Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

This is what Clinton was impeached for:

Posted By: Observer on 2006-11-14
In Reply to: Cry babies - Liberal2

This is what he was impeached for:



The House voted 228 to 206 to approve proposed Article I of Impeachment (Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury), and voted 221 to 212 to approve proposed Article III of Impeachment (Obstruction of Justice).

And he was guilty of both. His impeachment had nothing to do with cigar dates with MOnica Lewinsky, though it should have...it had to do with lying under oath before a grand jury, and obstructing justice. Against the law in ALL 51 states. Also, he broke his presidential oath of office to uphold and defend the laws of the United States all to pieces. But that is okay, because he is Bill Clinton? How is it you liberals check any moral values you might have at the door whenever it suits you?


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

    The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
    To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


    Other related messages found in our database

    B Clinton was not impeached for sex crimes
    To say he was impeached for "sex crimes" does the justice system a dishonor and is completely false. It also implies that he didn't do anything wrong and he was just impeached for having an affair (it tries to make it sound like he did nothing wrong and everyone was after him).
    For all those who have forgotten, he was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.
    First there was travelgate, next was Vince Foster being shot then investigators being denied access to Foster's office however Clinton's aides entered within hours after he was shot and documents were removed. Then there was James & Susan McDougal, failed loans, alleged legal activities at Madison Guarantee, Webb Hubbell, Vernon Jordan, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky (which led to his lies) oh yes, and when asked why he had the affair he said "because I could" (not because I love her or even because I care for her or even because she's hot - no, "because I could?"). Then his lies led to Hillary lying and AL Gore lying. Then Bill lying more "That depends on what the meaning of is is", etc, etc. There were 11 impeachable offenses against Bill Clinton. That is Eleven of them. So to just say he was impeached for sex crimes is a false statement and does a disservice to the judicial system. This was one of the worst presidents (imo) and he was disgraced the office of president. Richard Nixon did not even have as many articles to be impeached for. The worst offense however was that he was not removed from office.
    Impeached
    Impeached for presenting false information, which he knew was false, about Iraq.  Now the spin from the republicans is that is the past, lets move on.  ??  I can remember a few years back, when the country was doing real fine, and something that was in the past, i.e., a personal private matter, nothing to do with govt, was rehashed by the republicans and they actually tried to impeach a president for a private matter.  Well, having an affair and not wanting to tell about it, as affairs are private matters, versus lies to the American people and consequently 1,744+ American lives killed to me Bushs lies are much more important and serious.  Give me a lover of women in the WH rather than a warmonger murderer.  With the evidence coming forward now, Downing Street Memos, and hearings being held in Congress, the people finally opening their eyes and not wanting any more deaths, Bush will be taken to task.  Took a few years for the republicans to try to impeach the last president, it will take a bit of time but it will happen.  Bush will have to answer for his lies.  *Come on all you big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again..Bush got us into a terrible jam, way down yonder in Iraqi-land.  Put down your books, pick up a gun, we are gonna have a whole lot of fun.  One, two, three..what the freak are we fighting for?
    He was impeached....
    he just wasn't convicted, as the liberals keep pointing out. I have to say though, if you impeached him for cheating on his wife you would have to impeach a LOT of Presidents. My problem was that he committed a felony while a sitting President, that any other person would go to jail for...and these folks still defend it. Gives you an idea of where their "values" are.
    Impeached?....(sm)
    For what?  Lying to the UN?  Breaking the law by using torture? Trying to rewrite the constitution?  ....uh oh....my bad....that was Bush, wasn't it?  LOL.
    Impeached by a democratic majority?
    What YOU smokin?? lol.
    I want to see him impeached for the slow response in Katrina...sm
    I think that alone is enough. Him and Blanco, and their coherts, they've got to go!!!
    Poll: Americans Want Bush Impeached...see article







    Poll: Americans Want Bush Impeached
     

    by David Swanson


     

    http://www.opednews.com



    Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq


    By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans say that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.


    The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 8-9.


    The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:


    If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him.


    44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.


    Those who agreed with the statement were also more passionate: 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.


    The results of this poll are truly astonishing, said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House.


    Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups


    Responses varied by political party affiliation: 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.


