Why were they asking about his sex life in the first place?????? We should have been asking him what he was going to do about the recent terrorist attacks against the United States. Am I right???????
2007-03-16 09:17:27 · 20 answers · asked by J 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"Why were they asking about his sex life in the first place??????"
Because he was a predator, a sexual harrassment nightmare. If you think that everyone should have looked the other way when he propositioned subordinates for sex, then you need to tell every woman in Y!A that you are against sexual harassment laws that were put on the books to protect women in the workplace from brutish, or worse, dangerous men.
2007-03-16 10:06:44 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They were asking about his sex life because of a law that Bill Clinton signed into effect regarding sexual harassment in the workplace. At first it was an effort to establish behavoir patterns in the Paula Jones Civil suit against Bill Clinton. One a possible relationship between the sitting President and a White House intern was raised, Ken Starr was obligated to investigate as completely as possible.
Imagine if you were CEO of a company and a new hire kept getting all nice new assignments while more senior workers got, well, more or less stiffed. Then it gets found out this new hire talents are mainly outside her (or anyone else's job descriptions). Do you think other women would feel pressured to giving you better service than you had a right to ask?. Would you think it fair? Should the you be investigated or not?
And when that investigation proved Clinton pergured himself in a depostion taken under oath before the court of law he should have been disbarred, which he was; Impeached, which he was; and removed from office, which he was not because there was no political will to do so. His spin machine convinced the robotized liberal masses to scream "It's all about his personal sex life. It's a witch hunt". No, it was about Felony Pergury.
2007-03-16 16:29:58 · answer #2 · answered by SteveA8 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
His proneness to blackmail due to his poor judgment is a serious matter (or could have been) however I do agree with the notion that he should have been asked about his lack of action against terrorist after the Cole and the Embassy bombings (2) and the marine barracks. I don't think that it should have been taken lightly how he committed perjury either. Well we survived him and we must move on but we should be smarter in the future. All of the presidents actions while in office can affect his ability to do the right thing. A president who can be bribed is not what you would like to have running the country.
2007-03-16 16:31:14 · answer #3 · answered by joevette 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First you need understand that Clinton DID get impeached. Impeachment is just a fancy way of saying accused. He was not, however, found guilty of commiting a crime.
The whole deal was an attempt to discredit the president and to get the focus off the neocon agenda.
If you want to know what was going on in Clinton's White House regarding Al Qaeda and the lead up to 9/11 read the following:
"You're Not Stupid! Get The Truth", by William John Cox.
2007-03-16 16:29:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Clinton was the subject of a witch-hunt. Who in their right mind actually cares about a leaders sex-life? The conservo's made this whole process like a tabloid. Talking about sex and dirty dresses.
And just because Bill did not do the things that George is doing now (which may not even be the correct course of action as we all know), who is to say he did nothing?
2007-03-16 16:29:43 · answer #5 · answered by theswamii 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives. He had a trial in the Senate. The Senate elected not to remove him from office. That's how the system works. The Senators were thinking "there, but for the grace of God, go I."
Clinton was sued by Paula Jones for sexual harrassment. He denied exposing himself to her and denied asking for oral sex. He lied about it. Monica Lewinsky did give him oral sex. Remember the stained blue dress? He lied about that.
2007-03-16 16:30:38 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
DUUDDEE! I'm probably the only republican that thought the whole episode was RIDICOULAS, and not only should he not have been impeached for getting a hummer, the one that told on him, the one that recorded the phone conversations ,( well we should cut her face off and use it as military arsinel, talk about a ugly dog without a life) and the one thayt asked the guestion ""did you have sex with that woman?" should be taken out and dragged down the Belt-Way. Just my veiw, I mean when the king can't get a hummer, well things in this world go to hell, maybe that's what bush needs to cool him and dick down a little. That one RREALLY pissed me off.
2007-03-16 16:28:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Clinton was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones which is what led to an investigation that uncovered Clintons attempts to have Monica alter the testimony she was going to give (witness tampering). It's hard to investigate sexual harassment without asking about sex.
2007-03-16 16:24:24 · answer #8 · answered by VoodooPunk 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because Monica was doing IT to him in the Oval Office. That is an unethical deed, and he was having himself be performed upon while speaking to top officials, Senators, and the like on the phone during the act.
Of course people asked what he was going to do about the terrorist attacks, but Clintons response was always, "Ohhhhhhh, yeah, let me get back to you on that! I am kind of busy right now!"
2007-03-16 16:27:05 · answer #9 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Independent.
He should have been impeached, for perjury. It doesn't matter which party one is in. Isn't that what real justice signifies? Poor people are wrongfully imprisoned (sometimes) while crooked politicians walk far too often.
2007-03-16 16:22:14 · answer #10 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