Well...it didn't involve the lives of troops.

Not saying his lying was right...but there are degrees of severity here.

Degrees of severity, huh? If there was any proof that Bush lied to us I would agree with you. Clinton did lie, and everyone knows it. If at some point in the future it comes out that the administration knowingly lied to us, I will be the first to call for their heads. Until then, I won't. That is the difference between the two situations really. One of them we know to be true, and the other is based on conjecture and hatred.

The defense that he should not have been asked the question to begin with is crap. He was asked and he did lie. Period. Do not assume that everyone would have lied like he did. Not everyone is morally bankrupt. I was not one of the people calling for him to be impeached. I thought the sensure(sp?) was appropriate.

The beginning of this thread illustrates the problems we as Americans are now facing. The Dems have no problem lying, or flat making shit up. They are never called on it by the media, and they get away with it. The crap Kennedy spewed a couple of weeks ago, was disgusting to me. He made bogus noncivil claims with no basis in reality. I just wish the administration would start taking up for itself and expose this kind of garbage for what it is.

When are you ass-backward conservative cretins ever going to let this go? I swear half of O'Reilly's whinning is about the Clintons (he'd be a nobody if it wasn't for them). Bill lied about getting a BLOW JOB, something he wouldn't have had to do if the illegally attained evidence from Tripp was not admissible. You act as if Clinton had bugged a republican convention center or something...oh wait, that was Nixon wasn't it. OK then, it wasn't like Clinton traded arms to Iran for hostages...err, that was Reagan. Dam it...give me minute and I'll think of something...

:rolleyes:

The offense is not the point. He did something that would land me or you in jail. You can be disengenuous about it all day long. The fact still remains that he lied under oath. I am not a Republican anyway so that little desperate shot doesn't really mean much to me.

This whole argument is apples and oranges anyway. Clinton lied and we know this, and we don't know if Bush did or not. Pretty simple, huh?

What part of "illegally obtained evidence" do you not understand? That illegal recording from Tripp shouldn't have ever seen the light of day.

Quote:

This whole argument is apples and oranges anyway. Clinton lied and we know this, and we don't know if Bush did or not. Pretty simple, huh?

We don't know if Bush lied YET, we'll just have to wait for the outcome of impeachment hearings. Revenge is a bitch isn't it.

Hahahaha! So two wrongs make a right in your mind, eh? How typical. Good luck getting the Republican majority legislature to impeach their President. In case you didn't know, evidence is usually required to get those things going. Revenge is a bitch. Bwahahahahahah!

Even illegally obtained evidence, huh? I know it would be a long shot for impeachment hearings, but one can dream, can't they?

That legality of the evidence doesn't matter much. Had Clinton not lied about it the evidence would never have been collected. Got a link that talks about the illegal evidence?

At any rate, there has to be evidence to begin with, and right now there is none showing that Bush lied about anything.

Do I really need to post a link about Tripp's illegally obtained recording of Monica describing her "Fling" with Bill? I would have assumed it to be common knowledge by now. For the record, I never said Bush lied about anything, nor am I a big Clinton fan. I'm a registered Independant and I hate both the republican and Democratic parties, I just hate republicans a little more.

I don't hate hardly anyone. People like Saddam and Osama are exceptions. I may disagree with someone and think they are dumb, but I am not going to make the emotional investment of hating them. I had not heard of this illegal evidence before personally.

You are joking, aren't you? Maryland law prohibits the recording of conversations without the knowledge of the other party (regardless of where the other party is - in state or not). This evidence was gained BEFORE Clinton lied to Starr and the camera. Tripp never told Lewinski she was taping the phone calls. The evidence should have been thrown out. There was a push to file charges against Tripp, but the feds intervened and no charges were brought.

They should have went after Tripp. What she did was totally illegal. I think Newt was the mastermind behind all of it. I like Newt, but he was evil.

I remember now. That whole thing was bullshit. Had he told the truth I bet Gore would be President now.

Look, Tripp obtained the evidence illegally under the watchful gaze of not only Ken Starr, but also of Michael Isikoff from Newsweek, a supposedly "liberal" publication. The blow job had NOTHING to do with Whitewater, which is what Starr was SUPPOSED to be investigating. If this was a case in court, Starr would never have been able to ask the question because it had nothing to do with the case at hand. Clinton wasn't on trial for his private life, but you conservatives continue to say "Oh, he lied under oath." So what? In a court of law, the question would have never been asked.