    Responses also varied by age and income. Solid majorities of those under age 55 (54%), as well as those with household incomes below $50,000 (57%), support impeachment.


    Majorities favored impeachment in the Northeast (53%), West (51%), and even the South (50%).


    Support for Impeachment Surged Since June


    The Ipsos poll shows a dramatic transformation in support for Bush's impeachment since late June.  (This is only the second poll that has asked Americans about their support for impeaching Bush in 2005, despite his record-low approval ratings.) The Zogby poll conducted June 27-29 of 905 likely voters found that 42% agreed and 50% disagreed with a statement virtually identical to the one used by Ipsos.
























     

    Ipsos 10/8-9
    Zogby 6/27-29
    Net Change
    Support Impeachment
    50%
    42%
    +8%
    Oppose Impeachment
    44%
    50%
    +6%
    Impeachment Margin
    +6%
    -8%
    +14%

    After the June poll, pollster John Zogby told the Washington Post that support for impeachment was much higher than I expected. At the time, impeachment supporters trailed opponents by 8%. Now supporters outnumber opponents by 6%, a remarkable shift of 14%.


    Support for Clinton Impeachment Was Much Lower


    In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (http://democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition.


    Impeachment Support is Closely Related to Belief that Bush Lied about Iraq


    Both the Ipsos and Zogby polls asked about support for impeachment if Bush lied about the reasons for war, rather than asking simply about support for impeachment.  Pollsters predict that asking simply about impeachment without any context would produce a large number of I don't know responses. However, this may understate the percentage of Americans who favor Bush's impeachment for other reasons, such as his slow response to Hurricane Katrina, his policy on torture, soaring gasoline prices, or other concerns. 


    Other polls show a majority of U.S. adults believe that Bush did in fact lie about the reasons for war. A June 23-26 ABC/Washington Post poll found 52% of Americans believe the Bush administration deliberately misled the public before the war, and 57% say the Bush administration intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.


    Support for the war has dropped significantly since June, which suggests that the percentage of Americans who believe Bush lied about the war has increased.


    Passion for Impeachment is Major Unreported Story


    The strong support for impeachment found in this poll is especially surprising because the views of impeachment supporters are entirely absent from the broadcast and print media, and can only be found on the Internet and in street protests, including the large anti-war rally in Washington on September 24.


    The lack of coverage of impeachment support is due in part to the fact that not a single Democrat in Congress has called for impeachment, despite considerable grassroots activism by groups like Democrats.com (http://democrats.com/impeach).


    We will, no doubt, see an increase in activism following this poll, said David Swanson, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org.  But will we see an increase in media coverage? The media are waiting for action in Congress.  Apparently it's easier to find and interview one of the 535 members of Congress than it is to locate a representative of the half of the country that wants the President impeached if he lied about the war.  The media already accepts that Bush did lie about the war.  We know this because so many editors and pundits told us that the Downing Street Memo was 'old news.'  What we need now is journalism befitting a democracy, journalism that goes out and asks people what they really think about their government, especially George Bush.


    The passion of impeachment supporters is directly responsible for the Ipsos poll. After the Zogby poll in June, activists led by Democrats.com urged all of the major polling organizations to include an impeachment question in their upcoming polls. But none of the polling organizations were willing to do so for free, so on September 30, AfterDowningStreet.org posted a request for donations to fund paid polls (http://afterdowningstreet.org/polling). As of October 10, 330 individuals had contributed $8,919 in small donations averaging $27 each.


    AfterDowningStreet.org has commissioned a second poll which is expected soon, and will continue to urge all polling organizations to include the impeachment question in their regular polls. If they do not, AfterDowningStreet.org will continue to commission regular impeachment polls.


    Footnotes:


    1. AfterDowningStreet.org is a rapidly growing coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups that was created on May 26, 2005, following the publication of the Downing Street Memos in London's Sunday Times on May 1. The coalition is urging Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war.


    2.Here are the complete tables from the Ipsos poll, plus the definitions of regions used by Ipsos and the U.S. Census Bureau.


    3. Zogby asked: If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him through impeachment.


    4. Pollsters have offered various reasons for refusing to poll on impeachment. For example, Gallup said it would do so if, and when, there is some discussion of that possibility by congressional leaders, and/or if commentators begin discussing it in the news media.




    Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
    Ask Media to Cover Public's Views on Impeachment


    Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers


    http://www.davidswanson.org


    DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.


    Contact Author


    Contact Editor


    clinton
    You mean wonderful super intelligent President Bill Clinton and his lovely super intelligent lawyer wife, Hiliary?  So much better than the dufus warmonger and Stepford wife in the WH right now..Jerks, both of them, backward thinking monsters, Bush and Stepford.
    clinton
    I think Clinton should have been impeached. He is to be a role model? Please, what kind of a role model is that cheating on his wife.
    No on Clinton as VP

    No way can Obama offer VP to Queen Hillary.  He should remember what happened to JFK (with Johnson being involved).  What a better way for the Queen to annoint herself to the presidency by getting rid of him.  Don't put it past her either - just remember Ron Brown, Vince Foster, Eric Fox, Sandy Hume, Danny Casolaro, Ronald Rogers, John Wilson, Gandy Baugh, Mary Mahoney, Suzanne Coleman, Judy Gibbs, Gary Johnson, Kathy Ferguson, Bell Shelton, Sally Perdue (didn't mysteriously die but was told if she didn't keep her mouth shut they would break her legs), Jon Walker, Johnny Franklin, Ed Willey, Barbara Alice Wise, Jerry Parks, C. Victor Raiser, L.J. Davis, Herschel Friday, Ron Brown, and the list goes on and on an on....


    So no, I would not put it past either of them that something would happen and she would swear herself in as the anointed queen.  Lets just hope Obama has more sense - which I believe he does.


    Clinton

    Where do I start?  I love Bill Clinton.  Hs is very intelligent, he can talk about anything and knows what he is talking about.  He did what the first person posted.  He was impeached but he could not be removed from office because he was impeached for was not govenment and it has to pertain to the government to be removed from office.  He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth and he earned everything he got.  He has worked very hard.  Funny, but I get the same sick feeling in my stomach whenever I see George Bush's face on TV and the man cannot even speak so how he can do anything else.   The trillion dollar debt, people with no jobs, and the list goes on and on.  Put us in a war we had no business being in.  He has never done anything on his own that turned out good.  Whatever he did was with the help of his father or someone else doing it for him.   He will not return to Crawford, they are going to build a house, but I forgot the location, and he will not be traveling around the world working to get meds for  AIDS patients, starving  children, etc.  Maybe he can help bring back other countries to like us again like they used to until Bush told just about everyone of them he did not need their help and made them angry with us.  I could go on and on but I am tired and going to bed. 


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


    This has been going on even when Clinton
    was in office.  This has been going on for years.  Shoot, I lived in Arizona for 25 years and illegals were everywhere.  Finally, Arizona will NOT hire anyone that is illegal.  The companies have to hire people who show BC and if the employees do not, they are not hired.  So most illegals moved to other states.  Also the companies are audited and have to show proof that each employee is legal or the company will be fined.  Arizona has border patrol that runs along Mexico and Arizona and that should have been up years ago.  Even tried putting up border control when Clinton was in office, but everyone ignored her plea until a few years ago.  Also work for a company that outsources to India.  This has been going on for years and years.  When the O takes over, he will probably sell our country out and will be worse.  He says he will help the the middle class yet cause electricity rates to skyrocket and so on.  I do not trust O with ANYTHING.  He is a smooth talker, the ones I do not trust.  If McCain wins, at least I know he will try to make our country safe from nukes of Iran.    
    Again I will say it. Clinton and his
    cronies cooked the books. There was no surplus. It came out after an audit after Bush got in office.
    I really do wonder how Clinton will
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480126,00.html

    U.S. Obtains New Evidence of Iranian Nuclear Intrigue

    Friday, January 16, 2009


    Iran Presidency Office

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inspects the Natanz nuclear plant in central Iran.

