Bill Clinton says he would "fight and die" to defend Israel from Iranian aggression

[Ban Hammer 13,509]

as for hating him, i hate what he caused the presidency to become. a laughingstock.

I don't think Clinton did that. The incredibly stupid over-reaction by the media and the public, and the Republican's quest to have him impeached, arrested and anything else they could think of made it a laughingstock. And actually, as far as I can remember, people around the world weren't laughing at the presidency, they were laughing at the reaction.

At least I was.

did anyone forget he lied under oath?

As for Hillary Clinton, something about her character irritates me, not just what she stands for politically. She opens her mouth and I just want to cringe *shivers*

if they ever made a movie about her being president, i'd consider it a horror movie

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

did anyone forget he lied under oath?

The Democrat mantra is he shouldn't have been asked that question.

Of course, if you lie under oath because you don't think the DA had any business asking you a certain question.. I'd like to see how much sympathy you get from the same people. Especially if you're not a Democrat.

[incanada1234 0]

I don't know what you guys are talking about; he did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!

[Fuzzness 2]

as for hating him, i hate what he caused the presidency to become. a laughingstock.

I don't think Clinton did that. The incredibly stupid over-reaction by the media and the public, and the Republican's quest to have him impeached, arrested and anything else they could think of made it a laughingstock. And actually, as far as I can remember, people around the world weren't laughing at the presidency, they were laughing at the reaction.

At least I was.

did anyone forget he lied under oath?

sure, he lied under oath about getting a #######. not about reasons to attack a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us.

[incanada1234 0]

sure, he lied under oath about getting a #######. not about reasons to attack a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us.

Yeah, I definitely think we all are in agreement that Iraq was no threat whatsoever to us. Especially Saddam, he was a doll. So peaceful too!

What are you - living in a bubble????

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The guy did lie under oath - and while (as President) that is clearly indefensible, the issue from which it stemmed is, as I see it, rather trivial. Not only that, but the puritanical 'witch-hunt' it generated seemed to me to be entirely politically motivated and was, IMO as bad, if not worse than the revelations that prompted it - seeing that no crime had actually been committed.

What's bizarre is that people seem to focus on that one issue as their main criticism of Clinton's term in office. Just seems rather cheap to me - and realistically speaking there's probably more relevant arguments about his running of the country that can be brought to bear than an affair with an intern. Lets face it - he's hardly alone on that score…

[mawilson 2,133]

Please remind me, why was he impeached again? Because he had sex with another woman

(since when is that illegal??) or because he lied about it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

sure, he lied under oath about getting a #######. not about reasons to attack a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us.

Yeah, I definitely think we all are in agreement that Iraq was no threat whatsoever to us. Especially Saddam, he was a doll. So peaceful too!

What are you - living in a bubble????

Bush said on many that Iraq posed a direct tangible threat to the US (his words). There is plenty of evidence to show that that wasn't the case. At all.

[Ban Hammer 13,509]

The guy did lie under oath - and while (as President) that is clearly indefensible, the issue from which it stemmed is, as I see it, rather trivial. Not only that, but the puritanical 'witch-hunt' it generated seemed to me to be entirely politically motivated and was, IMO as bad, if not worse than the revelations that prompted it - seeing that no crime had actually been committed.

What's bizarre is that people seem to focus on that one issue as their main criticism of Clinton's term in office. Just seems rather cheap to me - and realistically speaking there's probably more relevant arguments about his running of the country that can be brought to bear than an affair with an intern. Lets face it - he's hardly alone on that score…

oh don't get me started on the somalia fiasco, where they refused to allow the military to go into the city with armored vehicles...and a movie was born

oh so he's not? and that must make it ............ok then

Edited July 17, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

oh so he's not? and that must make it ............ok then

I didn't say that. But its hardly Watergate.

Edited July 17, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,509]

oh so he's not? and that must make it ............ok then

I didn't say that. But its hardly Watergate.

no, i think they invented a new term for that, there was so many "gates" going on with the clinton's i thought they had something to do with microsoft.

also keep in mind that the same thing about us going into iraq "iraq never attacking us" and so on could be said about bosnia.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The guy did lie under oath - and while (as President) that is clearly indefensible, the issue from which it stemmed is, as I see it, rather trivial. Not only that, but the puritanical 'witch-hunt' it generated seemed to me to be entirely politically motivated and was, IMO as bad, if not worse than the revelations that prompted it - seeing that no crime had actually been committed.

What's bizarre is that people seem to focus on that one issue as their main criticism of Clinton's term in office. Just seems rather cheap to me - and realistically speaking there's probably more relevant arguments about his running of the country that can be brought to bear than an affair with an intern. Lets face it - he's hardly alone on that score…

oh don't get me started on the somalia fiasco, where they refused to allow the military to go into the city with armored vehicles...and a movie was born

oh so he's not? and that must make it ............ok then

...and exactly what should have Clinton done differently? You can be an armchair general and argue whether different military actions should have taken place, but to say Clinton made a huge military error is not accurate. The plan to take out warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid failed, but you can't exactly blame that on Clinton.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

oh so he's not? and that must make it ............ok then

I didn't say that. But its hardly Watergate.

no, i think they invented a new term for that, there was so many "gates" going on with the clinton's i thought they had something to do with microsoft.

also keep in mind that the same thing about us going into iraq "iraq never attacking us" and so on could be said about bosnia.

Different situations.

The guy did lie under oath - and while (as President) that is clearly indefensible, the issue from which it stemmed is, as I see it, rather trivial. Not only that, but the puritanical 'witch-hunt' it generated seemed to me to be entirely politically motivated and was, IMO as bad, if not worse than the revelations that prompted it - seeing that no crime had actually been committed.

What's bizarre is that people seem to focus on that one issue as their main criticism of Clinton's term in office. Just seems rather cheap to me - and realistically speaking there's probably more relevant arguments about his running of the country that can be brought to bear than an affair with an intern. Lets face it - he's hardly alone on that score…

oh don't get me started on the somalia fiasco, where they refused to allow the military to go into the city with armored vehicles...and a movie was born

oh so he's not? and that must make it ............ok then

...and exactly what should have Clinton done differently? You can be an armchair general and argue whether different military actions should have taken place, but to say Clinton made a huge military error is not accurate. The plan to take out warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid failed, but you can't exactly blame that on Clinton.

The operation didn't have international backing - and they stirred up a hornets nest with the result that many hundreds of people were killed. Not too dissimilar to Iraq really...

[Ban Hammer 13,509]

...and exactly what should have Clinton done differently? You can be an armchair general and argue whether different military actions should have taken place, but to say Clinton made a huge military error is not accurate. The plan to take out warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid failed, but you can't exactly blame that on Clinton.

quite simple - he could have let the military go into the cities with the m-2/3 bradley and same for the m-1. instead, we saw a precursor to the mess we've had in iraq with heavy casualties due to the lightly armored or no armored wheeled vehicles. but no, such was denied to the military as the powers that be in washington decided that such would be provoking them. and of course, soldiers died from such idiocy. but my simple question is - what is anyone gonna do to a m-1? it eats crunchies (ground soldiers) for breakfast.

now if the intelligence about aidid was bad, and we can't blame clinton, why is it that the intelligence was bad about wmd's and we blame bush?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

now if the intelligence about aidid was bad, and we can't blame clinton, why is it that the intelligence was bad about wmd's and we blame bush?

If you find some evidence that the Clinton administration 'fixed' the intelligence around a pre-determined policy, I'll agree with you