Good lord, he is STILL trying to make a connection between September 11th/Afghanistan/Al Qaeda and Iraq.
I understand that there are people who would prefer not to vote for or support a Democrat, but honestly how can anyone support Bush when he is so blatant like that in his incompetency?
Belief in Bush is much akin to the beliefs of pro-wrestling fans: everyone knows it’s totally fake and choreographed. But in order to gain some benefit from watching it, YOU JUST GOTTA BELIEEEEVE, MAN!!!
he does actually have a point. iraq has been playing games with the UN from the get-go. even sadam’s last ditch effort to allow inspectors was par for the course. it’s too bad bush lied to his country to SELL the war. which for our government is also par for the course.
Frankly, I think it is ridiculous more isn’t being made of his statement about future Presidents cleaning up the mess he has made. That has been the story of his life. Every time he has fucked up, whether it be in the Texas Air National Guard, Arbusto, Harken Energy, whatever, daddy has come along to fix it. Now daddy is going to be replaced with a future President. Time to send this arrogant, over-priviledged, moronic frat boy packing back to Crawford.
Now that Iraqi documents are finally being translated, we’re learning a lot of interesting things about the war on terror. As ABC News indicates, one document, dated Sept 15th, 2001, talks about the Taliban’s relationship with Iraq, while another talks about Bin Laden’s group meeting with Iraqis.
Others dated 2002 talk about Al Qaeda in Iraq. Other documents suggest a possibility of Iraqi intelligence bribing French government officials.
However, ABC News, in their quest to be impartial, warn us about the translations. They say just because we know that Al Qaeda spoke with Iraqi agents and had a relationship with them, does not prove collusion, and does not prove collusion specifically for the 911 massacre. I guess they’re right, but then again, there’s no actual evidence that Bin Laden was behind 911 either. I mean, were his fingerprints found at the scene of the crime?
Thanks for that ABC. Unfortunately, unless someone uncovers a photo of Bin Laden and Hussein, together, high fiving, in one of the 911 airplanes (as it strikes the twin towers,) there will never be any enough evidence to prove a connection between the two, at least in MSM’s minds.
That damn ABC and its disclaimers. Too bad the Pentagon’s site also has a disclaimer saying they can’t vouch for the authenticity of the documents or the translations. That darn liberal, Main Stream Military!
A new study shows that whiny, insecure kids grow up to be conservatives while confident, self-reliant kids group up to be liberals
I’m shocked to hear that a study that took place in Berkely could reach such a conclusion. Amazing.
these new documents show Saddam talking about how he had no WMD and that the WMD had been destroyed
And you knew that he had no WMDs. Since you are so bright and all-knowing (obviously brighter than the intelligence services of the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Japan, etc..) you might want to make a run for the presidency.
Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country.
Hrmmm . . . care to conduct this in the heart of Red State country? Because the results, along with the results of this study, could be interesting. Or one sampling different areas of the country known to be ideologically diverse. How do the different personalities grow up in different areas? Hey, this could be an interesting study . . . ;)
I’m conservative, but I wasn’t whiny. I was (and am) pretty easy going.
Helen Thomas, Cindy Sheehan, we’ve got two out of 4 or 5 of a brand new A-team like world superhero organization. No way they get the “A-team” name, ’tis mine. They can be the B-team. I don’t know if we can get Helen off the “Grendel” movie in the works, though.
A&A and others of his ilk display exactly why there are no answers wothwhile at these press conferences. There is no possible way that President Bush could act or speak which would satisfy them. If he says something they don’t agree with, he’s lying. If he admits to making a mistake, they pounce. If he does something, he villified for doing it. If he doesn’t do something, he should have.
They are so blinded by their high minded arrogance that they can’t look past their own noses. THEY have all the answers. THEY know what’s really going on (nudge nudge)
I guess Harry Belafonte would make a great charasmatic male lead to the team. Castro could be like “Charlie” from Charlie’s Angels. I would round out the team with George Clooney for his politics, but he is way too attractive to fit with the B-team lot we have going here. I’m talking Highlight’s magazine - which one of these does not belong.
I actually love this psychology of politics. I think it would be fun to conduct a comparative study in the great American Redlands. Think about it, though: Bush whines. His father whined. Conservatives in NH are currently whining over the passage of a statewide smoking ban in restaurants. Liberals stand up for themselves at least. Curious!
Typical GOP behavior, insult the woman and completely ignore the questions she is asking, which are absolutely valid questions that SHOULD have been asked a long time ago.
Then again what do you expect from a group who is outraged that Democrats would suggest censuring let alone impeaching President Bush for violating the Constitution yet had no problem impeaching President Clinton for an affair.
Apparently you now spell hypocrisy with three letters. G O P
You’re leaving out that Clinton was also censured.
And for the Republicans: Okay, let me get this straight….Clinton was censured because he lied in a civil case about a matter– receiving a blowjob–a matter not directly related to the issue being sued over, and he gets censured. But if Bush decides to simply ignore FISA, a law that EXPLICITS states it governs all surveillance by the government that takes place within the United States, well that isn’t worthy of censure.
“A new study shows that whiny, insecure kids grow up to be conservatives while confident, self-reliant kids group up to be liberals…” - Angrier and Angrier (cite)
“Typical GOP behavior, insult the woman and completely ignore the questions she is asking” - D.K.
what makes this type of profiling sit better with your HUGE righteous moral standards? just curious. you believe you have the way… where’s the enlightened path? i see nothing worthwhile in petty tests with preconcieved conclusions. my thought was always: to push others with propaganda and flawed reasoning is to create a good push back.
Its worse than that Nun Mouse, although Clinton lied under oath, something he should never have done, it was only after a prolonged witch hunt that cost millions of dollars and uncovered NOTHING that they got him on a minor technicality.
Hmm sorry super-id but thats a completely invalid logical argument. Basically what you are saying is the following:
Action of type A resulted in a positive outcome in one instance, therefore all actions of type A are valid.
By your logic it would be justified, for example, for me to read anyones mail so long as I found one instance where reading a random persons mail (illegally) caused me to prevent them from commiting a crime.
I’m not so sure lying under oath is a “minor technicality”. In some places it is also known as perjury. The case can be made that maybe the question shouldn’t have been asked, but it was, and President Clinton lied about it under oath.
I don’t think I have all the answers. I used to, back when I was younger and much more liberal. Now that I’ve grown up, I realize that nobody has all the answers, and its foolish to pretend that you do.
My main point was that ANY answer the President can give to the Helen Thomases of the world will be wrong. There is nothing he can say that will appease the like of A&A, Nun, etal.
illogical super-id? geez. here and i thought i was returning an illogical serve with an illogical return. my mistake.