    WASHINGTON — U.S. security and law-enforcement officials say they have fresh evidence of recent efforts by Iran to evade sanctions and acquire metals from China used in high-tech weaponry, including long-range nuclear missiles, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

    Iran's efforts are detailed in a series of recent emails and letters between Iranian companies and foreign suppliers seen by The Wall Street Journal. Business records show one Iranian company, ABAN Commercial & Industrial Ltd., has contracted through an intermediary for more than 30,000 kilograms (about 66,000 pounds) of tungsten copper — which can be used in missile guidance systems — from Advanced Technology & Materials Co. Ltd. of Beijing. One March 2008 email between the firms mentions shipping 215 ingots, with more planned.

    The United Arab Emirates has informed the U.S. that in September it intercepted a Chinese shipment headed to Iran of specialized aluminum sheets that can be used to make ballistic missiles. A month earlier, UAE officials also intercepted an Iran-bound shipment of titanium sheets that can be used in long-range missiles, according to a recent letter to the U.S. Commerce Department from the UAE's Washington ambassador.

    Evidence of Iran's efforts to acquire sensitive materials also is emerging from investigations by state and federal prosecutors in New York into whether a number of major Western banks illegally handled funds for Iran and deliberately hid Iranian transactions routed through the U.S. One focus of the inquiries is the role of Italy, including the Rome branch of Iran's Bank Sepah and Italy's Banca Intesa Sanpaolo Spa. Banca Intesa said it is cooperating in the inquiries.

    Iran Produces Enough Uranium to Build Nuclear Weapon

    The developments could present President-elect Barack Obama with an early test in responding to what many Washington security officials now say is a rapidly growing threat to the region, including U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    All of the high-performance metals Iran has been acquiring also have industrial uses such as commercial aviation and manufacturing, making it difficult for intelligence agencies to be absolutely certain how the materials are being used.

    "We can't say we know it would, or would not, be used for military purposes," said proliferation expert Gary Milholland of the nonprofit Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, noting that broad economic sanctions on Tehran led by the U.S. mean Iran has to go to unusual lengths to find high-grade materials for industrial use as well as weapons.

    Still, he added, "There doesn't seem to be any real doubt or debate whether Iran is going for the bomb or whether Iran is using front companies to import things. Everyone agrees on that around the world."

    Officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency said they believe Iran could have enough fissile material for an atomic weapon sometime this year, though it would need to be further processed into weapons-grade uranium. That assessment was echoed Thursday by Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael V. Hayden. U.S. and European governments have grown increasingly alarmed in recent months at the speed they believe Iran is developing ballistic-missile and nuclear capabilities. Last year the United Nations Security Council, which includes China, formally imposed sanctions on Iran's military and most of its banks for nuclear proliferation activities.

    A spokesman for Iran at its U.N. mission in New York declined to comment. China "has been strictly implementing" U.N. proliferation sanctions on Iran, said a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry in Beijing. The export of restricted items such as high-grade metals, which include specialized aluminum and titanium, is prohibited, he added.
    Wow, Clinton
    Probably had Monica hiding under the desk. LOL. Sorry, could not resist.
    No, Clinton just used

    the Oval Office (that I pay for) and ''company time'' to get Lewinskyed on a regular basis.  He may even have gotten a Lewinsky on Fathers Day, who knows?


    I believe it is called Fathers Day for a reason.  Obama went golfing on the sacred day, and I don't think Michelle and the kids were with him.   On Fathers Day, it's Daddy that gets the gifts, otherwise it would be called Family Day or Wife and Children's Day or something else. 


    Some men give their wives a day at a spa for Mothers Day...should she be required to spend all day with Hubby and kids instead?  Technically, I think the honoree gets to spend their time the way s/he chooses on that day.


    Sanford having his trist in Argentina was quite bad enough, do you really have to pile on with Fathers Day as well? 


    Well, how did you feel about Clinton
    get a B.J. just outside the Oval Office and then lying under oath about it?   Oh, but that was his personal life though...
    Yes, Clinton lied, and I

    thought it was terrible when he did.


    But Clinton's lies didn't result in a war.  Clinton created a surplus.  Bush squandered it all and created a huge deficit with his war. I'm amazed that you can't see the huge difference between the two lies.  Bush's lies are placing every single American in danger of a terror attack because he refuses to do anything about the borders.  This is here.  This is now.  Why don't you care about TODAY and the futures of your children and their children?  We're living in the most dangerous era that America has known, yet you're more concerned about the sexual practices of a former President?  I truly don't understand your way of thinking.


