"My Life", and Bill Clinton's Presidency

[Mitchell]

Today I bought Bill Clinton's autobiography, "My Life" which is 953 pages long. I know it will take me some time to read it, but I will.
There was an AOL member poll asking members to rate Bill Clinton's presidency. 53% of respondants said excellent, and 20% said good. I voted good, because I think he was a very solid president, but was a bit disappointed when he moved a bit to the center by signing the GOP welfare reform bill in his second term. Overall, he was my favorite president in my lifetime. I love his personality, his charisma, and hearing him speak. I think, along with FDR and Kennedy, that he is probably one of the most brilliant men to ever sit in the White House.
It is quite sad that Clinton will most likely be remembered more for the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment rather then for creating 22 million jobs in his presidency, and rebounding the country from the horrid recession under Bush 41. Everyone says "He lied under oath" My response to this is to consider what he lied about, sex. Many of us are aware of Jack Kennedy's marital infidelities. Think of how the country would have reacted in the 1960s had Kennedy been investigated and impeached for lying about sex. No one would have cared about the president's sex life. It would have been between Kennedy and Jackie. The fact is Ken Starr and his Republican attack dogs were out to get Bill Clinton from the day he was sworn in.
To me, Bush 43 has done a far more serious thing by lying about weapons of mass destruction, and dragging us into a war that has cost us far more than Clinton's sex incidents, and almost 1000 American lives. First Mr 43 insisted that Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction, and then when none were found, backed off to save his ass by saying :"We thought he had them" and now lamely blaming George Tennet. Bush 43 wanted this war from the get go to avenge his father's inept handling of the problem in 1991. To me, although he was not impeached for it, one can only hope that the voters will be smart, and that it will cost him his presidency in Nov. The man is quite frankly one of the worst presidents in this country's history. He is against stem cell research, which would aid people like President Reagan, or Michael J Fox, his tax cuts benefit the wealthiest Americans, plus his inept handling of the war. I would rather have a president who is unfaithful and lies about sex, then one who has been faithful to his marriage, but is harmful to the American people. I feel this is the most important election in our history. With the Supreme Court justices ever aging, and if death or retirement hits the Supreme Court, anyone who is pro choice will have legitimate worries in a second term of Bush 43 of him going after Roe V Wade, not to mention what other things he will screw up with not having to run for re election. I pray that this man is ousted in November, and is given a one way ticket back to Crawford, Tx where he belongs.
In the end, would I rather have a Bill Clinton who cares about people and lies about sex, or a Bush 43 who is sexually faithful and lies about more important things. I'd take Clinton, hands down. Maybe one day, years from now, history will judge Bill Clinton for the good things he did while in office, and not for the impeachment scandal that was started by something that was no one's business but President Clinton's and his family's

Mitch

[BigJim]

I too would like to see Dubya dumped ass-first out of the White House in November. With me though, I don't prefer his opponent, or people like Bill Clinton. I'm just sick of hearing the public face of Earth's most mighty nation struggle with any word over four letters long.

[Mitchell]

Jim, I completely understand your feelings, and, actually agree with you about the opponent. John Kerry is not my ideal choice for the Democratic candidate for president. My mom, a lifelong democrat, calls Kerry a Washington drone with no new ideas. Both her and I would have preferred John Edwards, as he is younger, fresher.and with new ideas. Lately, I've been hearing some chatter that Kerry and Edwards have been getting rather chummy, and rumors that Kerry will pick Edwards for VP, a very wise choice on Kerry's part.
As for Kerry, although he isnt my ideal choice, I will be running to the polls to vote proudly for him in November. I will take anyone over George W Bush, even if not perfect, because, as I've said many times on here, I shudder to think of what the country will look like by 2009 with another term of Mr Bush.


