WMDs the final word? - Page 4

Utah · #31 01-27-2004, 01:06 PM

Your logic was bugging me and I just figured out why.

Lets take what you are saying as 100% accurate. Nobody had any buiness asking him about his private conduct. Zero. None. Nada. Lets take for a fact that the Republicans behavior was disgusting in the whole affair.

Okay, now that we have stipulated to that, let me ask you a question: Does that excuse the following conduct:

1) Lying to the American People
2) Committing Perjury
3) Orchestrating a campaign to destroy a woman's life

If so, does would it then allow the following as well:

1) Threatening Lewinsky with Bodily Harm
2) Murdering Lewinsky
3) Launching a war to change the topic

It seems to me that if someone is caught in a situation that they shouldn't be caught in that doesn't give them free reign in conduct.

andyfox · #32 01-27-2004, 01:20 PM

So far just to one tyrant. And not too many terrorists.

One cheer. With scattered boos.

andyfox · #33 01-27-2004, 01:24 PM

Lyndon Johnson used to have senators come in to talk to him while he was on the toilet. Ycch.

I'm not sure or convinced on the legality of what Clinton did, but it sure was disgusting; not necessarily the sex part, although that was nothing to be proud of, but the cover-up and the atteempt to ruin Ms. Lewinsky's life. That's why I said the Democrats should have marched into his office and demanded resignation for the disgraceful (and possibly illegal) behavior.

andyfox · #34 01-27-2004, 01:27 PM

Kay didn't say that they never had them, he said he believes they don't have them now. Some small amounts/quantities may have been hidden in Syria, but the sanctions together with the situation in Iraq (scientists telling Hussein, yes they were proceeding, when in fact they were not) precluded the development of WMDs.

What Bill Clinton believes is irrelevant.

Cyrus · #35 01-27-2004, 02:01 PM

"The president is a wholly public figure and his actions as a whole have an effect on the nation."

If anything that a Prez does in private is actually a public affair, do you think that (this is a serious question) a President of the United States should engage, for example, in an act of sodomy, under any circumstances?

Would this be giving out wrong signals and have any kind of bad effects on the great American nation if it becomes a public matter? What is your opinion?

Once more, I am serious - and curious about this.

Kurn, son of Mogh · #36 01-27-2004, 02:09 PM

What Bill Clinton believes is irrelevant.

Normally, I'd agree with this [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

But my point was that there are many (not pointing a finger at you) who claim Bush fabricated the existance of WMDs to justify the war. My point was just that the existance of those weapons was accepted by the prior administration as well.

In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that whether there are any there now or were any there in March is irrelevant. As long as Hussein was in power, the potential for their development was always there. Had Powell and Bush Sr. listened to Schwartzkopf in '91, we wouldn't be in Iraq now.

MMMMMM · #37 01-27-2004, 02:29 PM

Quite right, it doesn't excuse the lying or perjury, etc.--which is precisely why I said that his stance from the beginning should have been that it's none of anybody's business. That way he wouldn't have told any lies because he wouldn't have answered the damn question in the first place.

I realize my opinion is probably in the tiny minority, but that's just how stroghly I feel about people minding their own business and not being busybodies interfering with or telling others what they should be doing in their private lives.

MMMMMM · #38 01-27-2004, 02:33 PM

I didn't follow the aftermath that closely. If Clinton tried to ruin her life that is really bad IMO.

adios · #39 01-27-2004, 02:36 PM

"Had Powell and Bush Sr. listened to Schwartzkopf in '91, we wouldn't be in Iraq now."

Exactly. Instead we complied with the UN.

MMMMMM · #40 01-27-2004, 02:39 PM

"If my memory serves me correctly, Billy was being serviced while talking on the phone to a member of the senate concerning offical business."

Lol.

Multi-tasking is an acquired skill, and some are probably naturally better at it than others.

Haven't you ever, maybe in your younger days, had a pretty young lady friend who suddenly got the impulse to put her head in your lap and...while you were driving? Did you stop her? Well if that can be handled at highway speeds then I'll bet Clinton could handle talking most types of business on the phone with some Senator while "enjoying the scenery", so to speak. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]