“…a prolonged witch hunt that cost millions of dollars and uncovered NOTHING that they got him on a minor technicality…”
i guess those millions of dollars uncovered a minor technicality then, didn’t they dave? smarten up with smart food. i’ll skip the “perjury/technicality” thing, the texan got it.
“Think about it, though: Bush whines. His father whined. Conservatives in NH are currently whining over the passage of a statewide smoking ban in restaurants. Liberals stand up for themselves at least. Curious!”
I don’t think you’ve ever been to Maryland. Here, EVERYONE whines! GOP, Dems, doesn’t matter. There’s always something wrong, and there’s always someone to whine about it.
i think this blog pretty much proves B. Minich’s point. DAMN you B. Minich, we’ve played right into your hands! This whole time you were planning our demise with facts and common-sense whilst we fought amoungst ourselves! but there will be a round two B. Minich, there will be a round two…
resisting an impending ban in NH on the basis of personal views and freedom of opinion is not so much whining as excercising a valid argument to the contrary. and if that’s whining, you might as well pick a dictator now and get it over with.
nice try super-id but you completely ignored the part where your argument made absolutely no sense whatsoever, and no the investigation didn’t uncover a technicality, the perjury happened AFTER the investigation. Thats two strikes. And if you can’t see the utter insanity and hypocrisy abundant in feeling that Clintons crime (lying about an affair) merits impeachment but Bush’s crime (violating the constitution and a number of federal laws) doesn’t then thats strike three and you are out as nothing more than a blind right wing zealot
Clinton blew his wad on some fat chick and was too embarrassed to tell anyone about it. If that’s a crime, you need to arrest most Frat Brothers in this country.
Ignoring FISA, illegally invading another country, lying about the breaching of levees, now THOSE are impeachable offenses.
If Alasdair* posted a link to a survey done in the heart of the Midwest that said that pre-schoolers who were “selfish” let’s say, grew up to be sex-crazed, drug-addicted liberals, and 3 or 4 year olds who said please and thank you grew up to be God-fearing, moral conservatives, my comment would have been exactly the same.
I think we all know that studies can easily be manipulated to get the desired results. The whole study just seems more than a little suspect to me.
Clinton blew his wad on some fat chick and was too embarrassed to tell anyone about it. If that’s a crime, you need to arrest most Frat Brothers in this country.
Um, OK, no. Without expressing an opinion about whether Clinton’s crime was a HIGH crime (and thus impeachable), I nevertheless can’t let this sort of blatant distortion go unanswered. Clinton’s crime was perjury. More specifically, he committed perjury when, in a lawful sexual harassment proceeding in a legitimate court of law, he was asked questions about prior sexual conduct in an attempt by the plaintiff to establish a pattern of behavior for the purpose of the case at bar — the same sort of questions that any private citizen could and would be asked if they were being sued in a similar proceeding. Now, it is true that the sexual harassment case was eventually thrown out; the judge ruled that, if Paula Jones’s allegations were true, they constituted “boorish and offensive” behavior, but not, under Arkansas state law, sexual harassment. However, Clinton lied under oath before that ruling was made, and since individual citizens are not entitled to ignore the judicial process on the basis of their own personal opinions or predictions about how a case is going to turn out, it’s bogus to claim, as some do, that it was OK for Clinton to lie under oath since the case was eventually dismissed.
The other common justification for Clinton’s perjury is that the whole case was a “partisan witch hunt,” pursued by Paula Jones but funded by rich Republicans and conservatives. But that’s not a valid justification either, because again, you are substituting an individual person’s judgment for the judicial process. By that logic, if you’re in a divorce case and you believe your wife is on a “witch hunt” to get embarrassing information about you into open court, it’s OK for you to lie under oath because you think she’s in the wrong. But that’s obviously crazy — giving individual citizens the right to essentially nullify legitimate judicial orders and proceedings because of personal beliefs about the underlying motives of their courtroom opponents would undermine our whole judical process. If Clinton felt that the questions about Monica in the Paula Jones case were out-of-bounds, he should have had his lawyers object to them as irrelevant. Perhaps he did, in which case the judge obviously ruled against him, so he was legally obligated to answer. If he felt so strongly that that obligation was sufficiently onerous as to be morally unjustifiable, he should have refused on principle to answer, and faced the consequences. That would have been a fun legal battle — an Arkansas judge trying to hold the President of the United States in contempt of court! Then at least we could say that Clinton’s crime (contempt of court) was a form of civil disobedience (albeit a rather self-serving one), a la Judy Miller. But simply lying under oath is not justifiable in any way, shape, or form. Clinton committed perjury. Period.
Now, was his crime a “high crime or misdemeanor”? That’s an entirely separate question, about which I think reasonable people can disagree. Reasonable people cannot, however, dispute the fact that Clinton committed a crime. Nor is it remotely reasonable to suggest that all he did was “blew his wad on some fat chick and was too embarrassed to tell anyone about it.” Rephrase it as, “he blew his wad on some fat chick, and then lied under oath about it despite being legally obligated to tell the truth about it during legitimate judicial proceeding,” and now you’ve got something.
Fair enough. But that line of “logic” (that Clinton “just lied about sex”) is seriously used all the time by his defenders.
As for Rove, I don’t think it’s been definitively proven that he lied under oath; if it had, I’m fairly certain Pat Fitzgerald would have indicted him. Whereas there isn’t much doubt that Clinton did, in fact, lie under oath. Leaving aside the “meaning of is” and the various definitions of sex, I vividly remember being flabbergasted that in one portion of Clinton’s original testimony, he stated that he couldn’t recall whether he had met Miss Lewinsky. Uh, sorry, but whatever your definition of “is” or “sex” might be, that’s clearly a lie.
But I’m not here to defend Karl Rove (on the contrary; see this post), nor to argue that the Republicans were right to impeach Clinton. My point is a very limited one: to claim that Clinton was impeached merely for “lying about sex,” as opposed to perjury, is total nonsense. And to argue that people should be given carte blanche to lie under oath in a legitimate legal proceeding simply because they think a question is irrelevant or they don’t agree with the motives of the plaintiff, is downright irresponsible.
“nice try super-id but you completely ignored the part where your argument made absolutely no sense whatsoever”
no i didn’t. it was the foundation of my argument. i am actually insane. for the record though, clinton’s crime did apparently merit impeachment. he was impeached. and um bush violated the constitution? i hope he had the decency of sending that document some flowers the next day. it’s funny though bill o’reilly never mentioned anything about a violation of the constitution… and he makes less stuff up than you do.
A&A - perhaps you could try looking at it this way …
If your President “blew his wad on some fat chick “ and was sufficiently crass not to have said dress dry-cleaned at the very least (as the act of a gentleman), does he deserve to be President ?
If your President “blew his wad on some fat chick “ and was sufficiently dumb not to have said dress dry-cleaned at the very least (so as to ensure that no hard (sticky(?)) evidence remained), does he deserve to be President ?