Well, we're pretty sure he did. No less than eight people have come forward and said they told him that the evidence was weak. But he went ahead and told us we were in danger. So we go to war, and our soldiers are dying because of faked and untrue evidence that he KNEW was untrue.

Not only that, but he sold out the British and blamed them for the bad evidence, and the BRITISH ARE OUR BEST FRIENDS IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW. The man would probably sell his daughters into slavery if it meant it would save his skin.

He's dirty, evil, and will lose the election in 2004. Face it, Cons. Your emperor has no clothes.

The thing is, he lied and his popularity actually rose a bit (sadly...it really shouldn't have). If he had told the truth, the impeachment hearings never would have happened.

Exactly.

So what? You are as morally bankrupt as he is. Whether the question should have been asked or not isn't the issue. He hung himself by lying.

No less than eight? Yeah OK. :rolleyes: Your argument is crumbling already because it is based on conjecture and supposed facts with no evidence to support these 'facts'. Were is your proof that he KNEW anything. You are one of those BUSH KNEW about 9/11 morons aren't you? What fake evidence? Are you talking about the Nigeria uranium claim? If so, you are as disengenuous as the rest of your ilk.

What the hell are you talking about? You truly are clueless. In the SOTU address Bush said "According to British Intelligence". They still stand by the intelligence and claim they got it from a third party, most likely France, who doesn't want us to have the evidence. How is that selling anyone out? The twins into slavery comment was cute.

Yeah, OK. He is going to win in '04 easily. Who is going to beat him? Your commie hero Dean couldn't win a general election against Mojo Jojo. Clarke is already being exposed as a typical bandwagoning panderor. Kerry is a liar. Lieberman is probably the best chance the Dems have. I would vote for him. Unfortunately extreme leftists such as yourself are killing the Democratic party for years to come.

Sooo, you admit it. You like evil!

Ok, now you pissed me off. Your ignorance is astounding.

He wouldn't have lied had Starr never asked the question, which he never should have been allowed to do because IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INVESTIGATION!!!

You want proof? Ok...

Missing Weapons of Mass Destruction

British Fall For Cherry Picked Evidence

When a Minnesota FBI operative on the Bin Laden task force writes a memo that says "Hey! They're going to fly planes into targets here in the US" and it's ignored...well, what would you call that?

The only one still holding onto this claim is Dick Cheney, and he's insane. Even Rumsfeld says there's no link between 9/11 and Iraq.

That's because he knew WALKING INTO THE CHAMBER that the evidence was wrong. They had TOLD HIM THREE DRAFTS EARLIER that the evidence was bad. Yet he still said it, and said that the British gave us the evidence. That's because he KNEW it was bad, and was giving him a way out. Does that explain it well enough for you, Cletus?

Extreme conservatives such as yourself drove me from the Republican party. Either that or I became educated when I turned fifteen.

Wil, give it up with the WMD and terrorism. Your hero Bill let the terrorists get away with what they did. They bankrolled his push for the whitehouse and he let them live freely.

Just you Bucky. Just you.

That last photo is just plain gross.

I accept your nomination, and look forward to a good, healthy, down and dirty debate with this rapscallion.

I am wetting my pants Nancy.

It is still a lie.

Libbie op-ed pieces aren't proof idiot. Groups that are supposedly made up of ex-CIA operatives saying the claims were bogus aren't either. Most of the intelligence was the same that Clinton used to bomb Iraq in '98.

I would call that you being an idiot for buying into the conspiracy. BUSH KNEW! :rolleyes:

What the hell are you babbling about here exactly? I never said anything about a link between the two. Try reading what Cheney said about the link instead of ASSuming things. He specifically said that we don't know if Saddam was involved. The administration never said we were to begin with.

More disengenuous libbie tripe. He never said the British gave us the intelligence. He said it was according to them. I took it to mean that our agency had no reliable evidence for it. Keep on clinging to this though. It is all you have, and I understand. The Brits still claim it was good intelligence. Their intelligence about it had nothing to do with the forged documents the CIA had. The fact that Saddam had bought uranium before from them is always conveniently left out when you extremist libbies bring this up.

Ah, yes. Pure extreme leftist gold here. I am not a republican. I lean more towards a libertarian point of view actually. I also believe in many ideals that you probably agree with.

The second part is pretty funny. Oh, if we all could be as 'enlightened' and 'progressive' as you. You extreme leftists just think you have it all figured out don't you.