     


    Clinton's Lies
    Clinton made his worst mistake by not taking Osama bin Laden when he was offered to him on a silver platter by the Sudan. In case you have forgotten, he was major planner and money man of 9-11. Had Bill not been afraid of the political fallout...he might have been able to stop 9-11. And when it all comes out about Able Danger...he is finished and so, hopefully, is his wife, as far as politics are concerned. And the surplus you drone on about was a PROJECTED surplus, if spending was frozen for the next 10 years. Like THAT was going to happen. Sheesh.
    Clinton/Bush

    Again, GT brought the whole subject up about presidential integrity.  I just wanted to see GT's feeling about what Clinton did, but of course, GT justified Clinton's lies which was what I fully expected.  Again, Bush hasn't been proven to lie.  Like I have said several times before on this board I will be the first to cry uncle if Bush is proven to have lied by investigation and that doesn't include accusations and conjecture by liberal politicians, grieving mothers, or leftist bloggers.


    Clinton/Bush

    Again, GT brought the whole subject up about presidential integrity.  I just wanted to see GT's feeling about what Clinton did, but of course, GT justified Clinton's lies which was what I fully expected.  Again, Bush hasn't been proven to lie.  Like I have said several times before on this board I will be the first to cry uncle if Bush is proven to have lied by investigation and that doesn't include accusations and conjecture by liberal politicians, grieving mothers, or leftist bloggers.


    Well, are they back up since the Clinton adm.

    You used the word now, so I assume they are still at these levels and maybe even lower.


    The point was that while everybody is again noticing poverty and thinking that Bush had done a dismal job in fighting poverty.  The numbers just don't back that up.  While there are some people living in poverty because of life circumstances beyond their control MOST are there because of bad life choices.  You can throw all the money you want at it, but until morality is advocated and pushed for in this country then you will always have poverty.  Jesus even said you will always have the poor among you.  Now, is that a reason not to try and do something about poverty?  No, but just throwing more and more money their way through higher taxation of the work force will not fix it either.  It will only make more people classified as poor. 


    WHATever and thank you, Bill Clinton
    with a thriving economy, an honest attempt at protecting our environment, and peace.

    can we forget about clinton?
    When you need a punching bag, bring up Clinton..If in doubt, bring up Clinton, if a republican is being investigated, bring up Clinton.  Who cares about Clinton.  He is not in office, however, Delay, Frist and Rove are all working in the govt.
    She has a point about Clinton. SM
    We had a porn star for president!   Big deal.  Who cares.
    When Clinton did this did you have a problem with it
    When he tracked financial records of terrorists during his admin.: See below.
    ******

    From the August 28, 1998, edition of the Washington Post in an article entiteld “Bin Laden’s Finances Are a Moving Target; Penetrating Empire Could Take Years” by John Mintz:

    Last week, President Clinton announced the addition of bin Laden’s name to a list of terrorists whose funds are targeted for seizure by the U.S. Treasury. Clinton aides said one of their goals is to locate bin Laden’s bank accounts and make him so radioactive in the eyes of global bankers that they won’t handle his funds. Some U.S. officials also suggested they could drain his accounts using highly classified means of information warfare involving electronic networks.

    “We want to take financial action against him,” a senior administration official said. “The objective is to take down the infrastructure.”

    Bin Laden’s money is the key to his power, U.S. officials say. He needs his fortune to pay his thousands of Muslim followers, bribe officials and plan terrorist strikes.

    “If you go after his money, you’ll hurt him,” said Larry Johnson, a former CIA official and now a security consultant. “You need cash to make his system run.”

    The United States has never launched such a financial attack on terrorists. In 1995 Clinton banned U.S. financial institutions from dealing with several dozen suspected terrorist individuals and groups, and Americans from donating funds to them.

    But until last week the U.S. Treasury, which continually updates this list of “sanctioned” terrorists, never placed bin Laden on the list, despite the fact that the U.S. government had identified him since 1995 as the world’s leading terrorist paymaster. A senior administration official said the government’s understanding of his role “was evolving.”