If your President “blew his wad on some fat chick “ and was sufficiently arrogant not to simply ‘take the 5th’ when asked about it, does he deserve to be President ?
Joe Mama - isn’t it interesting that conservatives read liberals’ typings and pick holes in the logic (as we do with our own offered discussion points) whereas liberals seem to read conservatives’ typings and hear only whining … the experts do say that, when we read (even when our lips aren’t moving), we are ‘hearing’ what we are reading with our own voice, do they not ?
ever notice how brendan lets us rip each other apart with silly arguments then like a good dad, swings in with actual facts and logic and puts us all quietly to bed? that’s why i love this blog.
oh, thanks for the giggle b, it’s like a nod from the master.
Ha! That’s funny. :) I don’t think I do that too often… quite often, I just let the political threads go and wash my hands of them… too much vitriol, not enough time in the day to read it all. heh. But I’m glad you think that my comments are factual and logical. :) I think that’s usually true… but not always. The only person around here whose posts are ALWAYS based on solid facts and logic is our resident biologist and my personal choice for the next Stanford Tree, Mike. :)
Heh. I’m far too inhibited to be the Tree. There’s no way I’d make it through Tree week, which typically requires large amounts of highly public naked antics. Obviously, that’s an important skill for someone who dresses in a gigantic costume reminiscent of a deranged mutant squid…
Oddly enough, I was debating about weighing in on the misrepresentations on this thread–I generally get annoyed at the broad brush strokes inherent in comments like “Joe Mama - isn’t it interesting that conservatives read liberals’ typings and pick holes in the logic (as we do with our own offered discussion points) whereas liberals seem to read conservatives’ typings and hear only whining” *1 and “Apparently you now spell hypocrisy with three letters. G O P” *2 –but Brendan’s done a good job on being calm and reasonable, so I don’t need to deal with such issues as the whole lying about sex thing.
Attack statements, policies, and whatnot all you want, and feel free to point out the foible of individuals from either side, but it’s my view that while they may on individual issues, on the whole neither the D nor R parties have all that much claim to a moral high ground compared to the other. If you can stop villifying the other side long enough to try to find the point in what they’re saying–easier when certain people are talking than when others are–you may have a chance of actually moving forward on an issue.
1 If he’s taking a very few people to be representative of the whole, then Alasdair may have a leg to stand on here. Of the identifiably partisan commenters here, Andrew is the most likely to pick apart an argument piece by piece, and he’s conservative. A Nun Mouse and dcl are much more likely to try to respond holistically, and decry a general pattern in their opponents, and these two are liberal. Yet even there it breaks down, as the most likely on the blog to pick an argument apart piece by piece are me and Brendan. I’m more libertarian than I am anything else, and Brendan self-identifies as a Democrat who gets really ticked at the far liberal end of the party. And Alasdair himself, clearly a conservative, has a somewhat irksome tendency to brush all criticisms of the administration aside as people looking to blame the “Eeeevil Boooosh” (or however he spells it this time) for anything, up to and including why their coffee isn’t the right temperature.
2 David does have a valid point that many politicans in the Republican party are hypocrites. My beef with the statement as made is that I see the problem being that many politicians are hypocrites regardless of their affiliation, and I don’t like phrasing which I infer as implying (how’s that for getting around that word issue, Brendan?) that it’s a problem specific to Republicans.
To put it into context, technically it WAS perjury, i.e. lying about whether or not he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinski.
But people routinely lie in civil cases, depositions, etc., and prosecutors look the other way. The only time a prosecutor will go after someone for lying in a civil case is if the lie is directly related to the matter being litigated.
For example, if Bill Clinton had lied about what he had done to or with Paula Jones, the woman involved in the original civil case, and there was evidence to back it up, THEN a case could be made for prosecuting Clinton because it was a lie about a matter directly related to the civil case.
Prosecutors in this country regularly decline to prosecute lies in civil cases when people lie about collateral matters.
I must say, your argument is more reasonable than most “lying about sex” defenses I’ve heard. At least you admit it was perjury. However, the fact that most prosecutors wouldn’t press charges doesn’t mean it’s a “complete minor technicality.” Perjury is never a “complete minor technicality” — that prosecutors regularly decline to prosecute certain types of perjury has more to do with the fact that prosecutors don’t have unlimited resources than it does with the inherent level of criminality involved. Or at least, that’s an equally logical conclusion to draw. If you want to convince me to instead draw your conclusion (that tangential perjury is a “complete minor technicality”), you’ll need more of an argument to suggest why this is so, than mere prosecutorial inaction.
Someone please explain to me why liberals had no problem with President Clinton’s repeated pattern of preying on women under his authority? If he was a manager at a corporation sleeping with his interns or anyone else under his level, a good liberal would be screaming “Sexual harassment! Abuse of power and authority!” But if the victim is Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, or any number of other women who have come forward and gone on the record saying that Clinton had affairs with them and/or used them for sex and then “disposed” of them in some way or manner, suddenly liberals grow quiet. At least Sen. Joe Lieberman had the gumption to be honest about his disgust with the president’s behavior. I wish other Dems could have been half as honest.
Also, I wasn’t particularly whiny as a kid, and the whole self-confidence thing is a sliding scale, depending on what age/grade and point in puberty you’re talking about (true for us all, no?). But I thought that previous “studies” by academic scholars had already shown us conservatives to be dumber than liberals. So what’s the news here? We’re dumb and whiny?
My point is not whether Clinton’s crime of perjury was worthy of impeachment or not, my point is that if it was how is it possible other than rampant hypocrisy that Bush’s possible crime of VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION is not worthy of being investigated?
And yes Mike I realize that there are hypocrites of all stripes and colors, I just happen to think based on what I have seen that it is far more rampant, systematic, and in fact normal for it to occur in the GOP than in any other party.
Back in the ’90s, I was most definitely a “liberal” in terms of my general political views, yet I absolutely had a problem with Clinton’s behavior. I was on the fence regarding impeachment, but as a personal matter, I felt that he was the sort of guy who, if he lived in my dorm or was a friend-of-a-friend or whatever, I would have considered him a jerk because of the shitty way he treated women. The Starr Report made clear that Clinton was not only getting blowjobs from Monica (who was only a few years older than his daughter, let’s remember), but was telling her all the things that asshole men tell gullible women who they’re having affairs with (he loved her, he was eventually going to leave Hillary for her, etc.). In light of those later revelations, I’ve never forgiven him for the obvious disdain in his voice when he said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” followed by the leaks (er, no pun intended) that came from “his people” in the days that followed, implying that Monica was some sort of crazy slut who shouldn’t be believed. In terms of total asshole male behavior, you couldn’t script it much better. Granted, Monica was a consenting adult… it’s not like he raped her or something… so she bears the burden of her own stupidity. But he — as a person in a position of power, a man, and a human being — still treated her in a way that is completely reprehensible.
