Are there any Republicans out there?
- Thread starter missi1013
- Start date
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
It always bugged me that a few commentators described Clinton as a backwoods Caligula. As though his immoral behavior was due to his rural origins. What a slap in the face to voters in Southern Maryland and elsewhere!
Anyway, I think Clinton should get much of the blame for the ugliness of today's party politics. He was (and still is) a very polarizing figure. Every issue became a debate about his personality. After eight years of this, the 2000 election seemed to be about personality alone. The whole fiasco in Florida turned my stomach. By December I wanted to set both Gore and Bush adrift on a raft. Both sides were acting like crybabies. My attitude at the time was, I didn't care who won, just as long as these two and their sycophants just clammed up. The hideous spectacle made me stop watching TV news for months afterward.
Will the soft money ban do anything to stop this childishness? I don't know. I have heard a few people complain that this will weaken the big political parties. They act like that's a bad thing!
Anyway, I think Clinton should get much of the blame for the ugliness of today's party politics. He was (and still is) a very polarizing figure. Every issue became a debate about his personality. After eight years of this, the 2000 election seemed to be about personality alone. The whole fiasco in Florida turned my stomach. By December I wanted to set both Gore and Bush adrift on a raft. Both sides were acting like crybabies. My attitude at the time was, I didn't care who won, just as long as these two and their sycophants just clammed up. The hideous spectacle made me stop watching TV news for months afterward.
Will the soft money ban do anything to stop this childishness? I don't know. I have heard a few people complain that this will weaken the big political parties. They act like that's a bad thing!
Yeah I am ALL about getting rid of soft money. Both sides are guilty as sin in this area and it will do nothing but increase the fairness of the political process.
Vrai, I disagree that the president sets the MORAL tone for the country. I think there are more obvious moral leaders and I think morality itself is, as I said, such a gray area that it all comes down to community and family, in my book, as the only important moral tone setters. I would lump polititians in with atheletes and movie stars in that they are public figures but are by NO means SETTERS of a moral tone; if anything, they are both reflections.
I AGREE with you, however, that Clinton lacked judgement. Stupid speaks to intelligence and I certainly don't think he was lacking in that department but to say is judgement was questionable is an understatement at best. I too thought the way he handled himself was in poor taste and I would have respected the admission of guilt thing with a "now leave my personal life outta this" tacked onto the end. And you mention Gore associating with bad people and you leave TIPPER out!!! I hate that woman and her censoring, first-ammendment ignoring, morality-pushing crap. God that woman ruffles my feathers...but then you see her dance with Al on TV and you KNOW why she doesn't like good music...
And Bush is a great guy I'm sure. Like I've said to many of my MUCH more liberal buddies (hard to believe, eh?) I would LOVE having him as a drinking buddy...just not too sure yet about president. But, other than his bafflingly unconstitutional faith-based initiative crap, he's done a pretty good job. He inherited the beginings of a recession that he had nothing to do with (although his tax break really did little to spark the economy...as most tax breaks tend not to) but he's handled this war pretty well. His legacy remains unwritten and I will give him the chance to succeed....three more years to be exact.
Vrai, I disagree that the president sets the MORAL tone for the country. I think there are more obvious moral leaders and I think morality itself is, as I said, such a gray area that it all comes down to community and family, in my book, as the only important moral tone setters. I would lump polititians in with atheletes and movie stars in that they are public figures but are by NO means SETTERS of a moral tone; if anything, they are both reflections.
I AGREE with you, however, that Clinton lacked judgement. Stupid speaks to intelligence and I certainly don't think he was lacking in that department but to say is judgement was questionable is an understatement at best. I too thought the way he handled himself was in poor taste and I would have respected the admission of guilt thing with a "now leave my personal life outta this" tacked onto the end. And you mention Gore associating with bad people and you leave TIPPER out!!! I hate that woman and her censoring, first-ammendment ignoring, morality-pushing crap. God that woman ruffles my feathers...but then you see her dance with Al on TV and you KNOW why she doesn't like good music...
