If Clinton Lied About Monica Why SHould We Believe Anything He Says About His Efforts To Get Bin Laden?

Question

If he was willing to lie about something so TRIVIAL as what you Clinton sheep call "just a BJ" why would anybody think he'd tell the truth about something much MORE important?

Want to Relive the Clinton Years? Go here:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/strange.html

Wait, what does Bush have to do with this question? Are some of you that ignorant that you somehow think Clinton's lies about Monica had something to do with Bush?

This question merely speaks to Clinton's credibility. At what point do you start believing a KNOWN liar?

Why do the less intelligent of you keep calling me a NeoCon? I'm more a Goldwater conservative- old school Republican.

Remember Goldwater? He was around when the Democrats were still open about their racism.

Answer 1

I didn't believe a word he said before Monica. Liberals still believe him after Monica.

Answer 2

If I remember correctly Clinton eventually did tell the truth about the Monica Lewinski affair and publicly apologized. What he did to go after Bin Laden is a matter of public record. Clinton didn't make all his mistakes classified. I seem to remember the expression "wag the dog" thrown around every time Clinton tried to go after BinLaden.
The only people that want to relive the Clinton years are pathetic neocons, like you. Get over it! The nineties are over. It's the 21st century. I thought you were going to bring dignity back to the White House.

Answer 3

I don't now nor have I ever believed anything that came from the mouth of Bill Clinton. His lies date back to being a scholar. I'm still not clear about his time in Russia. The way he looked into the camera, shaking his finger at us, the citizens of America, and lied through his teeth re Monica and his lack of sexual relations still makes me sick. He is and will always be a weasel.

Answer 4

It became a common "FOX information" attempt to deflect interest from genuine modern-day matters in basic terms in the previous an election, and Clinton took Wallace to the woodshed. Clinton became an above-extensive-unfold President, and Bush is the worst on the grounds that a minimum of Warren G. Harding.

Answer 5

If you seek the truth then you must do your research; put togther the pieces of information derived from many independent sources and derive your conclusion based on analysis of evidence. If they coincide with a statement made by anyone, then perhaps you might tend to have some measure of confidence in what is said.
Else if you are lax, and/or the issue does not particularly affect you in the present or future, then you are free to debate what another says of the past and draw whatever conclusions that suits you best.

Answer 6

I don't think Clinton's relationship with Monica was so trivial, nonetheless you make a good point. Still, why shouldn't we believe that he feels guilty for not forcing Tenent, who was the supposed employee, to kill Bin Laden anyone of the times everything was in place, but he called it off?

Answer 7

Excellent point. The man was disbarred for lying. He sat there and wagged his finger in our faces saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." A good liar always acts insulted that you would even accuse him.

I never believed a word he said about anything.

.

Answer 8

Because he had the right to lie to reporters about his personal life. He should have just told them to F off..

Relive the Clinton Years:
Scroll down to the bottom half of the page..

http://members.aol.com/freedog1000/

Answer 9

I don't believe anything either of the Clintons has to say. They are both known liars.

Answer 10

KarlKalis,

The past is the past.

You should move forward and let go of the grudge you hold against Ms. Monica Lewinski.