The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Lets just clear a few things up.

Clinton lied under Oath.

"Let's just hope that if they indict [Scooter Libby or Turd Blossom] it won't be for some technicality like lying under oath or obstruction of justice."

-- Kay Bailey Hutchison (R., Tex.)

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Bush's numbers right now are slightly under where Reagan bottomed out second term. Ask most Americans who was the greatest President of their lifetimes.

Our side isn't bugged by the numbers, we're just explaining them.

This has all the intellectual heft of a Ken Mehlman RNC talking point. RR's lowest numbers weren't in his second term - they were in his first term, after the first midterm election. In his second term,W's numbers are still doing the limbo dance, and there's no indication they will be stopping anytime soon. But that's a moot point anyway - you might as well say that Clinton's lowest numbers were similar to RR's, and ask most Americans who was the greatest President of their lifetimes. It makes no sense at all to conflate W's and RR's numbers because there's no reason why RR's numbers could predict what Bush's will be like.

Hank, do you get your talking points via email, or do you prefer the old-fashioned excitement of a facsimile?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Polls are only relevent at election time.

Why are they relevant then? There'll be a vote.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I'm not a Clinton apologist, but I'll tell you what I think. Clinton lied under oath. Absolutely. People brush it off b/c the substance of his lie was trivial - is that right or wrong? It's very wrong that he lied under oath. However, people didn't really care, since no one got hurt - I think that's how most non-politicians saw it.

However, Bush misled the country into believing that 9/11 = Saddam and that Saddam was an imminent threat to the USA, which he used to support his war in Iraq. People got hurt. MANY people. Iraqis, American soldiers, etc. There is plenty of evidence that demonstrates that this administration intentionally attempted to make a connection b/w Saddam and 9/11, which absolutely disgusts me. It's abhorrent. Exploiting 9/11 to build a case for war is beyond repugnant. It's a slap in the face to this entire country. Is misleading a country into an unnecessary war worse than lying under oath? In my opinion, yes. Every day of the week.

2. And here are 55 specific instances of W lying about Iraq. There are much more if you care to include the entire administration for which, presumably, he is responsible.

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/Ir...George+W.+Bush

For more recent W lies, how about the "America does not torture" whopper. I offer evidence to the contrary here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...abuse-pics.htm

Clinton lied under oath. That is wrong. But the only reason we heard about it is because he was President. Had he been a private citizen, it wouldn't have even made the local news. What's more, he lied in a deposition for a lawsuit brought by a woman who had been manipulated by Clinton's political enemies. The underlying purpose of the lawsuit was not to vindicate the rights of Paula Jones, but to embarrass a sitting president. People regard it as a lie about a private affair made public. It's titillating, but the direct consequences of the lie had little effect beyond the parties involved. If you cannot see a qualitative difference, you're willfully blind or an idiot.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
However, people didn't really care, since no one got hurt - I think that's how most non-politicians saw it.

Huh? Sexual harassment turned out to be no big deal? Can you still bring these suits?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
There's a Monica joke in there, (get it? "poles"?) but I'll leave it alone, and simply go to my point that those polls mostly just prove that most of the media has willingly and competently sold the American public the Kennedy/Dean "Bush lied!!" horseshit.

Your point on polls is of course correct, after all -- if we had a well-educated and informed electorate (or if Clinton had kept his dick in his pants), we'd be in the second term of the Gore administration.

Still, you do sound a lot like those from the other side railing against the media and polls and propogating the "Bush's big lie" theory back when GWB was riding high. Are you completely right now, while they were completely wrong then?

The success of the "Kennedy/Dean" line and tactic pales in comparison to the strength and success of the Bush Administrations' media efforts until a lot of things started going wrong (or at least, not as people expected). The tactics are close to identical. That's life.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Bill? He said all of the same, including signing the "take out sadaam law" in the late 90s. Since he never signed a "take out bin Laden" law, we can only assume he saw SH as a greater threat than OBL.

Yeah, like she listens to Bill.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Bill? He said all of the same, including signing the "take out sadaam law" in the late 90s. Since he never signed a "take out bin Laden" law, we can only assume he saw SH as a greater threat than OBL.

Good thinking, Hank.

Didn't he sign an EO authorizing the termination of bin Laden extreme prejudice? You don't put that kind of stuff before the Congress.

P.S. You know, I used to think that I was a brave and patriotic American before Vice-President Cheney set me straight.

S_A_M

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
The Democrat spin meisters have done a very good job of turning black into white. You have to appreciate their skill.

What is annoying, is when the liberals on this board buy the spin. And it gets even more annoying when they expect us to also be duped by the spin.

