TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Hillary's complicity
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Hillary's complicity

was Hillary complicit in her husband's alleged 20 something years of extra-marital affairs and sexual harassment of often-vulnerable women? was she involved in any cover ups? is she morally culpable?

i wonder what her core supporters would think of her if they believed for a moment that Hillary looked the other way (for her own political career's sake) while her husband took advantage of many women.

comments?

Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange was Hillary complicit in her husband's alleged 20 something years of extra-marital affairs and sexual harassment of often-vulnerable women? was she involved in any cover ups? is she morally culpable? i wonder what her core supporters would think of her if they believed for a moment that Hillary looked the other way (for her own political career's sake) while her husband took advantage of many women. comments?

First, any sources for these allegations?

Second... this thread is stupid.

Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange was Hillary complicit in her husband's alleged 20 something years of extra-marital affairs and sexual harassment of often-vulnerable women? was she involved in any cover ups? is she morally culpable? i wonder what her core supporters would think of her if they believed for a moment that Hillary looked the other way (for her own political career's sake) while her husband took advantage of many women. comments?

its an arranged marriage

Re: Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov First, any sources for these allegations?

quote:

Paula Corbin Jones (born Paula Rosalee Corbin on September 17, 1966, in Lonoke, Arkansas) is a former Arkansas state employee who sued President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment and eschewal. Eventually, the court dismissed the lawsuit, before trial, on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. However, while the dismissal was on appeal, Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement by agreeing to pay Jones $850,000. Jones v. Clinton [edit] Background According to her story, on May 8, 1991, Paula Jones was escorted to the room of Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, in the Excelsior[1][2][3] (now Peabody) Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where he allegedly propositioned her. She claimed she kept quiet about the incident until 1994, when a David Brock story in American Spectator told a lurid account, sometimes referred to as Troopergate, about an Arkansas employee named "Paula" offering to be Clinton's girlfriend. Jones filed a sexual harassment and eschewal suit against Clinton on May 6, 1994, two days prior to the 3-year statute of limitations. Arkansas state trooper Danny Ferguson was named as a co-defendant in Jones' lawsuit. According to Brock, Ferguson told Jones that the [then] Governor Clinton would like to meet with her in his room. Ferguson then escorted Jones up to Clinton's room and stood outside the room until Jones came out. According to Ferguson, when Jones came out she said that she would not mind being Clinton's girlfriend. Jones denied Ferguson's version of the story, and subsequently named Ferguson as a co-defendant. While there were no witnesses to back up Jones' account, Clinton's previous actions with a number of other women produced many witnesses who were willing to testify to similar behavior. In late 1997, Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled Jones was "entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom President Clinton had sexual relations or proposed to or sought to have sexual relations and who were, during the relevant time frame, state or federal employees." [edit] Initial lawsuit Jones began to be represented by Gilbert Davis and Joseph Cammarata, two Washington, D.C.-area lawyers. Later she befriended Susan Carpenter-McMillan, a California woman and conservative commentator, who became her press spokesperson. Carpenter-McMillan wasted no time in using the press to attack Clinton to a much greater degree, calling him "un-American," a "liar," and a "philanderer" on Meet the Press, Crossfire, Equal Time, Larry King Live, Today, The Geraldo Rivera Show, Burden of Proof, Hannity & Colmes, Talkback Live, and other shows. "I do not respect a man who dodges the draft, cheats on his wife, and exposes his penis to a stranger," she said.[4] Clinton and his defense team challenged Jones' ability to bring forward a civil lawsuit against a sitting president for an incident that occurred prior to the defendant becoming president. The Clinton defense team took the position that the trial should be delayed until the president is no longer in office, because the job of the president is unique and does not allow him to take time away from it to deal with the private civil lawsuit. The case wound its way through the courts, eventually reaching the Supreme Court on January 13, 1997. On May 27, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Clinton, and allowed the lawsuit to proceed.[1] [edit] Change in counsel In September 1997, Jones' attorneys Gilbert Davis and Joseph Cammarata both quit the case, after Carpenter-McMillan advised Jones to reject the settlement offer from Clinton because it did not come with an apology. Jones was then represented by the Rutherford Institute, a conservative legal organization, and by a Dallas law firm. Carpenter-McMillan continued to serve as Jones' spokesperson. [edit] Paula Jones' declaration Under penalty of perjury, Paula Jones declared that Clinton had Trooper Danny Ferguson escort her to Clinton's hotel room where Clinton made sexual advances that were rejected by Jones. Clinton eventually dropped both his trousers and his underwear and exposed himself to Jones, at which time Jones said she had to go.[5] [edit] Conclusion of case Before the case reached trial, Judge Susan Webber Wright granted President Clinton's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Jones could not show that she had suffered any damages--according to Arkansas state law standards of outrage and intentional infliction of emotional distress--even if her claim of sexual harassment were otherwise proven. Jones appealed the dismissal to a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, where, at oral argument, two of the three judges on the panel appeared sympathetic to her arguments.[6] On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal. All but $151,000 went to pay, what were by then, considerable legal expenses. Before the end of the entire litigation, her marriage broke apart and she appeared in the news media to show the results of a nose job paid for by a donor.[7] In April 1999, Judge Wright found President Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay Jones $91,000 for the expenses incurred as the result of Clinton's dishonest and misleading answers.[8] Wright then referred Clinton's conduct to the Arkansas Bar for disciplinary action, and on January 19, 2001, the day before President Clinton left the White House, Clinton entered into an agreement with the Arkansas Bar and Independent Counsel Robert Ray under which Clinton was stripped of his license to practice law for a period of five years.[9] With the inducement of further evidence in the case, President Clinton was held in contempt of court by judge Susan Webber Wright.[8] His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas and later by the United States Supreme Court.[10] In addition he was fined $90,000.[11] His fine was paid for by a fund raised for his legal expenses.