And Bush is a great guy I'm sure. Like I've said to many of my MUCH more liberal buddies (hard to believe, eh?) I would LOVE having him as a drinking buddy...just not too sure yet about president. But, other than his bafflingly unconstitutional faith-based initiative crap, he's done a pretty good job. He inherited the beginings of a recession that he had nothing to do with (although his tax break really did little to spark the economy...as most tax breaks tend not to) but he's handled this war pretty well. His legacy remains unwritten and I will give him the chance to succeed....three more years to be exact.
cattitude
My Sweetest Boy
For those of you who aren't quite sure if you're a democrat, here's a nifty little test you can take just to be sure.
http://www.georgiapolitics.com/demoquiz.htm
And, Jimmy, I object to your statement "I would have respected the admission of guilt thing with a 'now leave my personal life outta this' ." The whole mess with Clinton was not about his personal life. It was about him being a liar.
http://www.georgiapolitics.com/demoquiz.htm
And, Jimmy, I object to your statement "I would have respected the admission of guilt thing with a 'now leave my personal life outta this' ." The whole mess with Clinton was not about his personal life. It was about him being a liar.
So Jimmy, who sets the moral tone of the nation, specifically speaking if you can and please don’t say our religious leaders after recent events to include the recall of American Cardinals to the Vatican? It is our elected officials and right now we have a leader that doesn’t think marital infidelity is the way or norm of our society, unlike his predecessor.
Vrai, I am not a Gore fan but
"Gore himself is pretty unlikeable, with that singsong cadence of his and that patronizing way of talking. Plus that, he's an idiot and a fraud. "
He invented the internet, and they made a movie based on him and Tipper, but now I see your point - He does not get any royalties for all any of this.
"Gore himself is pretty unlikeable, with that singsong cadence of his and that patronizing way of talking. Plus that, he's an idiot and a fraud. "
He invented the internet, and they made a movie based on him and Tipper, but now I see your point - He does not get any royalties for all any of this.
The "moral tone of the nation", a term so grand in scope I find it hard to address, is set by it's people. Example, Clinton's sex scandal elicited an outcry from many and at least a condemnation from a majority, but his approval ratings overall still remained relatively high. So, his morality was NOT the MAIN factor in the people's perceptions of his ability to run this country. Why SHOULD the president be a moral guage for the country? His life, his personal life, is not at issue in any political arena. The rest of the world found the right's obsession with his sex life laughable. His personal values etc may come into play during election time but he is thus a REFLECTION of moral tone, not an instigator. I would not say either, Ken, that religious leaders set a moral tone as is obvious from this recent scandal. As I said, I belive that community and family are the most important moral tone-setters in our country. How can you guage the moral tone of, say, the abortion issue? It's an issue that IS based on morality but it divides this country almost literally in half. So what is the moral tone there? And if Bush objects to abortion, should the rest of the country "take his tone" and object as well? Hell no!
We enter into a social contract (actually many) when we choose to live in society. That is to say, we make agreements on what IS and ISN'T acceptable behavior/consequences in our society. This, however, is challenged and changed all the time to varying degrees. For example, societies everywhere will probably always hold murder, in its simplest form, as a crime. However, homosexuals may one day be able to adopt kids. Suggestions for this type of change CAN come from polititians (president included) but in no way is it implied that they MUST.
Clinton's lying issue wasn't about MORALITY; it was about the law. I don't CARE morally that he lied. I lie. You lie. Everyone lies. The issue is that, if he did so under oath, it's a CRIME and we can't have our president committing crimes. Luckily (as I belive he should NOT have been impeached by the house) he is a good enough polititian and had good enough spin doctors to avoid conviction. The issue, however, that MANY people take with Clinton was his whole affair in general which I could not give less of a sh*t about. I simply don't care. He's a crappy husband and Hillary was dumb to stay with him (unless she's, as I suspect, politically motivated) and he was dumb for not just admitting to it. But the MORAL issue there I have no problem with.
And Cat,
I KNOW that the issue was about his lying and I've addressed that; I thought it was a mistake. But I DO belive that his personal life should NEVER have been brought up. The CRIMINAL accusations were one thing because the justice system HAS to attempt to look into criminal activity regardless of who it is. But Bubba getting a BJ is none of their, ours or anyones business and it doesn't have any bearing on his ability to lead our country...some of our best presidents have had "goomah's" on the side...