Mitch

[Mitchell]

I have to make a comment here. In regard to Bill Clinton's sex life. It's just a place we shouldnt have gone. Who really cares if he lied about sex? That isnt a breach of his office, and should not have been an impeachable offense. It didnt make him a bad president because he had sex with Monica, and then lied about it. Impeachment should only occur when a president does something that is in breach of his office. The Republican attack dogs were out to get him from the day he took office, and they would stop at nothing. Imagine how it would have been 40 years ago if they had questioned Jack Kennedy about his sex life, with all the affairs he had. The American people didnt get into the president's personal life. It just isnt anyone's business or a breach of his office. Bill Clinton didnt lie about matters of national security, or diplomatic things, he lied about sex, period, a place that Congress should never have gone. It is proper he finished his term, because there really was no constitutional issue to remove him for it. Also, he left office with a 68% approval rating, and had higher approval ratings later in his term, and after Lewinisky and impeachment than before. The GOP knew they couldnt remove that popular president from office.
To me, it is far more significant that George W Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, a scenario that has cost us god knows how much money, and 1000 American lives. That is honestly a more impeachable offense than what Clinton did, because that is an area of his official capacity of office, and he did it for his own means, to avenge his daddy, get contracts for Cheney, and persue his vendetta. It is far more dangerous for the country that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, than it is that Clinton lied about sex. Now, Bush lamely blames George Tennant for the mistake, than to take it himself. The man will use any tactic to get relected, even if stonewalling and lying about a serious issue. I hope John Kerry boots his ass from office in November. Bush is the worst president this country has ever had, and it is proven in the polls. I would rather have an effective president with a 68% approval rating who does his job well, and lies about sex, which in no way endangers the country or his offical capacity of office, then one who is faithful to his wife, and screws things up as Bush does. It just isnt our business what Clinton did in his sex life, but I guess everyone has their own opinion. I strongly disagree with the previous comment made, but I guess we all have our perspectives.

Mitch

[qjakal]

Originally posted by Mitchell
It is far more dangerous for the country that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction,

Mitch

-------------

Please stop using this in discussion. Acting upon the intelligence available at the time isn't "lying". If you've ever been part of a large organization you realize that the CEO/President/ Big Cheese has to use information that is provided to him/her through the established channels, whether it's financial data or military intelligence.

Making decisions based on data that isn't personally collected/verified is a constant process in every government and business. Applying hindsight and labels is inappropriate...

Clinton was a flawed man, as are we all. Bush is a flawed man. You and I are as well. One of the many things I dislike about much of the posting done in political threads is the personal attacks upon politicians. Actions are indeed fair grounds for discussion, but alluding to these peoples intelligence, morals and ethics, college drinking habits, daughters and sons, hairlines or whatever is just venom being spewed...and no longer will be tolerated.

There's plenty of things to be discussed and definitely a civil manner that's acceptable to utilize when doing so...

Keep 'em above the belt and life in here will be easier...

Q

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by qjakal
Actions are indeed fair grounds for discussion, but alluding to these peoples intelligence, morals and ethics, college drinking habits, daughters and sons, hairlines or whatever is just venom being spewed...and no longer will be tolerated.
I hope that this also applies to discussions about certain cigar-holders...

Actually, I doubt that stopping discussions about the real or assumed qualities of politicians is such a good idea. Those people were elected (or something like that) almost exclusively for their personality, much less for their actions. It's practically impossible to discuss politics without evaluating politicians. But I agree that there is an important difference between insults and serious debate. What a pity that the politicians themselves don't realize that...

However, the bigger part of the world thinks that Bush lied. Do you really want to censor the world's opinion? I don't think you should.

[qjakal]

Originally posted by Haltickling
I hope that this also applies to discussions about certain cigar-holders...

Actually, I doubt that stopping discussions about the real or assumed qualities of politicians is such a good idea. Those people were elected (or something like that) almost exclusively for their personality, much less for their actions. It's practically impossible to discuss politics without evaluating politicians. But I agree that there is an important difference between insults and serious debate. What a pity that the politicians themselves don't realize that...

However, the bigger part of the world thinks that Bush lied. Do you really want to censor the world's opinion? I don't think you should. -

--------------------------------

Yup, this applies to cigar incidents and even recently dead presidents.