wiki

it's obvious he paid her hush money. why else would he pay her?

quote:

Gennifer Flowers (born January 24, 1950) is a woman who had a relationship with former U.S. President Bill Clinton. She attended the University of Arkansas. Her current husband is Finis D. Shelnutt.[citation needed] She came forward during Bill Clinton's 1992 Presidential election campaign alleging that she had had a twelve-year relationship with him. When Bill Clinton denied having relationship with Flowers, she held a press conference in which she played tape recordings she claimed were of secretly recorded intimate phone calls with Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton, for the first time, made the media rounds to rebut sexual allegations against her husband. When asked why Clinton and Flowers called each other "honey" in the tapes, Mrs. Clinton explained that this was how people talked in Arkansas. At least two Arkansas state police officers who had formerly guarded Bill Clinton when he was Governor backed up Flowers' story. Clinton also apologized to Mario Cuomo for remarks he made about him on the tapes. n his autobiography My Life, Clinton acknowledged testifying under oath that he had sexual relations with Flowers on one occasion only. When Flowers learned of it, she went public again to tell her side. ... Flowers sued Hillary Rodham Clinton, George Stephanopoulos, James Carville, and others for defamation, claiming that they orchestrated a campaign to discredit her. Judicial Watch represented her in her defamation lawsuit against Hillary's former aides, Stephanopoulos and Carville. The alleged defamation occurred in 1992. Newspapers reported that she and Gov. Bill Clinton had an affair. Bill Clinton denied the affair at that time. Flowers held a news conference and played audio tapes of phone calls between them. On CNN and ABC Carville and Stephanopoulos said Flowers had changed the tapes' information. Stephanopoulos also repeated that claim in his book. She claims they conspired with Hillary to defame her. Larry Klayman, Flowers' attorney, was seeking damages in court (Flowers v. Carville). "We allege Hillary Clinton was the mastermind of them uttering the words that the tapes were doctored," Klayman said. "They destroyed her." A number of judgments have been made and some appeals have been upheld. In January, 2006, the Ninth Circuit rejected the latest appeal. Future appeals are under consideration.

wiki

quote:

Between November 15, 1995 � April 7, 1996, Lewinsky had an intimate relationship with President Bill Clinton. She later testified that the relationship involved oral sex in the Oval Office and other sexual contact but that sexual intercourse did not occur. Clinton had previously been dogged by allegations of sexual misconduct, most notably in regard to an alleged long-term relationship with singer and former Arkansas state employee Gennifer Flowers, and an encounter with Arkansas state employee Paula Jones (n�e Corbin) in a Little Rock hotel room in which Jones claimed that Clinton exposed himself to her. These events were alleged to have occurred during Clinton's time as Governor of Arkansas. Lewinsky's name surfaced during legal proceedings connected to the latter matter, when Jones's lawyers sought corroborating evidence of Clinton's conduct to substantiate Jones's allegations. In April 1996, Lewinsky's superiors relocated her job to the Pentagon because they felt she was spending too much time around Clinton. Monica confided in a co-worker named Linda Tripp about her relationship with the President. Beginning in September 1997, Tripp began secretly recording their telephone conversations regarding the affair with Clinton. In January 1998, after Lewinsky had submitted an affidavit in the Paula Jones case denying any physical relationship with Clinton, and attempted to persuade Tripp to lie under oath in the Jones case, Tripp gave the tapes to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, and these tapes added to his ongoing investigation into the Whitewater controversy. Starr broadened his investigation to include investigating Lewinsky, Clinton, and others for possible perjury and subornation of perjury in the Jones case. Noteworthy for its revelation of Tripp's motivations was her reporting of their conversations to literary agent Lucianne Goldberg. Tripp also convinced Lewinsky to save the gifts that Clinton had given her during their affair, and not to dry clean what would later be infamously known as "the blue dress." While under oath, Clinton denied having had "a sexual affair," "sexual relations," or "a sexual relationship" with Lewinsky,[4] and on 26 January 1998 claimed "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" in a nationally televised White House news conference. The line later became famous for its technical truthfulness but deceptive nature, based on one's definition of "sexual relations." Clinton also said, "there is not a sexual relationship, an improper sexual relationship or any other kind of improper relationship"[5] which he defended as truthful on 17 August 1998 hearing because of the use of the present tense, famously arguing "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"[6] (i.e., he was not, at the time he made that statement, still having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky). Under pressure from Starr, who as Clinton learned had obtained from Lewinsky a blue dress with Clinton's semen stain, as well as testimony from Lewinsky that the President had inserted a cigar-tube into her vagina, Clinton admitted that he lied to the American people and that he had had "inappropriate intimate contact" with Lewinsky. Clinton denied having committed perjury because, according to Clinton, the legal definition[7] of oral sex was mutually exclusive of "sex" per se. Clinton's insistence on the alleged distinction drew criticism from both political parties.

wiki

or you could just go buy:

Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine
wiki

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Second... this thread is stupid.

this thread and the question it poses are perfectly valid as it reveals her character, a dirty rotten power hungry cunt.

Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange was Hillary complicit in her husband's alleged 20 something years of extra-marital affairs and sexual harassment of often-vulnerable women? was she involved in any cover ups? is she morally culpable? i wonder what her core supporters would think of her if they believed for a moment that Hillary looked the other way (for her own political career's sake) while her husband took advantage of many women. comments?

They would support her no matter what. It's the nature of Democrats.

And I do believe that she has always known about the extra-marital affairs. Their relationship is more about Politics than it is about a genuine marriage, IMHO.

Re: Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco They would support her no matter what. It's the nature of Democrats. And I do believe that she has always known about the extra-marital affairs. Their relationship is more about Politics than it is about a genuine marriage, IMHO.

my point is not whether they are in love or not (i couldn't give a rat's ass) but whether she just looked the other way while her husband took advantage of some women. what poor character. ready from day one? ready to look the other way!

that's what we like to see, americans poking their nose into the married lives of their leaders!

agree with lesbiankalashnikov, thread is pointless and stupid and a reason why the world often laughs at america.

Re: Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco They would support her no matter what. It's the nature of Democrats.

hahahahha. because looking the other way whilst your husband runs around on you is way worse than invading sovereign nations and killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Re: Re: Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hahahahha. because looking the other way whilst your husband runs around on you is way worse than invading sovereign nations and killing hundreds of thousands of people.

I could actually care less if he cheats on her. But when he lied about it on the witness stand in order to save his neck, he broke the law. It cost him his license as an Attorney.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I could actually care less if he cheats on her. But when he lied about it on the witness stand in order to save his neck, he broke the law. It cost him his license as an Attorney.

firstly, its "couldn't care less" - when the americans bastardised this expression i am unaware.

and haha @ "broke the law", if that was the only law bush had broken the world would be a far better place! come on, lets be serious. i find the uneven keel of your opinions ridiculous. you'll bend over backwards to skate the tiny line in between lie and truth re WMD in iraq, but you'll care about bill lying on the stand about something so trivial?

how is do you find that differentiation logical?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN firstly, its "couldn't care less" - when the americans bastardised this expression i am unaware.

Yah? Well deal with it!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ...and haha @ "broke the law", if that was the only law bush had broken the world would be a far better place! come on, lets be serious. i find the uneven keel of your opinions ridiculous. you'll bend over backwards to skate the tiny line in between lie and truth re WMD in iraq, but you'll care about bill lying on the stand about something so trivial? how is do you find that differentiation logical?

"How is do you"? How DARE you ask me "How is do you"!! NOBODY asks ME "How is do you"! I've got your "How is do you" pal, right here!!

Anyway...

There is no tiny line regarding the belief that there were WMD's in Iraq. They thought they were there, but they weren't (apparently). End of story.

But you don't have a real appreciation for our domestic laws (again, because you don't live here), and how inappropriate it was/is for a President, of all people, to break the law.