We enter into a social contract (actually many) when we choose to live in society. That is to say, we make agreements on what IS and ISN'T acceptable behavior/consequences in our society. This, however, is challenged and changed all the time to varying degrees. For example, societies everywhere will probably always hold murder, in its simplest form, as a crime. However, homosexuals may one day be able to adopt kids. Suggestions for this type of change CAN come from polititians (president included) but in no way is it implied that they MUST.
Clinton's lying issue wasn't about MORALITY; it was about the law. I don't CARE morally that he lied. I lie. You lie. Everyone lies. The issue is that, if he did so under oath, it's a CRIME and we can't have our president committing crimes. Luckily (as I belive he should NOT have been impeached by the house) he is a good enough polititian and had good enough spin doctors to avoid conviction. The issue, however, that MANY people take with Clinton was his whole affair in general which I could not give less of a sh*t about. I simply don't care. He's a crappy husband and Hillary was dumb to stay with him (unless she's, as I suspect, politically motivated) and he was dumb for not just admitting to it. But the MORAL issue there I have no problem with.
And Cat,
I KNOW that the issue was about his lying and I've addressed that; I thought it was a mistake. But I DO belive that his personal life should NEVER have been brought up. The CRIMINAL accusations were one thing because the justice system HAS to attempt to look into criminal activity regardless of who it is. But Bubba getting a BJ is none of their, ours or anyones business and it doesn't have any bearing on his ability to lead our country...some of our best presidents have had "goomah's" on the side...
cattitude
My Sweetest Boy
Unfortunately, Jimmy, his personal life was brought out. Without rehasing the whole story, his personal life being exposed was a side effect of much bigger wrong doing that Linda Tripp discovered. Then, he went on national television in front of millions and lied -- sucked us in (lip biting ad nauseum) and flat out lied. And the Paula Jones issue. Definition of "is" and "oral sex" -- give me a break. He could have said that he made a mistake, humiliated himself and his family -- instead he chose to humilate the people who elected him in the first place.
missi1013
Catch Me If You Can!
For you guys that think Clinton was a good pres. Let me ask you this. If he would have done something when all the embassies got bombed, the frist trade center bombing, oh and lets not forget the USS Cole bombing, do you think 9/11 would have happened? And if he did do something, with what military would he have done it with, since he cut the defence fund!!
Did you guys hear the story, it was on 20/20 or something about how Clinton hates the military. There was a military guard on there, and he said everytime Clinton walked passed him, he would say "I hate you military people" And he would always kick the guards out, were ever he was at!!
Just wanted to start up something!!!
Did you guys hear the story, it was on 20/20 or something about how Clinton hates the military. There was a military guard on there, and he said everytime Clinton walked passed him, he would say "I hate you military people" And he would always kick the guards out, were ever he was at!!
Just wanted to start up something!!!
Clinton DID try to do something about the Embassy bombing and Bin Laden in particular. He didn't initiate the all-out-war on terrorism we have now but his attempts were hindered by a lack of good intel in the area, something he hardly can bear full responsibility for. That, coupled with the fact that most thinking at the time was that Al Qaida couldn't carry out an attack of this magnitude. So now it's really easy for you to sit there and say, "oh, if only Clinton would have stopped Bin Laden sooner". Well how about if INS had been a bit more vigillant? How about if the CIA had had better, human intel over there? How about if airport security had been better or pilots had had guns? All this hindsight condemnation is ridiculous and indicative of many conservatives attempts to keep Clinton's perceived failures fresh in the minds of the voter. Let's move ON, get behind our current president and hope that nothing like this happens again...
And cat, as I've said the "unfortuante" thing WAS that his personal life was brought out...and it wasn't just a spontaneous occurrence, as you seem to be suggesting. It was as a result of a ridiculous, tax payer funded investigation into his personal life that brought out those things. Charges of sexual harrasment and assault need to be taken seriously but Ken Starr went WAY beyond that in his own personal little mccarthy-esque raid on Clinton's life. THIS is the issue that I have a problem with. HIS personal life had NOTHING to do with his ability to lead. And I DID suggest that he SHOULD have just admitted the affair. Are you actually reading my posts? And, on a personal note, I voted for him and I didn't feel humiliated.