    So we’ve been going after bin Laden’s financing and the al-Qaeda money network for eight years now. But that doesn’t really blow the whole case open about the Bush administration’s “secret program.” This does:

    The CIA and agents with Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network also will try to lay tripwires to find out when bin Laden moves funds by plugging into the computerized systems of bank transaction monitoring services — operated by the Federal Reserve and private organizations called SWIFT and CHIPS — that record the billions of dollars coursing through the global banking system daily.

    Call me crazy, but that looks pretty gosh darn similar to what the New York Times and Los Angeles Times are freaking out about and calling a Bush administration “secret program.”

    This isn’t news. This is just an attempt by these two newspapers and the associated reporters to “expose” the Bush administration’s attempts to keep this country safe from terrorism and root out those who would do us harm. The ACLU, the Democratic Party, and the “netroots” will proceed to go bananas about a program that’s been tracking bin Laden and al-Qaeda financial transactions for eight years–and was established under none other than Bill Clinton.
    Clinton and Somalia...
    The article was clear, and in military circles the truth is known. When Blackhawk Down happened, Clinton, instead of doing the right thing and stamping on Al Qaeda when he had the chance, chose to run. Al Qaeda was emboldened by that, and were left alone to grow, plan, etc. They felt they scored a great victory in Mogadishu, and in fact, because Clinton ran, they did. You say the country would not have supported a war in the middle east before 9-11. Perhaps not. The people might not have supported a war in Somalia either, as there are some people, like yourself, who believe war is never the answer. As I have said ad nauseam, until the enemy shares your belief (which will never happen), we must defend ourselves or be overtaken or having our cities turn into East Baghdad. They cannot defeat us in a real war, and they know this. I personally do not feel we should accept having 3000 people murdered. Had we smashed them in Somalia, we probably would not have had the issues we now have in Iraq, because the *insurgency* is fueled by Al Qaeda and we all know that. The rank and file Iraqi people would have had no idea how to put forth a guerilla war. Point being...Clinton's administration, or he himself, bear a great burden of responsibility for what we now face. AL Qaeda did the same thing in Somalia they are doing in Iraq now...arming and training. And we had the chance to stop it, and our President chose not to. Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton later, and again he chose not to take it. You choose to take Bush to task for Iraq. I continue to take Clinton to task because I think he is more wholly reponsible. Not because he is a leftist or a Democrat, but because he made a decision based on keeping his political popularity than on doing what was right at the time for the security of this country. Anything else Clinton did, while reprehensible, pales in comparison to that as far as I am concerned. However, that is past, there is nothing I can do to change it. I do, however, resent the fact that the left totally dismisses all that and instead pounces on Bush for at least trying to do the right thing for this country, regardless of the political consequences. But, that takes moral courage, and something Bill Clinton never had and never will have

    What I see regarding staying in Iraq is trying to finish what Clinton should have finished in Somalia. And not to abandon those rank and file Iraqis who desperately do want freedom. The insurgents do not speak for the majority of the Iraqi people. The majority of the Iraqi people are almost like children...they have no clue how to fight or defend themselves because they were so oppressed for so many years. It is those people who will be hurt horribly if we go now. But you seem willing to abandon them to it. That is what I do not understand. For someone who professes compassion, I don't know how you justify that. It could be that we are never able to do what we want to do and at some point need to withdraw. I am willing to give Petraeus a chance. I prefer to look at it like he does...stop looking through the rear view mirror and look out over the hood...and let's win this thing. He still believes it can be done. I have a great deal of respect for him, and I think he deserves the chance, and the Iraqi people deserve the chance, to see if he can.
    I know it, if it comes up between clinton and McCain I just
    i don't know which one would truly be worse.
    Clinton vs Bush

    Clinton gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity DESPITE the opposition of the neocons throughout his administration.  Bush failed over and over again DESPITE having party control of both houses.  The leadership ability simply speaks for itself.  Looking forward to Hill and Bill in charge again. The neocon fanatics have destroyed themselves by their own hand. So be it.


     


     


    Clinton v Obama

    Anyone know anything about Jimmy Carter? Most  people (even Republicans) agree that he was/is an exceptionally good man, maybe the most moral man in recent years. From what I have read, though, he was not a 'beltway insider" and therefore not able to get anything done.