Richard Nixon resigned over no less of a law-breaking scandal. Clinton SHOULD have done the same thing, but he's an arrogant prick who thinks his personal interests are greater then that of the country's. He set a dangerous precedent by breaking the law and NOT resigning. Slippery slope, IMHO.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN firstly, its "couldn't care less" - when the americans bastardised this expression i am unaware.

1966

quote:

The expression I could not care less originally meant 'it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all'. It was originally a British saying and came to the US in the 1950s. It is senseless to transform it into the now-common I could care less. If you could care less, that means you care at least a little. The original is quite sarcastic and the other form is clearly nonsense. The inverted form I could care less was coined in the US and is found only here, recorded in print by 1966. The question is, something caused the negative to vanish even while the original form of the expression was still very much in vogue and available for comparison - so what was it? There are other American English expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of an apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means 'Don't tell me about it, because I know all about it already'. The Yiddish I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often 'I have no hope of being so lucky', has a similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning as does I could care less.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Yah? Well deal with it!

How the hell do you get off having a visceral and illogical hatred for a woman whose husband cheated on her, while more or less giving a man who cheated on his wife a free pass?




Like I said, this thread is retarded. You provided absolutely no evidence that Hillary knew about the Lewinsky affair, and instead posted wikipedia articles that talk about allegations against her husband.

I agree with PKC - shit like this is why people think Americans are petty and stupid.

I'd hit it.

Re: Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco They would support her no matter what. It's the nature of Democrats.

No more our nature than it is in Republicans to support a warmonger who deliberately dodged fighting in the Vietnam war and serving the rest of his time in the National Guard, I suppose.

Re: Re: Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 No more our nature than it is in Republicans to support a warmonger who deliberately dodged fighting in the Vietnam war and serving the rest of his time in the National Guard, I suppose.

When you say "Dodged the Vietnam War", you're talking about Clinton, right?

Oh wait, that's right; He didn't even bother to serve in the Guard.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco "How is do you"? How DARE you ask me "How is do you"!! NOBODY asks ME "How is do you"! I've got your "How is do you" pal, right here!!

hahaha. i was wasted when i wrote that

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Anyway... There is no tiny line regarding the belief that there were WMD's in Iraq. They thought they were there, but they weren't (apparently). End of story. But you don't have a real appreciation for our domestic laws (again, because you don't live here), and how inappropriate it was/is for a President, of all people, to break the law. Richard Nixon resigned over no less of a law-breaking scandal. Clinton SHOULD have done the same thing, but he's an arrogant prick who thinks his personal interests are greater then that of the country's. He set a dangerous precedent by breaking the law and NOT resigning. Slippery slope, IMHO.

come on now, do you REALLY think bush is a more honest president than clinton was? honestly!? clinton was 10x the president and bush is 10x the liar. how can you rally so hard against clinton for lying about his personal life when bush has made it his goal in life to circumvent your constitution and sow fear and panic in the populace? how can you give bush a free ride on things like the plame affair, and yet get so indignant over what bill does will his willy?

the bias here is astounding.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov How the hell do you get off having a visceral and illogical hatred for a woman whose husband cheated on her, while more or less giving a man who cheated on his wife a free pass?

because i support Obama and this is the democratic primary. McCain will get his dues in due time.

srsly, somebody should swift boat Hillary with this. throw out baseless allegations that can't be disproved. raise many questions. split her core supporters. i think it has legs.

what did she know? when did she know it? did she conspire with the president to lie before the grand jury? what role did she play in the president's decision to pay paula jones money to withdraw her sexual harassment suit?

why does she look the other way when it's politically convenient? taking this further, would she act the same way if she held presidential power. would she put political convenience ahead of principle? (recall the US embrace of sadam hussein in the iraq/iran war.)

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I'd hit it.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that's what we like to see, americans poking their nose into the married lives of their leaders! agree with lesbiankalashnikov, thread is pointless and stupid and a reason why the world often laughs at america.

The world often laughs at America for being totally fucking ignorant about anything beyond football, and hence being incredibly naive to and extent that's often unbelievable... not because of whatever else you're referring to. Plus, making a big deal over lying about a BJ and grounds for impeachement is kind of sad compared to lying to go to war and devestate a nation! I know you don't anyone in the goverment or intelligence agency was complicit in 9-11, but to ignore PNAC, their goals of American Hegemony and total global dominance, isn't exactly a theory or overly critical analysis of their actions. Their (NeoCon) policy and words are actually consistant in that respect. There's two things I've realized that drive you nuts, one would be even the slightest mention of religion, and the second would be skepticism/criticism of those in power. But loosing your mind (which you didn't really do here but do have a tendancy to do quite a bit) or pure derision doesn't really help your cause or your argument a whole lot, and certainly not you personaly. Reactive responses don't generally help much. Yes, I know I'm guilty of being reactive at times too, but at least I'm pissed off for legitimate reasons (war, bloodshed, opression, uter hypocrisy and injustice), things like that, you know, that should piss anyone off but apparently that's not the case. Just a though.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN come on now, do you REALLY think bush is a more honest president than clinton was? honestly!? clinton was 10x the president and bush is 10x the liar. how can you rally so hard against clinton for lying about his personal life when bush has made it his goal in life to circumvent your constitution and sow fear and panic in the populace? how can you give bush a free ride on things like the plame affair, and yet get so indignant over what bill does will his willy? the bias here is astounding.

