Been off the board, went to the con.
Hortlund pretty much provided the rebuttal points that I would have raised.
Ah geese Toad your going into a circler argument again like you did on Sunday. Like I said above, there’s alot more involved with character and integrity than shielding a mistress.
You're the one dancing around.
Yes, there's a lot more to it, like NOT HAVING A MISTRESS. You know.. that "marriage
vow thing.
Did CLINTON "ever consider the honor, character and integrity of his wife and daughter?" Nope. In fact, like most every other "crisis of character" in his life, he failed that one too.
But I'm sure
that little promise thing isn't a problem in your view either.
In my view, he had two legitimate choices; I could have respected either one.
He could have told the truth. Unthinkable in his (and apparently your) view.
He could have simply refused to answer. All he had to do is say "My personal life is none of your business". Taking the 5th, as it were.
Cracking people over the head with a cane because they find out that you are cheating on your wife... that's a solution?
How about.... not cheating on your wife?
Oh, yeah.. on more thing.
He was the President. She was an government intern.
If say a military general had a consensual affair with a
subordinate in his chain of command.. what would happen to the general? Remember the Air Force General Bill wouldn't nominate to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because the general freely admitted to an affair almost 15 years before, while he and his wife were separated?
****
In your Chinese embassy you stipulate that the Embassy was aiding the effort to shoot down American aircraft and kill American service men performing missions he ordered.
You equate lying to save the lives military personnel with lying about having an affair with an intern to save a political career.
You see no difference?
****
Say, isn’t the 1994/95 congress the one that brought us “Contract with America”? the one that all the corporate accounting deregulation?... just asking.
Why yes.. I think it is. Are you saying that US corporations never "cooked the books" until accounting deregulation.. or are you saying they never got caught until then?
****
could care less about miss Lweinsky or the slime machine.. they had an Arab to kill or at least try.
So absolutely no "wag the dog" here? It just happened to be the fastest the Clinton administration ever took action though.. how conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient.
****
