That whole thing was , much to do about nothing . So he lied about sex , don't make more of it then what it was . It has happened before and it will happen again .
There has and always will be men having sex with other women in and out of Congress and the White House .
The Conservative Religious Right hated Clinton and were delighted to push that issue to impeachment , they couldn't find anything else to stick him with . So they went running through the halls of Congress , screaming , " We got him now "..
The thing Clinton did wrong was not telling everyone the truth .
We have that same thing ( not about sex ) in the White House today , but there is no one running through the halls of Congress screaming "He lied , impeach him " and that is because the same people are in office and it's their President that lied , so they don't care .
I call that a double standard.. But hey , that's what you people want , you keep voting them back in office .
Me , I'm looking for more honest and creditable people to vote in .
This congress has been playing politics for years and we let them get by with it .
When History looks back on these time I'm sure that Clinton will be one of our most outstanding Presidents , despite the Congress he had to work with .
2006-07-23 06:01:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Gary Condit was a Dem. and what about the murder of Vincent Foster? The White House destruction of evidence and cover up? Your all mighty Slippery Bill and his wife, Hillary were caught up in that. By the way, those people in NY, isn't there some people there you can get to run your state or is Arkansas a better breeding ground for your elected officials?
2006-07-23 05:36:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by Edward F 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
the sex was not the issue. the CRIME of perjury, that is lying under oath in a court of law, was the issue.
yes I know that you will retort that President Bush lied us into war with Iraq, but first, it is only a lie if you do not believe what you are saying, second, even Senator Hillary Clinton voted to go to war citing as her reasons the same document that President Bush cited, third, that document was prepared by someone who was appointed to his post by President Bill Clinton and owed his entire political career to the democratic party. Yes, there were inaccuracies in the report, no it was not intentionally prepared at the order of the president to misinform the American populace, it was based on the best information available at the time.
2006-07-23 05:27:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by nathanael_beal 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Republicans spent 70 million dollars of our tax money in investigating Clinton. Remember Whitewater, Travelgate, Paula Jones, Vincent Foster. They found nothing, until an illegal recording showed up. Yes he lied under oath. And the House brought Articles of Impeachment against him. And the Senate acquitted him. Now if Bush has done nothing illegal, why not have a investigation. If you are innocent,wouldn't you want your name cleared?
2006-07-23 07:45:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by ggarsk 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
i pass decrease back to the Eisenhower days. I undergo in options precisely the way it went with Clinton. to respond to your question, no, it gained't keep Obama. right here's why. Clinton and Obama are very diverse. Obama is an ideologue. he's devoutly modern who believes in massive authorities administration. Clinton did not count number on something specially, he purely had to be President. So even as Obama is an intensive Leftist, Clinton replaced into extra of a rock action picture star. even as Clinton got here to place of work he had a Democrat Congress. He signed a bill to strengthen taxes. This were given the Democrat Congress tossed out on their ear. even as the Conservative Republicans took over Congress Clinton began to run in the route of the right. It truly did not remember what philosophy replaced into common. He ought to continuously help the triumphing area of any argument. i guess the right thanks to describe Clinton is to assert that he ought to face on the sidelines till a parade began to style, then he ought to run out in the front of it and pretend to be superior it. That kept his approval numbers up. yet, even that wasn't sufficient. The presence of Perot as a third party candidate is what insured Clinton's victory. you observe, in case you look on the numbers, Clinton under no circumstances were given above 40 six% of the vote. It replaced into sufficient in a three way race yet easily extra human beings voted against him than for him. Obama has no such potential to run in the route of the right. he's a Leftist and could pass down as a Leftist. in this he's a lot extra such as Jimmy Carter than bill Clinton. *
2016-10-15 03:01:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Missed a fact on this one huh? Condit was not a Conservative Republican. He was a Democrat.
Keep trying eventually if you keep making baseless attacks one of them is bound to be factually accurate. Better luck next time.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
2006-07-23 05:33:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by C B 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Do you remember the charge? Lying under oath. The same thing that brought down Nixon. But I suppose you are willing to forgive ol slick Willie because that's the way you fall no matter what evidence was brought against him. Most of the politically motivated people here are not looking for truth. Just a way to support their preconceived notions.
2006-07-23 05:22:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I remember...because just after that, the economy started to tank, we went to war in Iraq for something that non-Iraqis did, and... oh yeah, the gas prices went up jobs became very hard to find. Not to mention that the condition of things in the rest of the world pretty much went down, too. That's gotta suck in a third world country, because it's not so hot here.
2006-07-23 05:33:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yet ANOTHER example of Repuglican hypocisy. Condit, O.J., Cheney, Scott Petersen; One of these is NOT like the other, which one?....right, Scott Petersen wasn't wealthy and now he's rotting away in San Quentin like the other 3 should be doing.
2006-07-23 05:19:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by Dr.Feelgood 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Gary Condit is a Democrat.
2006-07-23 05:21:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by lit_fagin 3
·
0⤊
0⤋