Nope, don't care to censor the world, just as long as they stay off the forum. People can draw their conclusions but posting them as facts isn't going to fly anymore.

Q

[venray]

Originally posted by buggs
*Personal comment removed*


Here is the definition of Perjury:

"perjury , in criminal law, the act of willfully and knowingly stating a falsehood under oath or under affirmation in judicial or administrative proceedings. If the person accused of perjury had any probable cause for his belief that the statement he made was true, then he is not guilty of perjury. In U.S. federal law, and in most states, a false statement must be material to a point of inquiry in order to constitute perjury. Perjury is a crime and may be punished by fine or imprisonment. One can retract false testimony in the course of a criminal procedure without committing perjury. The crime of inducing another person to commit perjury is called subornation of perjury."

The Constitution provides that the "President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Perjury is listed as a Misdemeanor:

"Perjury in the third degree; class A misdemeanor.
A person is guilty of perjury in the third degree when the person swears falsely.
Perjury in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.
(11 Del. C. 1953, § 1221; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 67 Del. Laws, c. 130, § 8; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)"

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a59698.htm


And as far as national security, everyone seems to forget teh cox report:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/resources/1999/cox.report/

and also:

another page on the Cox report (http://www.naturalhealthholistic.com/betrayal.html)



And now people will post that I am uninformed and unresearched again.

Buggs....No need to post the link backing up your opinion and then cutting and pasting the text in as well. Post what links you like as research backing up your position, but let's not make the thread an extra page long by including the text. Brining up things not proven about former President Clinton and Insinuating that people were killed
by or because of him without proof backing up your statements is also not the type of thing we wish to see here.

Dont just post opinion without facts to back it up please..


Ray

[BigJim]

Originally posted by qjakal
-------------

Please stop using this in discussion. Acting upon the intelligence available at the time isn't "lying". If you've ever been part of a large organization you realize that the CEO/President/ Big Cheese has to use information that is provided to him/her through the established channels, whether it's financial data or military intelligence.

What happens if you're someone like me Q, who believes that GWB and Tony Blair were both convinced that there were no WMD's in Iraq and used "faulty intelligence" as a convenient whipping boy to save face in public? I'm not being obstreperous, I'm genuinely asking a legitimate question.

[venray]

Believing it is one thing , mate. Prove it or provide factual basis for your "belief" and that's fine. I have beliefs and opinions on many a politician, but you wont see them posted here without a few facts put forth to back up my opinion.

This is not going to be a "bash the politician of your choice forum"

So let's get back to Clinton's book and his presidency (the topic here) and keep Blair and Bush out of this thread.

(first friendly warning to all...stay on topic)


Ray

[BigJim]

Oh that's fine Ray. I never post something like that unless I back it up. (Usually to the tune of about fifteen thousand words.:D)

Saw the book on sale in Tesco's last night. Had a quick flick. Seems interesting.

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by qjakal
Nope, don't care to censor the world, just as long as they stay off the forum.
Thanks for clarifying that the world should stay off the forum.

I'll watch this new forum for a while before I ignore it just like the Humor forum.

[venray]

Whoa...Hold on there friend..

All any of us are saying is to post opinion as fact with no backup is something we are trying to avoid here.

I say so and so is a saint, you say so and so is a monster and neither of us have one scrap of real evidence to prove our points and we end up in a shouting match back and forth with no resolution.

We then post in a totally un related thread and throw in that so and so is a saint or monster and the whole thing starts up again.

This is the kind of stuff we dont want happening in this forum. We want it to be a place where we can discuss and debate the issues of the day without it becoming a matter of personal opinion vs. facts and figures.

Let's try to be members of the "college debate club" leaving personal opinions at the door and posting facts, figures, and news of the day that back them up and debate intelligently without getting angry at one another and see how far we can run with it.

Opinions are a part of the whole thing, but not without the reasoning behind that opinion to present to others. blanket statements are counterproductive to what we wish to accomplish here.

