
It was a perfectly legal land deal where the Clintons lost money. Nothing more to it.

[quaker bill]

32. exactly

They couldn't beat him at the polls so they just started making stuff up.

[quaker bill]

31. Well of course.

That should be damn obvious to anyone. Whitewater was a complete sham and they had no business even looking into the Lewinski matter.

[merh]

33. Well of course I do, but

I think the fact that the Big Dawg played right into their hands given that he knew that they wanted to ruin him any way they could and were investigating him for anything and everything in an effort to ruin him. I mean to get the blow job in the oval because "he could" was just plain stupid. How often does ego get in the way of intelligent decisions. :shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Gingrich and Starr did everything they could to ruin Clinton...

After Raygun and Bush's landslides they were convinced that a democrat would never win the presidency again. When one did, they were VERY mad. When he was re-elected, they were even more mad.