    Having said that, I thing Obama is a good man and I think Hillary is bascially a good woman. However I am afraid Obama will be another Jimmy Carter, a truly good man who is unable to be very effective.


    Just my thoughts!


    thank you senator clinton!

    for backing Obama:


     


    http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vbXkuYmFyYWNrb2JhbWEuY29tL3RoYW5rc19teXNwYWNl


    FYI Hillary Clinton
    She is from Chicago. She started her life as a Republican, like her father. Believe it or not, she was a volunteer in Barry Goldwater's campaign. Bet he is rolling in his grave.

    It does not matter what they call themselves, they are different flavors of the same bad ice cream. Democrat or Republican, they are controlled by the men behind the curtains and the wealthy establishment whose agenda they are promoting. If they cannot get you to pick their (CFR) candidates through their media, they use Diebold to hack the vote electronically.
    Why is he kissing the Clinton's you know what

    I don't get it.  Why is Obama kissing Bill and Hillary's you know what.  Now I hear something about she wants Obama to pay off her debt.  I don't get it.  Maybe I'm not hearing the full story, but something about this doesn't sound right.  I think I heard him saying he needs Bill and Hillary - like heck he does!  Why is he in a "love-fest" with them.  It's just a little to close for comfort for me.  If he pays off her campaign debt he's one notch down on the party pole for me.


    And where in the world did these Clinton clowns come from.  They crawled out of a hole from Arkansaw parading around as if they are royalty.  They are acting like they are like the Kennedy's and I keep hearing about the Clinton Dynasty from the media.  Dynasty? Dynasty?  There is no dynasty.  These are just 2 people.  Two low class citizens who have mesmerized and conned (sp? con-artist) the American people.  They are 2 skum bags that I wish would just go away.  Why Barack is acting this way towards them I have no idea.  She tried to steal the election from him and he should just ignore her and go about his business.  If he pays off her campaign debts I will be thinking twice about voting for him.


    So does Clinton & McCain
    That's always been Hillary's plan...to socialize American and create a system similar to the EU with Canada, America, & Mexico. She wants one country and wants to be the ruler. Always been her game plan. I have not heard that about Obama though. Can you state facts and sources so that I can go look it up?

    He is a destroyer? I kind of laughed when I read that. Isn't that a little dramatic. :-)

    Would be interested to read what you have found out about him changing America.


    Bill Clinton
    Any party that could celebrate the presence of Bill Clinton at their convention like he was the second coming has their priorities wrong as far as I am concerned...bizarre!
    Hilliary Clinton is

    returning to the national stage to talk to her 18 million voters and which candidate truly represents change in the country.  What an election.  Beautiful. 


     


    and I believe she will. When Clinton ran for president...
    with the same credentials she has, a governorship...he didn't jump right in and give interviews either. He had to sit down with advisors and bone up on areas he was not as well versed in, because he came from state politics, not national politics. That happens in every case. It happened with Obama. He didn't sit down for interviews with someone who would really ask him questions until this week and he has been running for 18 months. She has been running for a week.

    I would like to post some questions to Obama too. About teaching the Alinsky method of organizing. About William Ayers. About his early days in Chicago politics. I would like to ask a lot of questions more important than books in a library in wasilla alaska. But you will NEVER hear the mainstream media ask him those questions. Ever. They protect him, and they attack her.

    So much for fairness in American journalism. What a joke.
    Biden and Clinton

    Anyone else read the article where Biden says Hilary Clinton might have been a better choice as a VP than him?  How true.  Hilary doesn't scare me nearly as much as Obama does!


    We could have had him when Clinton was President....
    before the towers came down. He decided not to take the Sudan up on their offer to deliver him. If you are going to lay blame, blame all involved.
    Clinton had a surplus because he had a...sm
    Republican Congress. Left to his own devices, he would have put us belly up, have no fear.

    Bush, has a Democratic Congress at the end of his term, who have really jacked up the national debt, all on their own (war not included, thank you very much).
    Here's another one: Bill Clinton....sm
    I don't know how valid this story is, as I have read it too, and don't know the details.


    I do know, and you probably do too, that Bill Clinton did this, and I'm sure countless others. But we didn't and don't hear about it because they weren't/aren't SP.



