But if the game of grab-ass was worthy of such an intensive investigation then surely the questionable circumstances leading to the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in substantial loss of life, suffering and cost to the national treasury, deserves at least an equal amount of scrutiny. Try to be objective for a moment and set aside any partisan leanings you may or may not have: On its face, which investigation is more warranted? And so, if the grab-ass investigation was allowed to continue to its conclusion, then let's at least see where this one leads.
Battle over oil: Pelosi just opened the door to Bush Impeachment
- Thread starter wilburbear
- Start date
You've still got it wrong.
The investigation wasn't about his playing grab ass. It was about a credible accusation of rape against Clinton, a charge that in his position as Prez, didn't protect him. And if I remember right, nobody looked into the grab ass thing until some other broad (Lewinsky's friend?) came forward with that info, since I believe that she was also a victim.
The rest I can agree with you on.
But if memory serves, the British are still convinced that their intel about Saddam had WMD before the invasion to be correct. Not sure about the CIA though.
A game of grab-ass in the White House?
Well, I guess that's one way to refer to Clinton ramming his pecker down an intern's throat.
Yeah, Lewinsky's brief notoriety, memoir, and constantly smiling, giggly face before the cameras, both before and after the affair, paints the picture of a true victim. Yeah, really. What Clinton did was wrong. That he lied about it, while human, was wrong. I believe there is very little disagreement about that.
But what Bush did was preposterous, disasterous and audacious. At least we seem to be on some common ground here.
Televangelical outrage aside, at least Clinton left America's reputation intact. Bush set it back years. The world thinks Bush is an asshole. Imagine what it thinks of the people that put him in office. Twice.
Who saves a semen stained dress?
An intern without direction of some powerful forces?
I don't think so.
An intern without direction of some powerful forces?
I don't think so.
Quote from ilikefox es:
A game of grab-ass in the White House?
Well, I guess that's one way to refer to Clinton ramming his pecker down an intern's throat.
Perhaps the most bizarre outcome
of the whole thing was that when Monica's dad found out the truth about what had been going on - that his daughter was givin hummers to Bill, and that he didn't even know her name for quite a while - he still gushed about what a great human being Bill was......... :eek: Something's wrong with that dude's head if he can think along those lines. But kinda typical for Clinton backers of that era...
Not unlike the Bush backers of today, who are swallowing a lot more than Lewinsky ever did.
Sounds to me like you're not really interested in an investigation.
Sounds like you've already made up your mind regarding WMD's, and that's fine.
But that wasn't the only reason for invading Iraq. It's indisputable that Saddam was paying suicide bomber's families $25k. That makes him a terrorist backer, whether he helped out Al-Quaeda or not.
He was violating conditions set out in the surrender after the 1st Gulf War. That's also indisputable.
To reduce the reasons Bush gave down to wholly the issue of WMD's is more than just a little misleading. Maybe it plays well with some, but not with me.
And FWIW, I actually liked Clinton's response to Saddam - cruise missle the shit outta them. I would have escalated the crap out of that if I was Bush - if the UN inspectors were denied entrance to whatever facility, then say goodbye to it. If an antiaircraft battery fired on our planes, say goodbye to it, and the next time it happened, to it plus another. Then it plus 2, then 3, then start with entire bases until the message was clear. Then start on some of the palaces, and on and on........
+ 10
What would you current Republicans (I used to be one, sadly) rather have - a hummer in the Oval Office, or a disastrous foreign policy, disastrous economic policy, the largest budget deficits in U.S. History, and having the CIA sabotaged by the Executive Branch (and a record amount of seasoned military officers at the Pentagon, DoD and U.S. Military Academies resigning)?
The hummer is probably less destructive, no?
(though I don't condone it, it's a pimple on an Elephant's ass compared to what Bush II has managed to screw up)
I probably merely mentioned 10% of the damage Bush has managed to wreak on our Republican.
I'd expect sensible Republicans to vilify him as everything the real GOP stands against.
Where's Reagan when we need him? Shit...we need true economic conservatism NOW.