Or was pursuing Clinton only for the crime of perjury? Or was the entire thing poltical in nature and nothing more?
2007-03-12 15:18:33 · 13 answers · asked by james B 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
He pursued Clinton for the crime of perjury AND it was a political thing AND he is a hypocrite or just a sleaze.
2007-03-12 15:23:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Nope, he isn't. He pursued Clinton for lieing under oath. It just so happens the lie concerned an affair with Ms. Monica. Newt simply figured that the Highest authority in the land can't get away with committing Perjury. It's the Media that made a fanfare of it all. Newt all along was having a secret adulterous affair, while not telling about it. He didn't commit perjury, so he doesn't qualify as a hypocrite on this count.
2007-03-12 23:02:36 · answer #2 · answered by nitr0bike 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Since you don't allow emails, I had to respond here with regards to your question about post-war Germany etc.
I think it's hilarious you chose that other guys answer as best answer.
In the first part of his answer, he basically gave you a recap of the last days of the war in Italy, and then with regards to Austria he talks about "supply lines from the east being unmanagable..." ??? Btw, Italy was occupied.
This dude didn't even answer your question, but I guess someone giving you some textbook timeline of events rather than the psychological underlying cause and effect was good enough for you to buy it...
2007-03-13 00:16:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Newt was a hypocrite, but we already knew that. He was also a cynical hypocrite, only interested in power and all of his political messages were about manipulating the populace to give him that power.
Pretty much any stance he's ever taken, you see him talking about of both sides of his face. Anything he's ever taken anyone else to task on, has been fine if he's the one doing it.
He's pretty far down in the muck, and if he does run for President, all his baggage will be truly on display. Let the spin begin!
2007-03-12 22:48:17 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Newt is a hypocrite. We know the Republicans focused on Bill and ignored the issues of the day in their fever attempt to discredit Clinton.
Clinton should have kept his Willy in his pants.
Anyone that would vote for Newt and criticized Clinton deserves dysfunctional government.
2007-03-12 22:27:37 · answer #5 · answered by kenny J 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Your last sentence has answered your own question. People need to realize that Washington is a small Hollywood. Nobody can keep their hands to themselves, and everybody wants to point a finger at the other person to take the heat off themselves.
2007-03-12 22:41:59 · answer #6 · answered by classic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I didn't think it was possible for those bible thumping god fearing commandment following right wing republikan nutcases to be hypocrites. I thought with god on their side they could do no wrong ..... A republikan hypocrite? never..... the pursuit of Clinton was pure politics...and cost this country 70 million bucks to do so...plus, a case can be made that it distracted President Clinton from pursuing terrorists on his watch...
2007-03-12 22:26:45 · answer #7 · answered by conx-the-dots 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, he wasn't a hipocrite; Clinton broke the law. And yes, it was political, everything in Washington is. And it wasn't about Lewinski. He was impeached for lying in a deposition about the Paula Jones case.
2007-03-12 22:23:40 · answer #8 · answered by normobrian 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
According to him, it was the perjury angle. But how stupid can one person be.
Not telling the truth is the same thing as telling a lie...
2007-03-12 22:22:11 · answer #9 · answered by powhound 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Definitely. But conservatives usually are hypocrites.
It's not whether the act is really that wrong. It's what they can sell. Gullibility is a key feature in their constituency.
2007-03-12 22:24:47 · answer #10 · answered by Gerry S 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