OIC Has Evidence that Clinton Tried to Hide that He...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread

OIC Has Evidence that Clinton Tried to Hide that He and Lewinsky . . . Dated.


Well, there we have it. After seven years and better than $65 million spent on investigating every aspect of former President Bill Clinton's post-zygote existence, Independent Council and rumored Republican senatorial candidate Robert Ray announced Wednseday that his office had evidence that Clinton lied about sex. That's it? After accusations of involvement with Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, the "murder" of Vince Foster, and literally dozens of other accusations from Republican hacks, all America learns is that Clinton lied about sex?

Let's put that statement in perspective, shall we? In order for Bill Clinton to emerge completely unscathed from the longest and most expensive investigation into someone's background and activities, he would have merely needed to alter his testimony in the Jones trial as follows:

Q: "President Clinton, is it true that Monica Lewinsky has in the past played a chorus or two of "Hail to the Chief" on the presidential skin flute?"

A: "Yup."

That's it, kids. Had that single line of testimony been included, the independent council would have absolutely nothing to show for all of its effort. Nothing. Gosh, the Republicans really got us with that one, didn't they?

Of course, what we also learn by omission is that all of the other stories that Republicans told and repeated ad nauseum were just that - stories. By all accounts the "liars" in this sordid political episode were the Republicans. They made up anything and everything about Clinton, and it all turned out to be unsubstantiated. Every single Republican who whispered an allegation, forwarded a fabricated e-mail, or stood before a microphone coyly stating that they would "wait to pass judgment until all of the facts are known" while fanning the rumors, all of these people are liars. Moreover, their lies were so much worse than Clinton's lie, used to tear down their opponent and destroy a sitting president with whom they could never compete. Bill was just trying to cover up embarrassing personal behavior.

My advice to fellow liberals who are approached by beaming conservatives with the "Clinton lied" story is as follows: Pose this question to the offender:

Suppose we had the opportunity to put George W. Bush on the stand. He would be sworn in and asked the following questions:

1. "Please give a full accounting of your alleged cocaine use during your college and Texas Air National Guard years."

2. "Is it true that you were suspended from flying during your last two years of Texas Air National Guard service for refusing to take a physical examination that might have revealed illegal drug use?"

3. "Is it true that in the winter of 1971, while dating a woman whose initials were R. L., you arranged for her to have an illegal abortion at the Twelve Oaks Hospital in Houston?"

4. "Besides the 1976 DUI arrest that America learned of days before the 2000 election, how many other times have you been arrested for driving while intoxicated?"

How do you suppose Bush would answer under oath? Any of these allegations, if true, represent criminal activity and could require jail time. If your conservative brother-in-law wants to call Clinton a liar, ask him to imagine the answers to these questions. By the time Dubya was done, the Congressional impeachment vote would be 535-0. Bush would be back in Crawford with Uncle Sam's boot permanently imprinted on his ass so fast, it would make your head spin.

Sort of puts a lying about a couple of puffs on the cigar-in-chief in perspective, doesn't it?

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), March 13, 2002


But Bush is physically incapable of lying. Peggy Noonan said so!!

-- (ha@ha.ha), March 13, 2002.

Bush we'll be impeached because of Enron (whether he is guilty or not)!!!!!!!!

-- (impeach@the.crook), March 15, 2002.

I wish for once when Clinton supporters talk about the Monica blow job then add in all the facts. Oh I forgot they don't want to find facts.

FACT: Clinton lied under oath during a SEXUAL HARASSMENT case. In a SEXUAL HARASSMENT case, ALL aspects of the accused's SEXUAL activities are fair game. Clinton cannot lie under oath. THAT'S THE LAW.

If a case would be brought against Bush for killing someone while driving intoxicated, then the number of times he drove while intoxicated could be a question asked in a court of law. Until then, these questions are mute, mean spirited and not worthy of publication.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 15, 2002.


I believe that you mean the questions are MOOT not mute. Sorry, pet peeve.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), March 15, 2002.

I guess wishful thinking on my part. :)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 15, 2002.

Everyone's entitled to their favorite fantasy.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), March 15, 2002.

Mute better suits you Maria, it goes well with the deaf and dumb parts.

-- hee-haaw (too funny @ morning. chuckle), March 15, 2002.

Living on public assistance will strip one’s self image and worth to the bone. At one point in her life, Cherri may have been a productive member of society but those days are long gone. She is so morally bankrupt that none of the Clinton escapades can register with her as a negative.

Feel pity for this woman and be forever grateful you are not she.

-- Free (head@case.analysis), March 15, 2002.

LOL "nut case", you sound like a charicature of the typical bottom-feeding Repug scumbag! Attack the messenger, not the message!

-- LMAO (way to @ go. hypocrite!), March 15, 2002.

Is Free Head Case the same person as cyberfrog?

-- (just@wonder.ing), March 15, 2002.

Its spelled ‘caricature’ and you ’see’ it, not ‘hear’ it. Dumb fucks like LMAO should avoid posting certification of their ignorance.

BTW, I was attacking the message AND the messenger.

“cyberfrog”…..lets see…..don’t think so.

-- Free (head@case.analysis), March 15, 2002.

No, "head case" is Socrappy, he just changed his name to let everyone know that he's mentally ill, hoping they will forgive his stupidity.

-- (he@needs.help), March 15, 2002.

‘He who needs help’, take another spin and thanks for playing.

-- Free (head@case.analysis), March 15, 2002.

cyberfrog/cyberfraud/cyberfreud/whoever offered the same type of useless psychoanalysis under the guise of professional expertise. It's been done before.

-- (thought@you.should.know), March 15, 2002.

I wonder if cyber freud dresses up in a white doctors uniform every time he post his nonsense to this forum.

-- (what@fruit.loop), March 16, 2002.

Free, when I read your messages I find it useful to ask myself, if this message were shortened to a simple "nyah-nyah" how much of its substance would be lost? I recommend this method of evaluation for many posts.

Applying this standard to Cherri's posts, I find that oftentimes 80% or more of the post can be replaced by "nyah-nyah" without doing harm to the substance. In the case of Free, it's 100% every time.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 16, 2002.

Coming from a whimpering liberal like ‘Little Nipper’, I’ll take this as a high compliment.

LN, did your wife give you that nickname?

-- Free (head@case.analysis), March 18, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