Why do Dem's still refuse to admit that Clinton's crimes were not "just sex"?

Question

Who give a rip about his sex life? No one! Dems just dismiss Clintons perjury suborning perjury, file gate (illegal assertation of Republicans FBI files-and leaked that information to the press), Travelgate (illegal firings of long term White House employees to give their friends jobs) "selling" access to the White House for campaign finance, Whitewater, abuse of power, perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering. It would appear that Dems reduce Clinton's crimes by redefining his criminal activity as an oversight, snafu, or his private life. Do any people who consider themselves Democrats or even Independents vaugely recall any of this?

Answer 1

You are right, of course. Your first answer was from one of them that is in denial that BJ Bill committed perjury.Some of the answers wants to "dwell on the present" instead of the past, yet, they have the conspiracy nut jobs that want to INVESTIGATE 9/11 again. The fiasco with the peanut farmer and the dictator of North Korea that happened while BJ Bill was president deserves honorable mention: FOLLOWING IS A RUNDOWN:With the Democrats' full-throated moralizing of late, I'm almost tempted to vote for them --
although perhaps "full-throated" is the wrong phrase to use with regard to Democrats and sex scandals.
The sudden emergence of the Swift Butt Veterans for Truth demonstrates that the Democrats would prefer
to talk about anything other than national security.

Unfortunately for them, the psychotic Kim Jong Il seems to be setting off nukes,
raising the embarrassing issue of the Clinton administration's 1994 "peace" deal with North Korea.

At least with former Rep. Mark Foley, you could say the Democrats' hypocritical grandstanding
was just politics. But in the case of North Korea, Democrats are resorting to bald-faced lies.

Current New Mexico governor and former Clinton administration official Bill Richardson has been on tour,
bragging about the groundbreaking Clinton administration negotiations with North Korea --
keeping his fingers crossed that no one has access to news from 1994.

In 1994, the Clinton administration got a call from Jimmy Carter -- probably collect --
who was with the then-leader of North Korea, saying: "Hey, Kim Il Sung is a total stud,
and I've worked out a terrific deal. I'll give you the details later."

Clinton promptly signed the deal, so he could forget about North Korea and get back to
cheating on Hillary. Mission accomplished.

Under the terms of the "agreed framework," we gave North Korea all sorts of bribes --
more than $5 billion worth of oil, two nuclear reactors and lots of high technology. In return,
they took the bribes and kept building nukes. This wasn't difficult, inasmuch as the 1994 deal permitted
the North Koreans to evade weapons inspectors for the next five years.

Yes, you read that right: North Korea promised not to develop nukes, and we showed how much
we trusted them by agreeing to no weapons inspections for five years.

The famed "allies," whom liberals claim they are so interested in pleasing, went ballistic at this cave-in to North Korea.
Japan and South Korea -- actual allies, unlike France and Germany -- were furious. Even Hans Blix thought we were being patsies.

If you need any more evidence that it was a rotten deal, The New York Times hailed it as "a resounding triumph."

At the time, people like William Safire were screaming from the rooftops that allowing North Korea to escape
weapons inspections for five years would "preclude a pre-emptive strike by us if North Korea, in the next
U.S. president's administration, breaks its agreement to freeze additional bomb-making."

And then on Oct. 17, 2002 -- under a new administration, you'll note -- The New York Times reported on the front page,
so you couldn't have missed it: "Confronted by new American intelligence,
North Korea has admitted that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear weapons development program for the past several years."

So when it comes to North Korea, I believe the Democrats might want to maintain a discreet silence,
lest anyone ask, "Hey, did you guys do anything with North Korea?"

But by Richardson's lights, the only reason Kim Jong Il is testing nukes is because Bush called him evil.
He said, "When you call him axis of evil or a tyrant, you know, he just goes crazy."
This is the sort of idiocy you expect to hear from an illiterate like Keith Olbermann,
not someone who might know people who read newspapers.

Richardson also blames the war in Iraq, bleating that the poor North Koreans feel
"that there's too much attention on the Middle East, on Iraq. So it's a cry for attention."
If Kim just wanted our attention, he could have started dating Lindsay Lohan.
But Richardson says Kim "psychologically feels he's been dissed, that he's not treated with respect."

Damn that Bush! If only he had ignored the crazy Muslims and dedicated himself into sending flowers
(and more nuclear reactors!) to North Korea, we could be actively helping Kim develop his nukes
like the Clinton administration did.

As Richardson said, Kim "wants us to negotiate with him directly, as we did in the Clinton administration."

To go on TV and propose negotiating with North Korea like Clinton did without ever mentioning that North Korea
cheated on that agreement before the ink was dry would be like denouncing American aggression against Japan in
1942 and neglecting to mention Pearl Harbor. Anyone who is either that stupid or that disingenuous should not be allowed on TV.

When pressed by CNN's Anderson Cooper about the failed deal, Richardson lied, claiming the 1994 deal prevented
the North Koreans from building nukes "for eight years" -- i.e., right up until the day
The New York Times reported the North Koreans had been developing nukes "for the past several years."

Kim is crazier than any leader even South America has been able to produce.
In fact, he's so crazy, we might be able to get the Democrats to take action.
Someone tell Nancy Pelosi that the "Dear Leader" is an actual pederast. Then we'll at least be able to read his instant messages.

Answer 2

Why didn;t you ask if americans still refuse to admit????
I recall Congress spending million of dollars to get President Clinton. Money my grandchildren needed for social security someday. The problem with this country is everyone is either Repulican, Democrat or Independent. What happened with being an American first?
We need to learn from the past, not dwell in it. And we should be more focused on today's current events.
It is so funny, that cladd thinks all Dem's are non-christian when it comes to moral values.
I am a Christian first, an American second, and a Democrat third. And very proud of it. All my moral convictions are based from my christian teachings and my faith.
The problem is all Dem or Rep or not the same.
We need the overall moderate people running our country.
We don't need someone from the far left or right.
You see cladd, you don't even know me but you have already have an opinion about my Religion and my moral fiber. How can you do this, If you are speaking in general terms? You don't make sense at all.
I for one don't want my country run on the basis of someone's moral convictions, but rather by the Constitution. Like our forefathers wanted. The Constitution was written with Christian ideas and values. We should let our faith help us with desicions but not with policy making. It is already in the Constitution.
What Bill Clinton did is History. What the Republicans have done to this country in the last eight years will be remembered far more than anything that Clinton might have done.
All I can say is we need new leadership. And anyone that can not see this is blind, stupid, or both. And I mean in Both Parties!

Answer 3

That's pretty bad. You couldn't even read your own source right. Based on crimes per capita, Alaska ranks 31. Safety: 44. Now compare that with Washington D.C. : Crimes per capita and safety rank: both 51, i.e. worse than Alaska. Why won't Obama just admit that the capital he governs is a cesspool of crime, worse even than the state Sarah Palin used to govern? Why????

Answer 4

Do any of you NeoCons get it? You continue to ignore Bush's horrid record as president and persist with your attack of past presidents, particularly Bill Clinton, as if laying blame on someone else excuses Bush for his dreadful administration. Who gives a rats butt about the mistakes or decisions of ex-presidents? Why continue to live in the past instead of focusing on the future? For the most part, these dirty deeds from the past are ancient history, and in most cases inconsequential. Why not do the right thing and put the current president under the microscope. Let's worry about today and tomorrow; history has already been written. Get it?

Answer 5

With bush senior and bill getting together so much i begin to wonder about the number of people that may have met there ends around clinton and government drugs for cash and arms .
The list of people that bill may have had killed is over 60 and does bare some closer investigation .the only problem is anyone who gets close to the truth is killed .
Bush senior is tied to clinton and the drugs for arms and money deals between the cia and the contras back in 86 and clintons role as the drop off and transport location for these deals .type in clinton murders and see the lists .
Its amazing the number of people killed by the government and covered up by them .
Worries me to even mention it ,but like others have the need to know is greater then the life of any one person .
The problem is that it is so extensive that no one could belief it .Read the list of clintons murder victims and see if you too do not beleive there is some truth to the matter .again Clinton Murders and see the list .

Answer 6

This may be true about what you're writing about the Democrats but #1- That's the past! #2- It still doesn't compare to what the Republicans have done within these last 8 years. Bush's administration pretty much just packed up and left his a*s hanging. He has no one that he can really lean on except his wife and Condi. Everyone has either resigned or was asked to leave because of all of the publicity that their getting. So I don't think what Clinton did or not did compares on how the Republicans have just big time F*cked Up within these last few years. I could give you a serious a*s listings on the f*ck ups but I don't have that kind of time. Plus it makes me ill to my stomach to even remind myself of them all.

Answer 7

They're lying of course. Both political parties consider truth an expendable commodity in the pursuit of power. Neither party gives a damn about what's best for the country because the overriding consideration is always what's best for the party

Answer 8

I guess you conservatives will go to any lenght to take any and all attention off the criminal sitting in the White House in 2006. Good luck with that.

Answer 9

can we move on to sthing more relevant like saving our nation from rapid decline due to loss of billions to a ruinous war and for rich to get richer while the middle class bears all the brunt?
Re: Mr Ed's comments:
Listen to Mr Ed, now that's some good horse sense right there.

Answer 10

I have no doubt that there is a lot of similar dirt on Bush that if the Democrats controlled congress and had the same determination to impeach Bush at all costs that the Republicans did for Clinton, they could really make Bush look bad.

Answer 11

some people....wait most people, who are political, refuse to even contemplate anyone else's idea's or opinon's could possibly be acceptable to their own.They also deny the facts, ignore the truth, and defend the lieing stealing, and molesting, politicians to the bitter end...even after some go to jail(when that rarely occurs) they still defend them as if they were defending their own life! Its a sickness...and no one will stop it ever...No one ever wants toadmit they just MIGHT be wrong....egads how bad is that?