I for one will be disappointed if you choose not to participate as it is you and others that we had in mind when creating this place for discussion of the issues. I feel it does us all good to get the different pov's to a story from all areas of the world to give us a balanced discussion.

Doesnt all have to be about American politics either...I like hearing about what is going on in the rest of the world as well.....


....and now back to Clinton and his "legacy"

Ray

[qjakal]

Originally posted by Haltickling
Thanks for clarifying that the world should stay off the forum.

I'll watch this new forum for a while before I ignore it just like the Humor forum.

Not sure why you're busting my chops Hal, but I think you well knew the intent of that statement. I don't care what they print in newspapers/journals/diaries/blogs across the world either...it becomes my business when it's on the forum. Clear enough?

Q

[Haltickling]

I have no idea what "busting my chops" means, but it doesn't sound like something I had on my mind...

What I'm trying to get across is that it makes no sense at all to discuss politics if opinions on politicians are excluded. Unlike science, politics consists of more than 90% opinion. Even when I quote TV reports or newspaper articles, they express the journalists' opinion, more or less disguised as facts or garnished with them. So who decides what "facts" are? The US Congress? The Pope? You and Ray? Sorry, that won't work, and this is my personal opinion.

I'll sit back and watch for a while how this develops before I make my decision. So far, the approach to cleaning the TMF looks more like a cleansing, but that's only my first impression.

Now I return you to the topic. My apology for going off-topic for a while.

[qjakal]

Seeing as this is part of the growing pains expected in a new subforum, let's go off topic for a few moments and I'll clean it up later. Here's the crux of the matter, imo:

------------------------------------------

"What I'm trying to get across is that it makes no sense at all to discuss politics if opinions on politicians are excluded. Unlike science, politics consists of more than 90% opinion. Even when I quote TV reports or newspaper articles, they express the journalists' opinion, more or less disguised as facts or garnished with them. So who decides what "facts" are? The US Congress? The Pope? You and Ray? Sorry, that won't work, and this is my personal opinion."

-------------------------------------

Discuss them all you like Hal. For instance, saying that Bush seems to act without thinking or checking his facts carefully enough, and has a pattern of ignoring world opinion much to the dismay of many peace loving earthlings seems like a discussion point to me, while stating that he's a moronic deserting bastard with 2 drunk out of control daughters and a pretzel eating problem might not strike me as the type of debating point that is appropriate....

It's not "who", but rather "what" that has me disappointed with the old system and searching for a way to improve the TMF while allowing people to intersect in areas they find interesting.

Btw, sorry about the slang..."busting chops" is slang for giving someone a difficult time. I KNOW your English is superior so I forget at times that you're from Germany!

Q

[Mitchell]

