People can't think of a legitimate reason for hating Clinton so they concoct this one. We were the laughing stock of the world during that whole trial. Most countries found it humorous that anyone would consider a powerful man not able to have a bimbo on the side. The Neocons embarrassed us then and they still are.
2007-05-23 08:42:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
It was only a 'big deal' to Clinton's Republican opponents who couldn't stand the fact that he was such a popular and effective President. So, Republicans wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars - and thousands of man hours - just to prove they were 'more moral' than Clinton. As this political 'show' was going on, there were certainly many Republican prosecutors, Congressmen, judges, and bureaucrats who left the proceedings and tottered off to one of their private little 'cubbyholes' in the Capitol Building for there own dirty little trysts and indiscretions. It was the Republicans 'getting even' with the Democrats for bringing down Richard M. Nixon, among other things.
These so-called 'honorable' men and women are the dregs of the Earth, completely untrustworthy, and without a thread of common decency. Republicans and Democrats alike should be tarred-and-feathered, dragged through the streets and publicly humiliated for their repugnant way of life. And don't say, "They're human, too..." because they're supposed to set the example for the rest of the nation. It should be their responsibility to live up to a higher standard instead of being the drunks, sex offenders, perverts, drug abusers, liars, wife beaters, and deadbeats that they are; throw the bums out!! -RKO- 05/23/07
2007-05-23 15:48:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by -RKO- 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
So many?
Here are the ones I've heard about;
FDR
JFK
LBJ
Bill Clinton
I've read many Secret Service behind the scenes reports about the fidelity of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and both Bush's.
As far as Clinton defiling the Oval Office, it just shows his disrepsect for the Office and his inability to control his urges, but there was definitely a Republican lead witch hunt to trap him into perjury and humiliate him, which was counter productive, (kind of like so many current Democrat lead witch hunts).
2007-05-23 15:50:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by heavysarcasm 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, he gets the heat because he got caught and exposed. Years ago, such as in the Kennedy era, the media took it easier on Presidents and their personal life. Everyone knew they were fooling around but they didn't seek to expose them publicly; back then they actually thought that was private business between a man and his wife. Not anymore!
He made it worse by lying under oath and being impeached because of it. For me the hypocrisy in those who fling mud at him and Hillary over this is that they know full well that Presidents have been fooling around since God was a boy. But given the chance to roast Clinton over it they jump at it like starving dogs. He's immoral, he's this, he's that. I guess it's convenient for them to ignore those who have done it too, but failed to be publicly exposed. Not caught redhanded? Then they don't get called immoral, they just get a pass.
2007-05-23 15:42:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
You first generalization was a bit harsh. I don't think that all of our presidents have cheated on their wives. Hell, James Buchanan didn't even have a wife (and he was rumored to be homosexual).
Clinton was the victim of an imposing media. The celebrity focused media will jump onto any scandal present. Our water coolers live of this kind of thing. Back in the early days, we didn't have television or the Internet that would allow us to spread the word of infidelity in our politician's personal lives. It's simply modern society working it's way to abolish any public figure's privacy.
2007-05-23 15:42:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
I'll preface this by saying that I'm a Republican. I try to be non-biased, but I do vote Republican about 90% of the time.
Personally, I don't care the Clinton got a BJ in office. Good for him. If I were married to Hillary I'd be looking for side action too.
I think what got him into trouble was getting caught, then lying about it, then getting caught lying about it.
...and I wouldn't say almost all. Certainly Clinton and Kennedy. I don't know about much concrete proof about anyone else. I know certain ones never would have imagined, Reagan most notably. He was famous for the way he adored Nancy.
2007-05-23 15:41:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by bigsave2 3
·
7⤊
1⤋
the only difference is he got caught. Nixon got caught, it is easier than ever today, there is no or very little privacy anymore.
Others have the same problems, didn't Ben Franklin have a problem with the ladies??
I would rather have a president that prefer BJ s to one that start a questionable war while he avoided service in another.
2007-05-23 15:50:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by P.A.M. 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm sure by now that you have seen all the comments about Clinton lying under oath and perjury. Why is that these people never ask themselves why Clinton was being asked about Monica L. during the "Whitewater Investigation"? It is because they don't want to admit it was a witch hunt. It was "get Clinton" at all costs. And why???? Where they jealous that he was President during the best economical times in U.S. history??? I really don't know. But I find it ironic that those very people that complain about Bush Bashing were all for getting Clinton at any cost. By the way, as much as they want to call it perjury, it wasn't. In order for it to be perjury, the information has to be material to the case. Monica was in NO way pertinent to the case. This is more about hate than anything. Limbaugh told them to hate Clinton and they did.
2007-05-23 15:49:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by truth seeker 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
I'm disappointed when politicians don't take care of their families. Fidelity is a part of that.
However, that being said, what is our moral compass? David and Solomon were both adulterers. That's not an excuse. Just fuel for the conversation.
2007-05-23 15:42:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
there was a time in this country when the media was more inclined to hide these sorts of things to protect the cheater as in the case of jfk for example, but times change of course and it became much more interesting to 'out' the cheater as in the case of clinton. but make no mistake, clinton brought that misery upon himself, his family, and the nation by LYING to our faces on national television and creating the media circus that hounded him for it.
2007-05-23 15:53:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