And cat, as I've said the "unfortuante" thing WAS that his personal life was brought out...and it wasn't just a spontaneous occurrence, as you seem to be suggesting. It was as a result of a ridiculous, tax payer funded investigation into his personal life that brought out those things. Charges of sexual harrasment and assault need to be taken seriously but Ken Starr went WAY beyond that in his own personal little mccarthy-esque raid on Clinton's life. THIS is the issue that I have a problem with. HIS personal life had NOTHING to do with his ability to lead. And I DID suggest that he SHOULD have just admitted the affair. Are you actually reading my posts? And, on a personal note, I voted for him and I didn't feel humiliated.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Clinton's been out of office for more than a year and people still get worked up about him! Other politicians have told lies and cheated on their spouses. But few have generated such blind rage, or such blind devotion. Forget for a moment about his actions. What is it about Bill that pushes people's emotional buttons?
And what about Hilary? I think she pushes people's buttons because she's so self-obsessed. It's all about Hilary. She constantly makes embarrassing remarks, like "vast right-wing conspiracy" and "stay home and bake cookies." She reminds me of a friend's husband. At parties, this guy makes outrageously crude remarks just to get a reaction. He simply craves the attention. The best thing to do for people like that is to not react at all.
(Edited by Tonio at 4:18 pm on April 16, 2002)
And what about Hilary? I think she pushes people's buttons because she's so self-obsessed. It's all about Hilary. She constantly makes embarrassing remarks, like "vast right-wing conspiracy" and "stay home and bake cookies." She reminds me of a friend's husband. At parties, this guy makes outrageously crude remarks just to get a reaction. He simply craves the attention. The best thing to do for people like that is to not react at all.
(Edited by Tonio at 4:18 pm on April 16, 2002)
missi1013
Catch Me If You Can!
The biggest thing about Clinton "SOMALIA". It should have never ended the way it did, but Clinton was TOOOO chicken sh*t
to go back in there and stand up for america. How would you like it if your loved one was dragged down the street and beaten and your president didn't do nothing about it!!! Just think a little crapen city kicked our butts because of him!!! That's what makes me made!!! And if you want to defened him on that, then you are heartless!!! But that's the wrost thing that any family should go through. Trust me I know!!! And that's what pushes my emotional buttons!!!
to go back in there and stand up for america. How would you like it if your loved one was dragged down the street and beaten and your president didn't do nothing about it!!! Just think a little crapen city kicked our butts because of him!!! That's what makes me made!!! And if you want to defened him on that, then you are heartless!!! But that's the wrost thing that any family should go through. Trust me I know!!! And that's what pushes my emotional buttons!!!
Jimmy,
“The "moral tone of the nation", a term so grand in scope I find it hard to address, is set by it's people.” Well I always thought that the moral tone was determined by the laws written by legislature, the execution and support of those laws by the executive branch, tempered by the decisions of the judicial branch within the framework of our Constitution and how the citizenry abided by them.
I say that the President, who should be, in my mind, as moral or even more so then those he represents, sets this tone for the nation to the world. His actions depict his moral fiber for all to see and unfortunately we saw what that fiber was. Also in case you still haven’t gotten it yet Clinton’s problem wasn’t that he had sex with someone not his wife, it was that he lied in civil proceedings and before a grand jury. In other words he broke some of the laws he swore to uphold, which is a major moral dilemma. The reason it didn’t become an issue was that many from his political party serving in Congress failed to act as required by their rules of procedure and the Constitution. Another moral dilemma.
“Why SHOULD the president be a moral guage for the country?” As this countries leader whom else would be better fit to be the gauge of our values. I say his actions were such that it cast a shadow of doubt upon the credibility of office and dropped the moral value of that office to an all time low. You might lie, Clinton certainly lies, and others might lie but some of us don’t, so he wasn’t reflective of me and I am sure he isn’t reflective of many other people out there that live without resorting to lies.
All of the varying tangents you try to carry your argument off to don’t hold any water with me and I doubt if they hold much water with anyone else either, unless of course they have been shaped by those who think that this type of behavior is acceptable. The laws of our land were established to clarify what is and isn’t allowed. They were crafted by representatives of the people and not the people themselves because at times the majority is wrong. Those determining how we should live should lead by example and it is painfully obvious that they don’t.