And yeah, it was galling to me that so many supposed liberals and feminists were so willing to dismiss out-of-hand the boorishness, offensiveness and arguably borderline predatoriness of his behavior simply because the ones calling him out on it (for their own self-interested reasons, of course) were Republicans. It’s unbelieveable to me that so many on the Left seemed to buy into what could basically be translated as a “she was asking for it” theory… i.e., Monica was stupid to believe Clinton’s bullshit, so therefore he did nothing wrong. Huh?! Men are supposed to treat women with respect and dignity — ALL women — not just the ones who have enough smarts and self-esteem to demand it. It’s classic “all men are pigs” behavior to lie to those women who are gullible enough to believe the lies and do sexual favors for you on the basis of those lies. Lots and lots of guys do it (and yeah, girls take advantage of guys in various ways too), but there’s nothing remotely respectable or moral about that sort of behavior.
Mind you, I am NOT arguing that Clinton should have been impeached for any of the above. Treating women like shit in consensual adult sexual relationships is not a high crime or misdemeanor. But it certainly is worthy of being harshly criticized, especially if you’re a liberal feminist! The hypocrisy of it all was mind-blowing (again, no pun intended). One might even argue that my disillusionment with the Left began with the Clinton impeachment controversy, though it didn’t really hit its stride until 9/11.
P.S. Also, one could DEFINITELY argue that Lieberman’s speech blasting Clinton was the precise moment when I began to seriously admire Lieberman. And one would be right. :)
David @ 9:56 - so if he’s guilty, PROVE it ! Telling us how strongly you feel he is eeeevil (sorry, Mike, I don’t know a better way to convey the sheer emotion and glee that the BDS-enjoyers put into their enunciation of ‘The Eeeevil Boooosh’ ™) - well, simpling telling us how you feel may feel good to you, but it ain’t convincing to us rationalists …
You haven’t managed to convince Brendan, as far as I can tell, of the impeachability of the President … I haven’t seen the LAT/NYT/WaPo printing stories containing chapter and verse of the laws putatively broken by the President … I haven’t seen the Democrats willing to put their reputations on the line by sponsoring a Bill of whatever in Congress … well, one sorta did, until the Majority leader said substantially “Fine, let’s get right on it !”, at which time the proud Democrat almost had a coronary and promptly demanded NOT to have it debated …
If the President has violated the Constitution, how come Justice Ginsburg isn’t telling all of us all about it ? How come the ACLU isn’t all over him with detailed indictments ?
Should President Clinton have been impeached for his poor taste in humidors ? Nope !
Should he have been impeached for perjury - not so sure on that … but he ceratinly should not have been given the free pass he was by the rabid feminists and the anti-discrimination liberals … had they come out and pursued a Vote of Censure rather than proudly proclaiming his innocence, no impeachment proceedings would have been needed …
At the risk of enjoying the moment - for such a fine and skilled orator, President Clinton expressed a very poor mouthful (apparently more than once, and not always with the best of aims) with respect to his intern …
(Joe - I double-dog-dare you to follow *that* ! (grin))
Well dumbass, how can you prove he is guilty without a trial (which is what an impeachment is) or even an investigation? How come Justice Ginsburg isn’t telling us about it? What are you even talking about, thats NOT her role. And the ACLU IS attacking him over this, but it doesn’t have the resources to get the evidence FROM THE GOVERNMENT because Bush is in charge of it! Thats why Congress needs to be the one to investigate this, but as long as the corrupt GOP has control of Congress that will never happen because they don’t care about the Constitution, they only care about being in power.
Whatever Alasdair, Bush is the one spying on American citizens illegally and ignoring reality in Iraq. The crazy one here is you who think the man can do no wrong despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.
Well dumbass, for a few reasons, first is the corruption of the GOP in congress, second, not everything that he has done wrong is an impeachable offense anyway, third because he was able to frighten enough people into reelecting him.
If your only standard of a President having done no wrong is staying in office i’d love to hear you revoke any and all criticism you had of President Clinton.
What amazes me is that you STILL won’t admit that Bush has ever made a mistake. You actually do believe the man is perfect. A frightening glimpse into the mind of the GOP zealot.
Ummm … when Dubya said “Elect me, or you get to deal with ‘President Kerry’”, while that may have been frightening to many, I doubt if that’s how or why he got re-elected !
No, he convinced enough people to be afraid of alll those terrorists out there and that we would be suddenly attacked if the Dems won. Of course he also played the family values card, which coming from a neo-con is utter crap.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
March 22nd, 2006 at 6:27:31 am
Good lord, he is STILL trying to make a connection between September 11th/Afghanistan/Al Qaeda and Iraq.
I understand that there are people who would prefer not to vote for or support a Democrat, but honestly how can anyone support Bush when he is so blatant like that in his incompetency?
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:41:11 am
More than supported Kerry.
March 22nd, 2006 at 9:20:15 am
David,
Belief in Bush is much akin to the beliefs of pro-wrestling fans: everyone knows it’s totally fake and choreographed. But in order to gain some benefit from watching it, YOU JUST GOTTA BELIEEEEVE, MAN!!!
March 22nd, 2006 at 9:23:46 am
he does actually have a point. iraq has been playing games with the UN from the get-go. even sadam’s last ditch effort to allow inspectors was par for the course. it’s too bad bush lied to his country to SELL the war. which for our government is also par for the course.
March 22nd, 2006 at 9:46:40 am
Frankly, I think it is ridiculous more isn’t being made of his statement about future Presidents cleaning up the mess he has made. That has been the story of his life. Every time he has fucked up, whether it be in the Texas Air National Guard, Arbusto, Harken Energy, whatever, daddy has come along to fix it. Now daddy is going to be replaced with a future President. Time to send this arrogant, over-priviledged, moronic frat boy packing back to Crawford.
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:07:20 am
Saddam: How do I prove WMD gone? http://torontosun.com/News/World/2006/03/22/1499784-sun.htm
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:09:48 am
Now that Iraqi documents are finally being translated, we’re learning a lot of interesting things about the war on terror. As ABC News indicates, one document, dated Sept 15th, 2001, talks about the Taliban’s relationship with Iraq, while another talks about Bin Laden’s group meeting with Iraqis.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1
Others dated 2002 talk about Al Qaeda in Iraq. Other documents suggest a possibility of Iraqi intelligence bribing French government officials.
However, ABC News, in their quest to be impartial, warn us about the translations. They say just because we know that Al Qaeda spoke with Iraqi agents and had a relationship with them, does not prove collusion, and does not prove collusion specifically for the 911 massacre. I guess they’re right, but then again, there’s no actual evidence that Bin Laden was behind 911 either. I mean, were his fingerprints found at the scene of the crime?