What's "astounding" is that you don't read! Are you wasted again or something?

I said I don't care what he does with his pecker. Lying on the witness stand in a civil manner is another matter.

Bush lies? About what; WMD's? Please...let's not get in to that old argument again.

lol@"bush has made it his goal in life to circumvent your constitution and sow fear and panic in the populace". Don't you think that's a little absurd in the literal sense?

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange ...would she act the same way if she held presidential power?

I don't think anyone will be going down on Hilary in the Oval Office. Maybe if she was 30 years younger...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco When you say "Dodged the Vietnam War", you're talking about Clinton, right? Oh wait, that's right; He didn't even bother to serve in the Guard.

No, I mean your little Dubya. Of course Billy Boy made his stance known loud and clear about the war and went to Canada instead. Everyone knew where he stood with that war. Unlike little George who pretended to want to fight but put a big fat check mark by the option to stay instead of ACTUALLY fight in that war overseas, and then turned around and ended up not serving out his time in the Guard in the first place.

Not that his 5 deferments warmongering VP is any better, of course.

I hold little loyalty to Clinton, but he's come out and stated his reasons why he dodged that war. Has your little boy hero done the same? Or does it just not count for him because, well, he was kinda, sorta there in the Guard, demonstrating how big and bad of a fighter he really was?

And shall we continue with this silly branding and generalizations on the "nature of libruls", so long as I can continue to demonstrate the similar tone of the "nature of chickenhawks" and "neocons"? Or shall we both concede the point is way too tangential to the thread in the first place, if there was a point to be made at all?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 No, I mean your little Dubya. Of course Billy Boy made his stance known loud and clear about the war and went to Canada instead. Everyone knew where he stood with that war. Unlike little George who pretended to want to fight but put a big fat check mark by the option to stay instead of ACTUALLY fight in that war overseas, and then turned around and ended up not serving out his time in the Guard in the first place. Not that his 5 deferments warmongering VP is any better, of course. I hold little loyalty to Clinton, but he's come out and stated his reasons why he dodged that war. Has your little boy hero done the same? Or does it just not count for him because, well, he was kinda, sorta there in the Guard, demonstrating how big and bad of a fighter he really was?

my f-n' ASS OFF at your reasoning.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And shall we continue with this silly branding and generalizations on the "nature of libruls", so long as I can continue to demonstrate the similar tone of the "nature of chickenhawks" and "neocons"? Or shall we both concede the point is way too tangential to the thread in the first place, if there was a point to be made at all?

Nope. You're a typical Liberal.

Thanks for playing though!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco my f-n' ASS OFF at your reasoning.

If my reasoning is not sound, explain. Right now it's obvious you're the only one in the room laughing, which makes you appear a little foolish.

quote:

Nope. You're a typical Liberal. Thanks for playing though!

And you seem to be the typical Bush-apologist, that scary shrinking minority of Americans who can't seem to get a firm grip on reality. Oh well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hillary's complicity

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 If my reasoning is not sound, explain.

Why bother? You tear one President down for dodging the Vietnam War, and lionize the other. I'd call that HIGHLY selective reasoning.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Right now it's obvious you're the only one in the room laughing, which makes you appear a little foolish.

If you say so!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And you seem to be the typical Bush-apologist, that scary shrinking minority of Americans who can't seem to get a firm grip on reality. Oh well.

I'm not a Republican, but I lean more in the direction of the G.O.P. over the Democrats. But anyone with common sense can deduce that the "Bush lied, people Died" mantra is pure anti-Republican hype. I've said it before, but I guess I'll have to say it again; Why would a President make a claim like that KNOWING that it was a lie, and KNOWING that once the war was over, he'd be proven a liar? IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN! They thought the WMD's were there, but they were wrong. It's not brain surgery. It's not some grand conspiracy. It is exactly as they said it was; A mistake. But not a malicious one.

Now Clinton fibbing on the stand...THAT is a form malicious lying!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.