And isn't retaliation for terrorist actions a long-standing American policy?

Oh, right, except when done by Clinton. The Conservatives just can't stand that.

Iraq fires on US and British fighters, and it's okay to bomb Iraq. But terrorists blow up American embassies and actually KILL people, and suddenly it's wrong to retaliate.

No, no, if I was looking to blame Clinton for the CIA's mistakes, I would have brought up the bombing of the Chinese embassy, now wouldn't I?

There WAS NO INTEL. There was NO evidence AT ALL that that asprin factory was any kind of terrorist center.

Iraq fires on US and British fighters, and it's okay to bomb Iraq. But terrorists blow up American embassies and actually KILL people, and suddenly it's wrong to retaliate.

Retaliation implies force directed at the perpetrators. We're talking about innocent people being killed for the sole reason that Clinton needed a distraction.

And, gee, Bush Sr. ran that place, didn't he?

No I don't have to feel so bad disliking the illerate* dumbass shill for the oil buisness presently living in the White House.

quote:

---

Jeff Kardde said... Rapenest? Is that even a word? I think your grammar doesn't say much for our country.

---

Ahh yea, I was expecting a little more from you over here than that Jeff. Getting desperate to defend Mr. Clinton IMO if your attacking people's grammar and spelling alone..

Republican hipocracy at work. Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr. give TERRORISTS weapons (what happened to no negotiating with terrorists, people?) and lie about it, but Bill Clinton gets a blowjob and lies about it, and for some reason the blowjob is made to be much worse.

Oh, please. It is plain and fucking simply hipocracy. Don't even try and say "it's not about the blowjob, it's that he lied under oath!" because that is an outright LIE.

For some fucking reason, Republicans find sex to be a more horrible crime than giving terrorists weapons. Hey, you Republicans wanna be stuck up pricks, fine, it just makes you look really funky when you think giving TERRORISTS weapons is O.K. but getting a B.J. is...

"...HORRIBLE AND WE MUST DRAG HIM THROUGH THE STREETS AND SKIN HIM ALIVE AND CHOP OFF HIS PENIS THE FUCKING DEMOCRAT WHO KICKED US OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE BECAUSE HE WENT ON MTV AND THE KIDS LIKED HIM AND THEY VOTED FOR HIM AND THEY'RE A BUNCH OF STUPID HIPPIE SCUM WHO SMOKE MARIJUANA AND THINK VIETNAM WAS A REALLY BAD IDEA AND THEY DON'T THINK ITS THEIR COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG AND THEY'RE A BUNCH OF UNDEREDUCATED MORON KIDS WHO SHOULD'VE VOTED GEORGE BUSH BACK INTO OFFICE BECAUSE HE KICKED SADDAM'S ASS AND LEFT HIM IN POWER SO HE COULD GET HIS APPROVAL RATINGS BACK UP IN HIS SECOND ELECTION BUT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND BLAME BILLY FOR BOMBING IRAQ WHENEVER HE DOES BECAUSE HE ISNT A NICE GUY AND WE HATE HIS GODDAMN FUCKING ASS BECAUSE WERE REPUBLICANS AND ALTHOUGH (MOST OF US) ARE FUNDEMENTALISTS WE DON'T MIND BREAKING THE TEN COMMANDMENTS WHENEVER *WE* WANT, BUT WE'LL ATTACKING BILLY WHENEVER HE DOES EVEN THOUGH HE'S AN ATHIEST GOD HATING LIBERAL WHO PRETENDS TO BE A BAPTIST AND BLACK BECAUSE WE KNOW HE DOESNT REALLY LIKE JAZZ HES JUST PANDERING TO THOSE SHIFTLESS BLACKS WHO VOTE DEMOCRAT BECAUSE THEYRE TOO STUPID TO VOTE ANYTHING ELSE AND FOR ALL THOSE REASONS AND MORE WE'RE REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!!!"

--Republican "Power" Speech

You have no evidence of this. All you have are your desires that it be true, so you can have something to throw back at us when we point out that YOU elected the scummiest scumbag to ever run this country.

Bill Clinton gets a blowjob and lies about it, and for some reason the blowjob is made to be much worse.

Jeff, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you're a total moron. IT IS NOT ABOUT SEX. The fact that he got a blowjob is irrelevant. We care that he BROKE the FRIKIN' LAW. Don't you?

Don't even try and say "it's not about the blowjob, it's that he lied under oath!" because that is an outright LIE.

Oops. Too late.

And this is yet another of your manifold psychological instabilities: you apparently think that you are the absolute arbiter of truth and falsehood in the universe.

For some fucking reason, Republicans find sex to be a more horrible crime than giving terrorists weapons.

A) Not sex. Perjury.

B) For some reason, Democrats apparently don't care about crime except when commited by Republicans. And I would point out that Ollie North DID go to prison for some years for his crimes. Has any legal punishment been inflicted on Bill Clinton for his? And under any circumstances, could Clinton's punishment have been nearly as bad as North's?