Thanks for that ABC. Unfortunately, unless someone uncovers a photo of Bin Laden and Hussein, together, high fiving, in one of the 911 airplanes (as it strikes the twin towers,) there will never be any enough evidence to prove a connection between the two, at least in MSM’s minds.
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:13:52 am
I’m not sure what’s wrong with that Toronto Sun link for the Saddam story.
Various versions of that story appear here: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://torontosun.com/News/World/2006/03/22/1499784-sun.html&scoring=d
I hope this isn’t a problem with this way of leaving comments.
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:14:46 am
A new study shows that whiny, insecure kids grow up to be conservatives while confident, self-reliant kids group up to be liberals…
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1142722231554&call_pageid=970599119419
This goes a long way to explaining Dubya, Andrew and Alasdair.
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:19:32 am
JB-
That damn ABC and its disclaimers. Too bad the Pentagon’s site also has a disclaimer saying they can’t vouch for the authenticity of the documents or the translations. That darn liberal, Main Stream Military!
Whatever, JB.
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:37:06 am
Of course, what JB leaves out is that these new documents show Saddam talking about how he had no WMD and that the WMD had been destroyed….
The Google link above has those stories…
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:52:10 am
A new study shows that whiny, insecure kids grow up to be conservatives while confident, self-reliant kids group up to be liberals
I’m shocked to hear that a study that took place in Berkely could reach such a conclusion. Amazing.
these new documents show Saddam talking about how he had no WMD and that the WMD had been destroyed
And you knew that he had no WMDs. Since you are so bright and all-knowing (obviously brighter than the intelligence services of the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Japan, etc..) you might want to make a run for the presidency.
Nothing like Monday morning quarterbacking.
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:57:42 am
Bush 2008! Buy the t-shirt!
Four more years!
Oh, and about that study . . .
Hrmmm . . . care to conduct this in the heart of Red State country? Because the results, along with the results of this study, could be interesting. Or one sampling different areas of the country known to be ideologically diverse. How do the different personalities grow up in different areas? Hey, this could be an interesting study . . . ;)
I’m conservative, but I wasn’t whiny. I was (and am) pretty easy going.
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:10:15 am
B. Minich -
I would assume that A&A’s post was tongue-in-cheek. That study is about as blatantly biased as they come.
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:27:52 am
I hear an awful lot of whining coming from the conservatives on this board. Hmmm.
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:31:29 am
Helen Thomas, Cindy Sheehan, we’ve got two out of 4 or 5 of a brand new A-team like world superhero organization. No way they get the “A-team” name, ’tis mine. They can be the B-team. I don’t know if we can get Helen off the “Grendel” movie in the works, though.
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:32:44 am
A&A and others of his ilk display exactly why there are no answers wothwhile at these press conferences. There is no possible way that President Bush could act or speak which would satisfy them. If he says something they don’t agree with, he’s lying. If he admits to making a mistake, they pounce. If he does something, he villified for doing it. If he doesn’t do something, he should have.
They are so blinded by their high minded arrogance that they can’t look past their own noses. THEY have all the answers. THEY know what’s really going on (nudge nudge)
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:36:23 am
I guess Harry Belafonte would make a great charasmatic male lead to the team. Castro could be like “Charlie” from Charlie’s Angels. I would round out the team with George Clooney for his politics, but he is way too attractive to fit with the B-team lot we have going here. I’m talking Highlight’s magazine - which one of these does not belong.
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:38:53 am
I actually love this psychology of politics. I think it would be fun to conduct a comparative study in the great American Redlands. Think about it, though: Bush whines. His father whined. Conservatives in NH are currently whining over the passage of a statewide smoking ban in restaurants. Liberals stand up for themselves at least. Curious!
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:41:25 am
Texican never ever pretends HE has the answers…
*Exscuse me whilst I puke*
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:55:41 am
Helen Thomas looks like the crazy old aunt in “Christmas Vacation.”
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:31:57 pm
Typical GOP behavior, insult the woman and completely ignore the questions she is asking, which are absolutely valid questions that SHOULD have been asked a long time ago.
Then again what do you expect from a group who is outraged that Democrats would suggest censuring let alone impeaching President Bush for violating the Constitution yet had no problem impeaching President Clinton for an affair.
Apparently you now spell hypocrisy with three letters. G O P
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:03:55 pm
Typical GOP behavior, David? Typical male behavior, I think… :-)
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:26:45 pm
I still see a lot of whining from the conservatives on this board. That study was right.
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:30:20 pm
Did I miss something? Did I sign my post, “Buford, Member Of The GOP?”
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:34:20 pm
David,
You’re leaving out that Clinton was also censured.
And for the Republicans: Okay, let me get this straight….Clinton was censured because he lied in a civil case about a matter– receiving a blowjob–a matter not directly related to the issue being sued over, and he gets censured. But if Bush decides to simply ignore FISA, a law that EXPLICITS states it governs all surveillance by the government that takes place within the United States, well that isn’t worthy of censure.
Again, *exscuse me whilst I puke*
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:40:25 pm
“A new study shows that whiny, insecure kids grow up to be conservatives while confident, self-reliant kids group up to be liberals…” - Angrier and Angrier (cite)
“Typical GOP behavior, insult the woman and completely ignore the questions she is asking” - D.K.
what makes this type of profiling sit better with your HUGE righteous moral standards? just curious. you believe you have the way… where’s the enlightened path? i see nothing worthwhile in petty tests with preconcieved conclusions. my thought was always: to push others with propaganda and flawed reasoning is to create a good push back.
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:59:14 pm
Its worse than that Nun Mouse, although Clinton lied under oath, something he should never have done, it was only after a prolonged witch hunt that cost millions of dollars and uncovered NOTHING that they got him on a minor technicality.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:02:06 pm
um, so? which hunt granted, but al capone was also caught on a minor technicality, and thus i render your point moot.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:15:35 pm
Hmm sorry super-id but thats a completely invalid logical argument. Basically what you are saying is the following:
Action of type A resulted in a positive outcome in one instance, therefore all actions of type A are valid.
By your logic it would be justified, for example, for me to read anyones mail so long as I found one instance where reading a random persons mail (illegally) caused me to prevent them from commiting a crime.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:16:30 pm
I’m not so sure lying under oath is a “minor technicality”. In some places it is also known as perjury. The case can be made that maybe the question shouldn’t have been asked, but it was, and President Clinton lied about it under oath.
I don’t think I have all the answers. I used to, back when I was younger and much more liberal. Now that I’ve grown up, I realize that nobody has all the answers, and its foolish to pretend that you do.
My main point was that ANY answer the President can give to the Helen Thomases of the world will be wrong. There is nothing he can say that will appease the like of A&A, Nun, etal.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:30:48 pm
illogical super-id? geez. here and i thought i was returning an illogical serve with an illogical return. my mistake.