    Seems kind of hypocritical to condemn Gov. Palin for this practice, when it's been going on for decades in the good ol' boy system, don't you agree?







    But the point is, what Clinton did with his...
    anatomy and poor choices did not affect his Presidency...a major percentage of Democrats will tell you that. If it did not affect him I would not expect it to affect McCain, and if you felt like Clinton was a good President in spite of it, why would you think McCain would not be?
    Bill Clinton

    let this Country down with his behavior.  That doesn't mean I don't think he did good things for this Country.  Certainly, he did not harm the Country like the present administration has.  There are many reasons I don't think John McCain should be the next president.  I believe that anyone who is going to cast their vote in November should find out the facts about both candidates and make an educated decision, taking everything into consideration.  This is an important election.  We are facing many serious problems and we need the best person in there to do the best he can. 


    Clinton and his cigars....
    did not affect his ability to be President. Did it?
    it goes back to Clinton

    My brother is Sr. VP of an investment firm, and he knows first-hand when this started.  My sis-in-law mentioned that today when we talked.  She did say that most of his investors were okay, as they knew this was coming.  But he's been at this long enough to have built a hefty list of A-list clients.  I don't know if a new broker could say the same.


    Why people enjoy the co-dependency with gov't is beyond me.  It's dumb and also lazy, in no particular order.


    You mean under the Clinton years
    And I've been getting refunds and finally have something to show for the hard work I've done these past 8 years. Under Clinton I had nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G! Nada, Zip! Except a bill to the IRS every year at tax time because 42% of my pay was not enough in taxes for them!

    For the first time since Clinton and his regime left have I finally been able to have any sense of worth and self esteem. Clinton/Gore was the worst time our country has seen since Jimmy Carter was president (and yes I voted for him too). After Clinton finally left and Gore lost the election the first thing that came to mind was Fords speech when he said "My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over".

    Sorry, but I don't want to go through another national nightmare.
    I agree. Clinton did not let us know
    who he picked to be on his team until 2 days before he was sworn into office.  Good for Obama to pick his members right away.
    Clinton Administration.

    Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.


    Here is the link to this article


    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink


    Here is another one


    http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,432501,00.html


    I was taught in school if the economy is doing bad now, it was due to the president 6-8 years ago.  If the economy is doing well, it is also due to the president who was in office 6-8 years ago. 


    Since it's almost Income Tax time, here's some interesting facts about the Democrat and Republican tax policies.  Just compare - and, while you're at it, use these facts the next time you hear that President Bush only "cut taxes for the rich".  Looks to me like someone single and making $30K, or a couple making $60K, got a 46% tax break under the Republicans.  That's what I would call taking care of the "middle class".


    And remember, the truth only comes out when we refuse to be silent....
     Source:  www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html


          Taxes under Clinton 1999                         Taxes under Bush 2008


          Single making 30K - tax $8,400                Single making 30K - tax $4,500


          Single making 50K - tax $14,000              Single making 50K - tax $12,500


          Single making 75K - tax $23,250              Single making 75K - tax $18,750


          Married making 60K - tax $16,800             Married making 60K- tax $9,000


          Married making 75K - tax $21,000             Married making 75K - tax $18,750


          Married making 125K - tax $38,750           Married making 125K - tax $31,250


     


    Clinton was so much more than an embarrassment...sm
    Monica Lewinsky the least of which.


    Why don't you talk about Clinton selling our military secrets and technology to the Chinese?


    What a waste of a Rhode's Scholar.




    AND THE OLD CLINTON REGIME WILL BE
    NM
    I was much better off in Clinton Years
    I was making a lot less money but I could afford to turn my furnace on in the winter, I could take my kids to the movies, camping, buy nice clothes and laundry soap and paper towels weren't a "luxury." Now, we use a gas fireplace for heat in a 4 bedroom/2 bath house that is in dire need of numerous repairs that we have NOT been able to afford. During the Clinton years, I put a new roof on the house, new siding, put the gas fireplace in, redid the kitchen with all new oak cabinents and added a bathroom. MAKING LESS MONEY. So, hmm, my standard of living has sunk to driving to see my mom as my only source of entertainment and maintaining internet. The last 8 years ruined me financially. Gas prices? In turn everything else went through the roof.