You say that, “Clinton's lying issue wasn't about MORALITY; it was about the law.” Well the simplest definition of moral is “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior”. Meaning if you break a law and know the difference between right and wrong it was immoral as well as being criminal.
When you said, “Bubba getting a BJ is none of their, ours or anyones business and it doesn't have any bearing on his ability to lead our country.” So the fact that he was in violation of sexual conduct principles of Federal Service when engaging in an illegal act with a subordinate on Federal property has no moral bearing on you. Interesting, to say the least. It readily detracted from his ability to lead a people that now knew he was very capable of lying and deceiving them.
You say that, “Clinton DID try to do something about the Embassy bombing and Bin Laden in particular. He didn't initiate the all-out-war on terrorism we have now but his attempts were hindered by a lack of good intel in the area, something he hardly can bear full responsibility for.” Hindered by an agency directly under his control and yet it wasn’t his fault that he stripped them of funding that could have had the operatives out there collecting data and that he placed the leading people of those agencies into a position to execute his will. That blowing off the Yemeni government with its offers of data that could have impacted 9/11 and led to discovering the plot against innocent people he swore to protect. That the absurd dealings of his State and Defense Departments put our vessels in harms way by using a very unstable port for refueling that used to be passed at best speed coming out of the Suez Canal. None of these were under the purview of the President, at least according to you.
Tonio,
You can’t forget about his actions, it was those actions that pushed the buttons for many of us. And it was his personality and moral convictions that made it easy for him to do it all the while smiling and saying, “but the economy is good.”
“The "moral tone of the nation", a term so grand in scope I find it hard to address, is set by it's people.” Well I always thought that the moral tone was determined by the laws written by legislature, the execution and support of those laws by the executive branch, tempered by the decisions of the judicial branch within the framework of our Constitution and how the citizenry abided by them.
I say that the President, who should be, in my mind, as moral or even more so then those he represents, sets this tone for the nation to the world. His actions depict his moral fiber for all to see and unfortunately we saw what that fiber was. Also in case you still haven’t gotten it yet Clinton’s problem wasn’t that he had sex with someone not his wife, it was that he lied in civil proceedings and before a grand jury. In other words he broke some of the laws he swore to uphold, which is a major moral dilemma. The reason it didn’t become an issue was that many from his political party serving in Congress failed to act as required by their rules of procedure and the Constitution. Another moral dilemma.
“Why SHOULD the president be a moral guage for the country?” As this countries leader whom else would be better fit to be the gauge of our values. I say his actions were such that it cast a shadow of doubt upon the credibility of office and dropped the moral value of that office to an all time low. You might lie, Clinton certainly lies, and others might lie but some of us don’t, so he wasn’t reflective of me and I am sure he isn’t reflective of many other people out there that live without resorting to lies.
All of the varying tangents you try to carry your argument off to don’t hold any water with me and I doubt if they hold much water with anyone else either, unless of course they have been shaped by those who think that this type of behavior is acceptable. The laws of our land were established to clarify what is and isn’t allowed. They were crafted by representatives of the people and not the people themselves because at times the majority is wrong. Those determining how we should live should lead by example and it is painfully obvious that they don’t.
You say that, “Clinton's lying issue wasn't about MORALITY; it was about the law.” Well the simplest definition of moral is “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior”. Meaning if you break a law and know the difference between right and wrong it was immoral as well as being criminal.
When you said, “Bubba getting a BJ is none of their, ours or anyones business and it doesn't have any bearing on his ability to lead our country.” So the fact that he was in violation of sexual conduct principles of Federal Service when engaging in an illegal act with a subordinate on Federal property has no moral bearing on you. Interesting, to say the least. It readily detracted from his ability to lead a people that now knew he was very capable of lying and deceiving them.
You say that, “Clinton DID try to do something about the Embassy bombing and Bin Laden in particular. He didn't initiate the all-out-war on terrorism we have now but his attempts were hindered by a lack of good intel in the area, something he hardly can bear full responsibility for.” Hindered by an agency directly under his control and yet it wasn’t his fault that he stripped them of funding that could have had the operatives out there collecting data and that he placed the leading people of those agencies into a position to execute his will. That blowing off the Yemeni government with its offers of data that could have impacted 9/11 and led to discovering the plot against innocent people he swore to protect. That the absurd dealings of his State and Defense Departments put our vessels in harms way by using a very unstable port for refueling that used to be passed at best speed coming out of the Suez Canal. None of these were under the purview of the President, at least according to you.