“…a prolonged witch hunt that cost millions of dollars and uncovered NOTHING that they got him on a minor technicality…”
i guess those millions of dollars uncovered a minor technicality then, didn’t they dave? smarten up with smart food. i’ll skip the “perjury/technicality” thing, the texan got it.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:49:58 pm
“Think about it, though: Bush whines. His father whined. Conservatives in NH are currently whining over the passage of a statewide smoking ban in restaurants. Liberals stand up for themselves at least. Curious!”
I don’t think you’ve ever been to Maryland. Here, EVERYONE whines! GOP, Dems, doesn’t matter. There’s always something wrong, and there’s always someone to whine about it.
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:04:10 pm
i think this blog pretty much proves B. Minich’s point. DAMN you B. Minich, we’ve played right into your hands! This whole time you were planning our demise with facts and common-sense whilst we fought amoungst ourselves! but there will be a round two B. Minich, there will be a round two…
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:08:48 pm
resisting an impending ban in NH on the basis of personal views and freedom of opinion is not so much whining as excercising a valid argument to the contrary. and if that’s whining, you might as well pick a dictator now and get it over with.
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:37:06 pm
I hear Hollywood will now make a major film based on Helen Thomas’s life starring Susan Sarandon….
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:38:51 pm
nice try super-id but you completely ignored the part where your argument made absolutely no sense whatsoever, and no the investigation didn’t uncover a technicality, the perjury happened AFTER the investigation. Thats two strikes. And if you can’t see the utter insanity and hypocrisy abundant in feeling that Clintons crime (lying about an affair) merits impeachment but Bush’s crime (violating the constitution and a number of federal laws) doesn’t then thats strike three and you are out as nothing more than a blind right wing zealot
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:39:19 pm
Clinton blew his wad on some fat chick and was too embarrassed to tell anyone about it. If that’s a crime, you need to arrest most Frat Brothers in this country.
Ignoring FISA, illegally invading another country, lying about the breaching of levees, now THOSE are impeachable offenses.
March 22nd, 2006 at 4:14:17 pm
If Alasdair* posted a link to a survey done in the heart of the Midwest that said that pre-schoolers who were “selfish” let’s say, grew up to be sex-crazed, drug-addicted liberals, and 3 or 4 year olds who said please and thank you grew up to be God-fearing, moral conservatives, my comment would have been exactly the same.
I think we all know that studies can easily be manipulated to get the desired results. The whole study just seems more than a little suspect to me.
* or any other conservative blogger
March 22nd, 2006 at 4:20:43 pm
Diane-
Sounds like some more whining to me.
March 22nd, 2006 at 4:37:40 pm
Clinton blew his wad on some fat chick and was too embarrassed to tell anyone about it. If that’s a crime, you need to arrest most Frat Brothers in this country.
Um, OK, no. Without expressing an opinion about whether Clinton’s crime was a HIGH crime (and thus impeachable), I nevertheless can’t let this sort of blatant distortion go unanswered. Clinton’s crime was perjury. More specifically, he committed perjury when, in a lawful sexual harassment proceeding in a legitimate court of law, he was asked questions about prior sexual conduct in an attempt by the plaintiff to establish a pattern of behavior for the purpose of the case at bar — the same sort of questions that any private citizen could and would be asked if they were being sued in a similar proceeding. Now, it is true that the sexual harassment case was eventually thrown out; the judge ruled that, if Paula Jones’s allegations were true, they constituted “boorish and offensive” behavior, but not, under Arkansas state law, sexual harassment. However, Clinton lied under oath before that ruling was made, and since individual citizens are not entitled to ignore the judicial process on the basis of their own personal opinions or predictions about how a case is going to turn out, it’s bogus to claim, as some do, that it was OK for Clinton to lie under oath since the case was eventually dismissed.
The other common justification for Clinton’s perjury is that the whole case was a “partisan witch hunt,” pursued by Paula Jones but funded by rich Republicans and conservatives. But that’s not a valid justification either, because again, you are substituting an individual person’s judgment for the judicial process. By that logic, if you’re in a divorce case and you believe your wife is on a “witch hunt” to get embarrassing information about you into open court, it’s OK for you to lie under oath because you think she’s in the wrong. But that’s obviously crazy — giving individual citizens the right to essentially nullify legitimate judicial orders and proceedings because of personal beliefs about the underlying motives of their courtroom opponents would undermine our whole judical process. If Clinton felt that the questions about Monica in the Paula Jones case were out-of-bounds, he should have had his lawyers object to them as irrelevant. Perhaps he did, in which case the judge obviously ruled against him, so he was legally obligated to answer. If he felt so strongly that that obligation was sufficiently onerous as to be morally unjustifiable, he should have refused on principle to answer, and faced the consequences. That would have been a fun legal battle — an Arkansas judge trying to hold the President of the United States in contempt of court! Then at least we could say that Clinton’s crime (contempt of court) was a form of civil disobedience (albeit a rather self-serving one), a la Judy Miller. But simply lying under oath is not justifiable in any way, shape, or form. Clinton committed perjury. Period.
Now, was his crime a “high crime or misdemeanor”? That’s an entirely separate question, about which I think reasonable people can disagree. Reasonable people cannot, however, dispute the fact that Clinton committed a crime. Nor is it remotely reasonable to suggest that all he did was “blew his wad on some fat chick and was too embarrassed to tell anyone about it.” Rephrase it as, “he blew his wad on some fat chick, and then lied under oath about it despite being legally obligated to tell the truth about it during legitimate judicial proceeding,” and now you’ve got something.
March 22nd, 2006 at 4:54:49 pm
Brendan-
It was a joke. Frankly, if the standard used on Clinton were to hold true today, why isn’t Karl Rove on trial over the Plame case?
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:05:36 pm
It was a joke.
Fair enough. But that line of “logic” (that Clinton “just lied about sex”) is seriously used all the time by his defenders.
As for Rove, I don’t think it’s been definitively proven that he lied under oath; if it had, I’m fairly certain Pat Fitzgerald would have indicted him. Whereas there isn’t much doubt that Clinton did, in fact, lie under oath. Leaving aside the “meaning of is” and the various definitions of sex, I vividly remember being flabbergasted that in one portion of Clinton’s original testimony, he stated that he couldn’t recall whether he had met Miss Lewinsky. Uh, sorry, but whatever your definition of “is” or “sex” might be, that’s clearly a lie.
But I’m not here to defend Karl Rove (on the contrary; see this post), nor to argue that the Republicans were right to impeach Clinton. My point is a very limited one: to claim that Clinton was impeached merely for “lying about sex,” as opposed to perjury, is total nonsense. And to argue that people should be given carte blanche to lie under oath in a legitimate legal proceeding simply because they think a question is irrelevant or they don’t agree with the motives of the plaintiff, is downright irresponsible.