Q, if I may, I wish to state my case in a way that is in line with TMF Rules.
At first, I will admit that I was upset. If I did not handle things in the proper TMF forum manner, then I apologize, and let me try to explain it in a way that should hopefully meet appropriate format. .
As we all know, politics is a very touchy subject, and I, being a BA in history who has studied politics since my age of reason, am very passionate about politics, probably overstated the point I was trying to make. If I did so, and crossed the line of forums rules, then I apologize. Let me rephrase what I was really trying to say.
As you pointed out in your post, the point I was really trying to make was that Iam most upset with Mr Bush for his position on the war, and especially with alienating much of the world from us. It seems to me that Bush can step too harshly, and not consider how his actions affect this country, our soldiers overseas, or the opinion of us in the world. I do not change my belief that I feel he was wrong in his handling of this whole war. I feel if there had to be a war, that the inspectors should have been given more time, and he should have been more patient, and attempted to form a coalition with the world at the UN, before undertaking this step. As we all know, war is a very, very serious step, and is not to be taken lightly. If my delivery of said position was wrong, then I apologize. I think many times delivery can be everything. I respect that he is the president, and will be so until either next January 20, or January 20, 2009, even if I dont agree with his policies. I believe that other presidents, Clinton, Reagan, perhaps even his father, might well have handled Saddam differently than did Bush 43. That being said, he is the president, and both he personally, and this country, bear the consequences for what he did, both good and bad. I think the idea of a free Iraq is important. Saddam was a dangerous man, and the free world, as well as Iraq, is better off without him. I dont think I so much have issue with what Bush did, as with how he did it. As I stated, I feel more time should have been given, and a coalition formed, before war began, and I wonder just how this will affect our country's position in the world going forward. As I said, if I presented my case in an improper form for TMF, then I apologize, and I hope this will clear that up, and as a mod you have right to take issue with it, and edit if you wish. I think my reputation should proceed me, I have been here two years, and have not ever to my knowledge before today, had any issue with writing a flaming post. I wish to keep it that way, while still holding strong to my convictions, and having the right to express them in an appropriate manner. As we all know, sometimes people vent from frustration, and dont always say things how they should. I think this is what may have happened here. Anyhow, I hope that this explanation clears things up, because I felt like I was in hot water there for a second, and wanted to reprhase while getting my point across in a different way. Hopefully when you read this, it will clear it up. Finally, I in no way would ever write on here that Bush is a crazy so and so. It is inappropriate for this forum, and as an intelligent man, I can evaluate my criticism of him in a more intelligent matter than that. Iam admittedly a liberal who prefers Bill Clinton, and will vote for John Kerry, but I respect all political parties, and their rights, even if I dont agree with their politics or views. That is the American way. Anyhow, I know this is a long post, but I hope this clears my point up in a more sensible way, that is in accordance with forum rules, thank you.

Mitch

[qjakal]

No need to be overly nice either Mitchell. State your views as forcefully as you like within the boundaries of civil behavior. I always tried to post as though the person I was speaking about would read the thread, although in many cases this is unlikely. I used your thread to illustrate a point regarding how we'd like to see this new forum operate, but I could have easily grabbed a half dozen others, so please don't feel singled out...not my intention.


Your point about delivery is certainly a big part of the process, as is phrasing. Many of the problems we've had arise from responses rather than initial posts. Things tend to degenerate quickly if neither viewpoint acknowledges merit in the others attempts to communicate. It's not about agreeing with each other, it's about learning to disagree in a different manner, one that focuses attention on the material rather than the member.

Yup, politics is a hot button, but we're all adults here and can manage this with a bit of effort....no doubt in my mind.

Nice chatting with you...
Q

[Mitchell]

Okay, Q, got it. Didnt mean to be a suck up either. I honestly didnt know that you were using my post as an example. I really thought you were singling me out, because I do have very strong political beliefs, and I know that perhaps I was too strong that time. I realiize what you are saying about strong but civil. The views dont change, neither does my strong statement, but I get the part about civil now.

Mitch

[venray]

None of these "accusations" were ever proven or even remotely investigated. If there were any indication of truth to them the republicans would have had a field day and his head on a stick.

Again...use facts when making outlandish statements. You have proven nothing and this is the kind of stuff that will not go unchallenged within this forum.

Ray

This is HARDLY a reputable source of information. ROFLMAO!


http://www.pierce-evans.org/Election2.htm

and the other calls itself an anti-Clinton site.....

Perfect example of no substance posting that we do not want here.

[venray]

Not with ANYTHING to do with Bill Clinton......



Politics and Religion Sub-Forum Rules and Policies


By participating in this forum, you agree to abide by our rules and policies. We encourage active debate and free speech, but remember you are guests here. Civil and ethical conduct are required.

The discussion forum strives to be an intellectually stimulating environment in which members exchange ideas in the spirit of discovery. Poisoning that environment with acrimony is highly discouraged. Please exercise tact and refrain from insulting others or disrupting ongoing discussions with inflammatory speech and unsupported allegations. Use reputable resources and verifiable data when appropriate.

[drew70]

Dennis Miller said it best. "Asking Bill Clinton to write an honest book is like asking Britney Spears to sing A Capella." :blaugh: