2006-12-08 03:11:44 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It's not, what is bad is lying about it
2006-12-08 03:13:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Nothing wrong with the act, but if your own wife cannot trust you how can the country. It speaks to the quality of the character of the man in the office. If Hillary hooked Bill up with a few more of them, maybe the Lewinski thing would not have happened. But let us Remember the context of the situation. Clinton was in court, being sued for sexual harassment by a lady who worked under him in Arkansas. Clinton was asked a basic question and he stared into the camera with a look of all sincerity in his face and deny ed doing it. If it was just a BJ and not perjury it would also not have been as big of a deal.
Clinton knew what he was saying was a lie and were it not for the blue dress and Cathryn Wylie we would not have known that he was lying. People do not like getting lied to.
Republican or Democrat, you need to tell the truth, even children know that.
2006-12-08 11:21:10 · answer #2 · answered by jdm6235 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The truth is that it didn't matter. Those that make a big deal of Clinton lying under oath don't have a clue about the witch hunt that was going on. The reason Clinton was under oath was because of the "Whitewater" investigation. The Republicans spent years on this and over $30 million of taxpayers money trying to nail Clinton on this. They couldn't . With the resources they had, and the money spent, the should have been able to put the Pope in prison. When their investigation on Whitewater failed, the smear of Monica came into play. Clinton should have never been asked about Monica, thus no lie would have been told. Monica was not pertinent to the Whitewater investigation. It was a witch hunt and it was shameful.
2006-12-08 11:47:08 · answer #3 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well,
If the president was spending time online following through on his sexual addiction instead of taking care of terrorists perhaps we would not have had a 9/11.
But in the end he lied about it and his wife had to come to his aid and say she stood by her man. Imagine the Clinton's furniture on the white house lawn and Hillary beating him off the head with a rolling pin!
2006-12-08 11:21:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It wasn't the BJ it was that it wasn't his wife giving him the BJ. Then he lied under oath about it and gave the conservative slime bags all the ammo they needed to get an impeachment trial that back fired in a big way.
2006-12-08 13:41:44 · answer #5 · answered by brian L 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was getting BJs from a younger woman other than his wife and he lied about it to a Federal Grand Jury
who was investigating him on sexual harassment charges from another woman.
2006-12-08 11:22:07 · answer #6 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It wasn't the BJ. It was the fact that he lied about the BJ to a grand jury that was investigating sexual harassment charges with another woman, and the prosecution was trying to establish a pattern of unprofessional and despicable behavior toward women that he was in a position of power over.
2006-12-08 11:14:36 · answer #7 · answered by togashiyokuni2001 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It wasn't getting the BJ; it was getting one by a white house intern (a subordinate). Never mind the fact the Prez was married.
2006-12-11 13:53:00 · answer #8 · answered by CPT Jack 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow. Nothing like a liberal to completely twist the story.
1 - It's sexual harassment in any company in the US. The head of the company can't have any sexual relations with an intern. Aren't you liberals all about strong, independent women who aren't simply used by the men in their lives?
2 - It was a risk to national security. Interns aren't supposed to be anywhere near the President - nevertheless alone with him in the Oval Office. She could have given him a disease, she could have tried to harm him while he was in a precarious position, or someone could have used the information to blackmail him.
3 - He lied under oath about the situation.
How can you liberals not understand these basic facts? You can't all be that slow.
2006-12-08 11:15:28 · answer #9 · answered by Spanky 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
If you're referring to Clinton, he did it while he was married supposedly violating the righteous facade presidents are expected to have, not to mention it was highly unprofessional doing it with an intern.
2006-12-08 11:55:41 · answer #10 · answered by Spectre 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is that he lied under oath and he was married to somebody else, how would you feel if your wife did that to another man, president or not?
2006-12-08 11:26:10 · answer #11 · answered by goldengirl 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