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:10:43 pm
“nice try super-id but you completely ignored the part where your argument made absolutely no sense whatsoever”
no i didn’t. it was the foundation of my argument. i am actually insane. for the record though, clinton’s crime did apparently merit impeachment. he was impeached. and um bush violated the constitution? i hope he had the decency of sending that document some flowers the next day. it’s funny though bill o’reilly never mentioned anything about a violation of the constitution… and he makes less stuff up than you do.
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:15:07 pm
“nice try super-id but you completely ignored the part where your argument made absolutely no sense whatsoever�
no i didn’t. it was the foundation of my argument. i am actually insane.
LOL!
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:17:40 pm
A&A - perhaps you could try looking at it this way …
If your President “blew his wad on some fat chick “ and was sufficiently crass not to have said dress dry-cleaned at the very least (as the act of a gentleman), does he deserve to be President ?
If your President “blew his wad on some fat chick “ and was sufficiently dumb not to have said dress dry-cleaned at the very least (so as to ensure that no hard (sticky(?)) evidence remained), does he deserve to be President ?
If your President “blew his wad on some fat chick “ and was sufficiently arrogant not to simply ‘take the 5th’ when asked about it, does he deserve to be President ?
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:19:52 pm
Joe Mama - isn’t it interesting that conservatives read liberals’ typings and pick holes in the logic (as we do with our own offered discussion points) whereas liberals seem to read conservatives’ typings and hear only whining … the experts do say that, when we read (even when our lips aren’t moving), we are ‘hearing’ what we are reading with our own voice, do they not ?
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:20:28 pm
why I love this blog
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:32:21 pm
You liberals are stupid!
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:32:38 pm
No, you are!
March 22nd, 2006 at 6:53:27 pm
ever notice how brendan lets us rip each other apart with silly arguments then like a good dad, swings in with actual facts and logic and puts us all quietly to bed? that’s why i love this blog.
oh, thanks for the giggle b, it’s like a nod from the master.
March 22nd, 2006 at 6:57:38 pm
Ha! That’s funny. :) I don’t think I do that too often… quite often, I just let the political threads go and wash my hands of them… too much vitriol, not enough time in the day to read it all. heh. But I’m glad you think that my comments are factual and logical. :) I think that’s usually true… but not always. The only person around here whose posts are ALWAYS based on solid facts and logic is our resident biologist and my personal choice for the next Stanford Tree, Mike. :)
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:39:25 pm
Heh. I’m far too inhibited to be the Tree. There’s no way I’d make it through Tree week, which typically requires large amounts of highly public naked antics. Obviously, that’s an important skill for someone who dresses in a gigantic costume reminiscent of a deranged mutant squid…
Oddly enough, I was debating about weighing in on the misrepresentations on this thread–I generally get annoyed at the broad brush strokes inherent in comments like “Joe Mama - isn’t it interesting that conservatives read liberals’ typings and pick holes in the logic (as we do with our own offered discussion points) whereas liberals seem to read conservatives’ typings and hear only whining” *1 and “Apparently you now spell hypocrisy with three letters. G O P” *2 –but Brendan’s done a good job on being calm and reasonable, so I don’t need to deal with such issues as the whole lying about sex thing.
Attack statements, policies, and whatnot all you want, and feel free to point out the foible of individuals from either side, but it’s my view that while they may on individual issues, on the whole neither the D nor R parties have all that much claim to a moral high ground compared to the other. If you can stop villifying the other side long enough to try to find the point in what they’re saying–easier when certain people are talking than when others are–you may have a chance of actually moving forward on an issue.
1 If he’s taking a very few people to be representative of the whole, then Alasdair may have a leg to stand on here. Of the identifiably partisan commenters here, Andrew is the most likely to pick apart an argument piece by piece, and he’s conservative. A Nun Mouse and dcl are much more likely to try to respond holistically, and decry a general pattern in their opponents, and these two are liberal. Yet even there it breaks down, as the most likely on the blog to pick an argument apart piece by piece are me and Brendan. I’m more libertarian than I am anything else, and Brendan self-identifies as a Democrat who gets really ticked at the far liberal end of the party. And Alasdair himself, clearly a conservative, has a somewhat irksome tendency to brush all criticisms of the administration aside as people looking to blame the “Eeeevil Boooosh” (or however he spells it this time) for anything, up to and including why their coffee isn’t the right temperature.
2 David does have a valid point that many politicans in the Republican party are hypocrites. My beef with the statement as made is that I see the problem being that many politicians are hypocrites regardless of their affiliation, and I don’t like phrasing which I infer as implying (how’s that for getting around that word issue, Brendan?) that it’s a problem specific to Republicans.
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:14:44 pm
David,
Yes, it was a complete minor technicality.
To put it into context, technically it WAS perjury, i.e. lying about whether or not he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinski.
But people routinely lie in civil cases, depositions, etc., and prosecutors look the other way. The only time a prosecutor will go after someone for lying in a civil case is if the lie is directly related to the matter being litigated.
For example, if Bill Clinton had lied about what he had done to or with Paula Jones, the woman involved in the original civil case, and there was evidence to back it up, THEN a case could be made for prosecuting Clinton because it was a lie about a matter directly related to the civil case.
Prosecutors in this country regularly decline to prosecute lies in civil cases when people lie about collateral matters.
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:21:57 pm
A Nun Mouse,
I must say, your argument is more reasonable than most “lying about sex” defenses I’ve heard. At least you admit it was perjury. However, the fact that most prosecutors wouldn’t press charges doesn’t mean it’s a “complete minor technicality.” Perjury is never a “complete minor technicality” — that prosecutors regularly decline to prosecute certain types of perjury has more to do with the fact that prosecutors don’t have unlimited resources than it does with the inherent level of criminality involved. Or at least, that’s an equally logical conclusion to draw. If you want to convince me to instead draw your conclusion (that tangential perjury is a “complete minor technicality”), you’ll need more of an argument to suggest why this is so, than mere prosecutorial inaction.
March 22nd, 2006 at 9:47:46 pm
Someone please explain to me why liberals had no problem with President Clinton’s repeated pattern of preying on women under his authority? If he was a manager at a corporation sleeping with his interns or anyone else under his level, a good liberal would be screaming “Sexual harassment! Abuse of power and authority!” But if the victim is Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, or any number of other women who have come forward and gone on the record saying that Clinton had affairs with them and/or used them for sex and then “disposed” of them in some way or manner, suddenly liberals grow quiet. At least Sen. Joe Lieberman had the gumption to be honest about his disgust with the president’s behavior. I wish other Dems could have been half as honest.
Also, I wasn’t particularly whiny as a kid, and the whole self-confidence thing is a sliding scale, depending on what age/grade and point in puberty you’re talking about (true for us all, no?). But I thought that previous “studies” by academic scholars had already shown us conservatives to be dumber than liberals. So what’s the news here? We’re dumb and whiny?
March 22nd, 2006 at 9:56:43 pm
My point is not whether Clinton’s crime of perjury was worthy of impeachment or not, my point is that if it was how is it possible other than rampant hypocrisy that Bush’s possible crime of VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION is not worthy of being investigated?
And yes Mike I realize that there are hypocrites of all stripes and colors, I just happen to think based on what I have seen that it is far more rampant, systematic, and in fact normal for it to occur in the GOP than in any other party.
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:10:42 pm
Back in the ’90s, I was most definitely a “liberal” in terms of my general political views, yet I absolutely had a problem with Clinton’s behavior. I was on the fence regarding impeachment, but as a personal matter, I felt that he was the sort of guy who, if he lived in my dorm or was a friend-of-a-friend or whatever, I would have considered him a jerk because of the shitty way he treated women. The Starr Report made clear that Clinton was not only getting blowjobs from Monica (who was only a few years older than his daughter, let’s remember), but was telling her all the things that asshole men tell gullible women who they’re having affairs with (he loved her, he was eventually going to leave Hillary for her, etc.). In light of those later revelations, I’ve never forgiven him for the obvious disdain in his voice when he said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” followed by the leaks (er, no pun intended) that came from “his people” in the days that followed, implying that Monica was some sort of crazy slut who shouldn’t be believed. In terms of total asshole male behavior, you couldn’t script it much better. Granted, Monica was a consenting adult… it’s not like he raped her or something… so she bears the burden of her own stupidity. But he — as a person in a position of power, a man, and a human being — still treated her in a way that is completely reprehensible.
And yeah, it was galling to me that so many supposed liberals and feminists were so willing to dismiss out-of-hand the boorishness, offensiveness and arguably borderline predatoriness of his behavior simply because the ones calling him out on it (for their own self-interested reasons, of course) were Republicans. It’s unbelieveable to me that so many on the Left seemed to buy into what could basically be translated as a “she was asking for it” theory… i.e., Monica was stupid to believe Clinton’s bullshit, so therefore he did nothing wrong. Huh?! Men are supposed to treat women with respect and dignity — ALL women — not just the ones who have enough smarts and self-esteem to demand it. It’s classic “all men are pigs” behavior to lie to those women who are gullible enough to believe the lies and do sexual favors for you on the basis of those lies. Lots and lots of guys do it (and yeah, girls take advantage of guys in various ways too), but there’s nothing remotely respectable or moral about that sort of behavior.
Mind you, I am NOT arguing that Clinton should have been impeached for any of the above. Treating women like shit in consensual adult sexual relationships is not a high crime or misdemeanor. But it certainly is worthy of being harshly criticized, especially if you’re a liberal feminist! The hypocrisy of it all was mind-blowing (again, no pun intended). One might even argue that my disillusionment with the Left began with the Clinton impeachment controversy, though it didn’t really hit its stride until 9/11.
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:20:41 pm
P.S. Also, one could DEFINITELY argue that Lieberman’s speech blasting Clinton was the precise moment when I began to seriously admire Lieberman. And one would be right. :)
March 23rd, 2006 at 6:33:22 pm
David @ 9:56 - so if he’s guilty, PROVE it ! Telling us how strongly you feel he is eeeevil (sorry, Mike, I don’t know a better way to convey the sheer emotion and glee that the BDS-enjoyers put into their enunciation of ‘The Eeeevil Boooosh’ ™) - well, simpling telling us how you feel may feel good to you, but it ain’t convincing to us rationalists …
You haven’t managed to convince Brendan, as far as I can tell, of the impeachability of the President … I haven’t seen the LAT/NYT/WaPo printing stories containing chapter and verse of the laws putatively broken by the President … I haven’t seen the Democrats willing to put their reputations on the line by sponsoring a Bill of whatever in Congress … well, one sorta did, until the Majority leader said substantially “Fine, let’s get right on it !”, at which time the proud Democrat almost had a coronary and promptly demanded NOT to have it debated …
If the President has violated the Constitution, how come Justice Ginsburg isn’t telling all of us all about it ? How come the ACLU isn’t all over him with detailed indictments ?
Should President Clinton have been impeached for his poor taste in humidors ? Nope !
Should he have been impeached for perjury - not so sure on that … but he ceratinly should not have been given the free pass he was by the rabid feminists and the anti-discrimination liberals … had they come out and pursued a Vote of Censure rather than proudly proclaiming his innocence, no impeachment proceedings would have been needed …
At the risk of enjoying the moment - for such a fine and skilled orator, President Clinton expressed a very poor mouthful (apparently more than once, and not always with the best of aims) with respect to his intern …
(Joe - I double-dog-dare you to follow *that* ! (grin))
March 23rd, 2006 at 7:57:28 pm
David @ 9:56 - so if he’s guilty, PROVE it
Well dumbass, how can you prove he is guilty without a trial (which is what an impeachment is) or even an investigation? How come Justice Ginsburg isn’t telling us about it? What are you even talking about, thats NOT her role. And the ACLU IS attacking him over this, but it doesn’t have the resources to get the evidence FROM THE GOVERNMENT because Bush is in charge of it! Thats why Congress needs to be the one to investigate this, but as long as the corrupt GOP has control of Congress that will never happen because they don’t care about the Constitution, they only care about being in power.
March 23rd, 2006 at 8:31:38 pm
Darn !
No wonder I couldn’t get any tinfoil for my leftovers at lunch ! It’s all being used for hats for the D-list folk !
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:23:37 pm
Whatever Alasdair, Bush is the one spying on American citizens illegally and ignoring reality in Iraq. The crazy one here is you who think the man can do no wrong despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.
March 24th, 2006 at 12:18:17 pm
David - if there are “mountains of evidence”, how come he’s still in office ?
March 24th, 2006 at 2:33:36 pm
Well dumbass, for a few reasons, first is the corruption of the GOP in congress, second, not everything that he has done wrong is an impeachable offense anyway, third because he was able to frighten enough people into reelecting him.
If your only standard of a President having done no wrong is staying in office i’d love to hear you revoke any and all criticism you had of President Clinton.
What amazes me is that you STILL won’t admit that Bush has ever made a mistake. You actually do believe the man is perfect. A frightening glimpse into the mind of the GOP zealot.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:02:30 pm
Ummm … when Dubya said “Elect me, or you get to deal with ‘President Kerry’”, while that may have been frightening to many, I doubt if that’s how or why he got re-elected !
ROTFLMFO !
March 24th, 2006 at 11:38:29 pm
No, he convinced enough people to be afraid of alll those terrorists out there and that we would be suddenly attacked if the Dems won. Of course he also played the family values card, which coming from a neo-con is utter crap.