Tonio,
You can’t forget about his actions, it was those actions that pushed the buttons for many of us. And it was his personality and moral convictions that made it easy for him to do it all the while smiling and saying, “but the economy is good.”
Jimmy, you are far too intelligent for me to let you get away with that little bit of revisionist history. Do you honestly not remember what brought about the whole Lewinsky business? Or do you really think Ken Starr deliberately went poking in Clinton's sex life? Let me know if you need me to give you a rundown - I know you're a good bit younger than I am so you may honestly not remember how the whole thing went down.
(I just re-read that last sentence and it sounds patronizing, which is not how I meant it - you could very well not be old enough to really remember the whole thing.)
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Excellent point, Ken. That's the kind of information I was looking for. When did Bill ever seem humble or remorseful for his adultery, for example? He just kept on smiling. He showed contrition over Lewinsky only when his irons were in the fire.
By "pushing buttons" I was also talking about Clinton's die-hard supporters. Ken, I'd like to know your thoughts on why Clinton inspired so much loyalty.
By "pushing buttons" I was also talking about Clinton's die-hard supporters. Ken, I'd like to know your thoughts on why Clinton inspired so much loyalty.
Ken,
You make some valid points. First, as to the Clinton's military record, I wasn't suggesting that everything was out of his control. Certainly, you know more about military history than I do, but even I know of Clinton's various failures and his considerable downsizing of the military. What I was suggesting went more to the fact that human intel would have been the best way to have prevented or at least had more information about the Al Qaida attacks. Clinton's 8 years in office were hardly enough time for any CIA spooks etc to really penetrate that organization. The Yemeni info, the Philipino info; all these things were presented to the Clinton Administration. And, to their folly, they did not recognize the significance and failed to heed the warning they gave. However, I can only imagine that Clinton's staff, military advisors etc. had a choice to make about the credability of such info. Sept. 11th was so shocking because we had no idea that such a thing was capable. Remember when they first were talking just after the attacks? Our government basically said that it "couldn't have been Al Qaida alone"; that it had to be "State sponsored terrorism". We have since learned that, while supported financially by some areas in the middle east, this act was not specifcally state-sponsored as we had hoped. I'm not saying Clinton didn't make a mistake (he certainly did) but it was a different world view at that time. I'm not sure that another president would have handled that better to the point of preventing 9/11. But that's, of course, just my opinion and entirely up to debate. I'd actually be interested to hear what you think.
Back to the Lewisnsky Scandal. Ken, I've said before I realize that the issue was with him lying. And I've said before as well that I take issue with that because it was AGAINST THE LAW. My point, however, is two fold and has NOTHING TO DO with the lying. My first point is that many conservatives bring up Clinton's morality and his womanizing as reasons why he wasn't fit to be president. I am saying that I don't care about his morality or womanizing as long as he gets the job done. My second point is that that look into his personal life should NEVER have gotten that far. He lied when asked if he had ever had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinksy but the question should never have been asked. Vrai, I belive the reason that all of that happened (and I was in college during most of it so, yes, I am old enough) and I belive that it was during an investigation into sexual assault or indecent exposure charges or something of that nature. Like I said before, any criminal wrong-doing of that nature can and should be looked into. But Starr went about piling up a report that was a list of names of women who claimed to have had an 'encounter' w/the president. Clinton was then just asked "do you know ---?" and "have you ever had a relationship w/ ---"? That, to me, was just inappropriate and superflous and just an attempt to destroy his credability.