Let's take a look at Bill Clinton's charge. He received oral gratification from a White House intern. In deposition for the Paula Jones lawsuit, he says that he did not have a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Well, to the best of my knowledge, there is no law or legal precedent explaining what constitutes sexual relations. In my mind, oral sex is a form of sexual intimacy. In the minds of several of my friends (and apparently President Clinton), oral sex is not "sexual relations." Of course, should any of these events happened? No. Republicans were so eager to dig up anything on Clinton, that individuals such as Richard Scaife and organizations such as Rutherford Institute and media outlets such as American Spector paid people for even the slightest rumor. That's how we got Whitewater and Paula Jones and the unbelievable transmutation that connected A to B. That's how we also got unfounded allegations like Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddick and the alleged 13 year-old love child he had with a prostitue. Essentially, we the people of the United States had to endure a witch-hunt at a cost of $80 million that yeilded nothing on Bill Clinton and an approx 500 page porno novel written by "Hard-On" Kenny Starr.

Let's take a look at Ronald Reagan. Republicans desperately wanted control of White House back from Jimmy Carter. So, they struck a deal with the Iranian terrorists holding 44 American hostages. This can be corroborated by the evidence supporting a negotiation in Paris in October 1980 between George H. W. Bush and leaders of the Islamic Jihad. The Iranians would release the hostages in exchange for two planeloads of Stinger missles. Bush claims this didn't happen and has proof. His proof are logs that say he away giving a speech (a speech which actually occurred several days after when the log indicated). Officials of Iran at that time, including a Sadir Afar now living in France, are offering to give the US proof that this meeting did take place. The last time it was offered was during the Clinton Impeachment Fiasco.

After Reagan won the presidency, the Iranians got their missles and Americans got their hostages. And numerous laws were broken, more than in the case of Clinton's penis. The Senate began hearing with Lawrence Walsh as the Independent Counsel. Reagan testified numerous times that he "cannot recall" any of the alleged activities. Either he was lying or he was so ineffective a leader that he did not notice his aides involved in illegal activities or that he was so unrespected that his subordinates thought nothing more of potentially tarnishing his presidency. All three options are unappealing.

You cannot claim that Iran-Contra did not happen because it did. The Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah got their hands on sophisticated US Stinger missles. High ranking members of the government were implicated in the deal and cover-up. Among them was Casper Weinberger. Walsh was close to indicting Weinberger on numerous charges in the summer of 1992. In October 1992, Weinberger held a press conference where he said that he would not go to jail to protect the more guilty individuals. Shortly afterwards, Clinton won the '92 election and Bush pardonned six officials involved in Iran-Contra on Christmas Eve '92. One of the six was Weinberger. With this, the Democrats (in a foolish maneuver) closed down the Iran-Contra hearings and ended Walsh's investigation.

Read what you're responding to. You'd look like less of an idiot. I challenge you to find me one person here that thinks that oral sex is, or even should be, a crime. Now you tell me: is it a crime to LIE about oral sex while under oath before a federal grand jury? Because that's exactly what Bill Clinton did.

As for Iran-Contra, again, read, or you look like an idiot. I never said that Iran-Contra didn't happen. I said that Ollie North went to prison for his crimes, for crying out loud! It HAPPENED! Obviously! But Reagan and Bush were NOT involved, as Jeff claimed they were.

Well, to the best of my knowledge, there is no law or legal precedent explaining what constitutes sexual relations.

Remember, he was sworn to tell the WHOLE truth.
He purposefully withheld information relevant to the question, in a consious attempt to deceive the jury. This is perjury.

Essentially, we the people of the United States had to endure a witch-hunt

Witch-hunts are when you try to obtain convictions, the truth be damned. This man COMMITED A CRIME.

at a cost of $80 million

Hang on, since when is it our money? Bill said it wasn't.

that yeilded nothing on Bill Clinton

Aside from the fact that he commited perjury.

Republicans desperately wanted control of White House back from Jimmy Carter. So, they struck a deal with the Iranian terrorists holding 44 American hostages.

Um... no? There was no chance that Carter was going to win that election. The Iranians had already decided to let the hostages go, and simply waited 'til Reagan was sworn in as a slap at Carter.

This can be corroborated by the evidence supporting a negotiation in Paris in October 1980 between George H. W. Bush and leaders of the Islamic Jihad. The Iranians would release the hostages in exchange for two planeloads of Stinger missles.

This is a logical leap that defies all reason. Why shouldn't Bush have negotiated with the hostage-takers? Former director of the CIA, soon to be VP. Remember, these people REALLY didn't like Carter, so someone not attached to that administration would be preferable. What does that have to do with a possible missile deal?

You cannot claim that Iran-Contra did not happen because it did.

You can't claim that I said it didn't, because I didn't.

Either he was lying or he was so ineffective a leader that he did not notice his aides involved in illegal activities

Or perhaps he was so EFFECTIVE a leader that he trusted his people to do their jobs, without his micromanaging everything. Ever think of that?

After Reagan won the presidency, the Iranians got their missles and Americans got their hostages. And numerous laws were broken

As I understand it, the law broken was the fact that the aid given to the Contras was covert, something that had been made illegal. I don't think the missiles had anything to do with North's conviction, though I could be wrong.

They resort to rumors and half-truths and elevate them actual facts and proof of wrong-doing.

He commited perjury. Do you deny this?

At the same time, they ignore evidence of actual wrong-doing and devastation to the US national security on the part of Reagan, Bush the Smarter, Weinberger, and others.