Lets just clear a few things up.

Clinton lied under Oath.

The Democrat spin meisters have repeated over and over again that the Republicans were upset about Clinton's lies because THEY WERE ABOUT SEX. That is a fabrication. The Republicans were upset because CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH. And he lied about stuff that was directly relevent to the case.

It was the ulimate straw man argument, because the spinmeisters keep saying that it is ridiculous for the Republicans to get upset about Clinton lying about sex. However, it is the classic misdirect becasue the Republicans never cared that he lied about sex. They cared that he lied under oath. You can tell they are being disengenous because when they talk about it they never say "lied under oath about sex". The Democrats will never say it is ridiculous that someone cares that he "lied under oath". They never say it because they know lying under oath is a serious problem. I saw Kerry on TV last night say that all Clinton did was lie about sex. Again: he would never say "lied under oath". Until people on this board start saying he "lied under oath" you know they are full of it when they talk about this issue.

Bush lied

Now when it comes to Weapons of mass destruction, the spin meisters keep repeating Bush lied. They have twisted the idea that Bush misjudged the intelligemnce to Bush lied. They have repeated it so much people believe it. But Bush did not lie. Everyone thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Bush may have made a bad judgement, but there is absolutely no evidence that he lied. But because the spin meisters keep repeating it people have accepted it as true.

Can anyone show me any evidence that the what is say below is not true:

1) Clinton lied UNDER OATH in a federal court proceeding about facts that were directly relevent to the case.

2) There is no evidence that Bush lied when he said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

3) If Bush had lied, it was not under oath, and every president in the twentieth century has lied to the American people. Especially when it comes to national security.

Oh, come now. The Republicans were upset with Clinton's lies because they were Clinton's, and the Democrats are upset with Bush's because they are Bush's. For the most part, the attacks are purely partisan.

I note, however, that many Presidents have gotten in trouble for misleading the American people. Nixon and Cambodia is one well documented example, but there are many others.

Clinton's sex scandal effectively hamstringed his second term. Without it, there is a very good chance the Republicans would have never been able to win the 2000 election. There is more reason for the Democrats to be upset with Clinton than the Republicans, but, of course, the Republicans are still enjoying beating the dead horse.

But on both scores, who really cares? Perhaps the only thing sillier than making a big deal out of what Bush said to the American people four years ago is getting upset about what Clinton said to a court ten years ago - and I usually ancient history.

[Captain]

By the way, I'm still really upset about that Cleveland guy. Can you believe he fathered a child out of wedlock?

Or, as one of my party's attack dogs said, "Ma, Ma, Where's Pa? Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha!"

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Captain
Or, as one of my party's attack dogs said, "Ma, Ma, Where's Pa? Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha!"

Bilmore gets this faraway look in his eye whenever he hears that one. Fond memories or something.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
(1) the real republicans stand up, i.e., the fiscally responsible ones take back their party from the wingnuts, or

Not today:

House Rejects GOP Leaders' Budget Cuts By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
17 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Republicans suffered a startling setback in the House on Thursday, losing a vote on cutting spending for education and health care programs. A broader budget-cutting blueprint targeting the poor, college students and farmers also was in danger.

Both bills are part of a campaign by Republican leaders to burnish their party's budget-cutting credentials as they try to reduce a deficit swelled by spending on the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina. In both cases, GOP moderates balked.

The 224-209 vote against a $602 billion spending bill for health, education and labor programs disrupted plans by the Republican leaders to finish work on 11 spending bills that would pay for government operations and freeze many agency budgets through next September.

I'm guessing that Senator Stevens will still get his bridge to nowhere.

I saw a commercial this morning for a service that helps seniors figure out the clusterfuck that is Medicare Part D. I guess the good news is healthcare regulatory attorneys will be in high demand.

[Replaced_Texan]

And this article on the Porn Hearings just makes me sad.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
And this article on the Porn Hearings just makes me sad.

Though the fact that the porn hearings are headed by Sen. Brownback makes me laugh a little.

I'm guessing brownbacking can produce a bunch of santorum.

eta that article is full of great names. For the record, "Rodney Smolla" would NOT be a good porn name.

And an expert from BYU? Yeah, that's credible. And throw in the author who thinks I have to spend 30 minutes explaining how I've done all my chores before I can fuck my wife? Excellent use of our limited resources, Senator Brownback.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why are they relevant then? There'll be a vote.

Well the vote is the poll that really counts. But around election times poll matters because the politicians want to change their poll numbers so they can win. But right now the next election is millions of years away (in political time) so the polls are irrelevent.