Bottom line: Clinton wasn't perfect. Certainly I can aknowledge that. He was a fabulous polititian. Certainly everyone can aknowledge that. But a president, in my view, does not have to and shouldn't set the MORAL tone of the nation; he should be a reflection of it. Clinton is one of MANY law makers in this country so the LAWS passed, can't be seen necessarily as a reflection of his morality. And he doesn't even get to speak to the intent of laws and apply morality in the way that the Supreme Court does (see: the recent decision on child porn). Not to mention the fact that your morality and my morality are completely different. So which one should the president support or show? Yours? Mine? Why? And since Clinton showed his moral fabric to be flimsy, should mine be such? Should I think it's ok to cheat on my wife hundreds of times? No. Should I be a pro-lifer, pro-death penalty and Christian simply because our president is? No. He has no bearing on how I live my life. The moral tone is set by the people of this country and it is ever changing regardless of who is in office. In fact, it's more correct to say that the person who is in office is reflective of the moral tone of the nation. Does that still not make sense?
You make some valid points. First, as to the Clinton's military record, I wasn't suggesting that everything was out of his control. Certainly, you know more about military history than I do, but even I know of Clinton's various failures and his considerable downsizing of the military. What I was suggesting went more to the fact that human intel would have been the best way to have prevented or at least had more information about the Al Qaida attacks. Clinton's 8 years in office were hardly enough time for any CIA spooks etc to really penetrate that organization. The Yemeni info, the Philipino info; all these things were presented to the Clinton Administration. And, to their folly, they did not recognize the significance and failed to heed the warning they gave. However, I can only imagine that Clinton's staff, military advisors etc. had a choice to make about the credability of such info. Sept. 11th was so shocking because we had no idea that such a thing was capable. Remember when they first were talking just after the attacks? Our government basically said that it "couldn't have been Al Qaida alone"; that it had to be "State sponsored terrorism". We have since learned that, while supported financially by some areas in the middle east, this act was not specifcally state-sponsored as we had hoped. I'm not saying Clinton didn't make a mistake (he certainly did) but it was a different world view at that time. I'm not sure that another president would have handled that better to the point of preventing 9/11. But that's, of course, just my opinion and entirely up to debate. I'd actually be interested to hear what you think.
Back to the Lewisnsky Scandal. Ken, I've said before I realize that the issue was with him lying. And I've said before as well that I take issue with that because it was AGAINST THE LAW. My point, however, is two fold and has NOTHING TO DO with the lying. My first point is that many conservatives bring up Clinton's morality and his womanizing as reasons why he wasn't fit to be president. I am saying that I don't care about his morality or womanizing as long as he gets the job done. My second point is that that look into his personal life should NEVER have gotten that far. He lied when asked if he had ever had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinksy but the question should never have been asked. Vrai, I belive the reason that all of that happened (and I was in college during most of it so, yes, I am old enough) and I belive that it was during an investigation into sexual assault or indecent exposure charges or something of that nature. Like I said before, any criminal wrong-doing of that nature can and should be looked into. But Starr went about piling up a report that was a list of names of women who claimed to have had an 'encounter' w/the president. Clinton was then just asked "do you know ---?" and "have you ever had a relationship w/ ---"? That, to me, was just inappropriate and superflous and just an attempt to destroy his credability.
Bottom line: Clinton wasn't perfect. Certainly I can aknowledge that. He was a fabulous polititian. Certainly everyone can aknowledge that. But a president, in my view, does not have to and shouldn't set the MORAL tone of the nation; he should be a reflection of it. Clinton is one of MANY law makers in this country so the LAWS passed, can't be seen necessarily as a reflection of his morality. And he doesn't even get to speak to the intent of laws and apply morality in the way that the Supreme Court does (see: the recent decision on child porn). Not to mention the fact that your morality and my morality are completely different. So which one should the president support or show? Yours? Mine? Why? And since Clinton showed his moral fabric to be flimsy, should mine be such? Should I think it's ok to cheat on my wife hundreds of times? No. Should I be a pro-lifer, pro-death penalty and Christian simply because our president is? No. He has no bearing on how I live my life. The moral tone is set by the people of this country and it is ever changing regardless of who is in office. In fact, it's more correct to say that the person who is in office is reflective of the moral tone of the nation. Does that still not make sense?
Christy
b*tch rocket
Jimmy, what you fail to understand is that Clinton gutted the entire Intel structure during his reign. He ended an enormous amount of CIA operations that were already in place, hence being blindsided on 9/11. It will taked at least a decade to repair the damage he's done to our Intelligence resources.