Solved

Liars in Chief?

Posted on 2014-02-19
39
17 Views
Last Modified: 2014-04-21
We all know presidents lie.  But who were the last 3 to be proven to knowingly have lied to the American people?
0
Comment
Question by:bergertime
  • 17
  • 17
  • 4
  • +1
39 Comments
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
Depending on who you ask, it is the last three Presidents, or the last three from the opposing party, or none since Nixon resigned as only that would constitute proof.

Pretty hard to have a right answer to this question. I think most anyone agrees every President lies, but proof is apparently subjective when it is your own party you are defending.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
Here's all I could come up with:

1  Obama, "If you like your insurance you can keep it."  Total lie, as he admitted in 2010 that millions would lose their coverage.  Proven he knowingly lied to the American people.

2.  Bush, WMD's?  Can anyone prove he knew?  Clinton (both Bill and Hillary)  believed they did with the same intel Bush was getting.

3.  Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman!".  BJ's don't count as sex?

4.  Bush Sr.  "No new taxes.".  He didn't honor his pledge, but not a lie.

5.  Reagan, Iran-Contra?  I'm sure he may have lied, but I can't find where it was proven he knowingly lied.

6.  Carter, Maybe he should have lied more.

7. Ford, none that I could find.

8.  Nixon, "I am not a crook!"  enough said.
0
 
LVL 18

Expert Comment

by:WaterStreet
Comment Utility
So, what are we to conclude from all of this?
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
So by your estimation all the democrats were proven liars but none of the republicans were. I'm sure your own party affiliation has nothing to do with the results of your research into the situation.

No arguments on the dems that lied because they did. Your dismissal of the Republicans as  'can anyone prove it' 'not keeping their pledge' 'cant find where proven' is a nice cover but also rather naive to think you really believe that they are just trying to be honest politicians and the dems are trying to lie to get things done.

Face it. They all lie to get elected and get things done. Part of that is because they have information we don't and things have to be done.

"It's easier to get forgiveness than permission."

That quote holds true for Obama's lie, and probably both Bush lies and Reagan.

To be thinking only your side are the good guys and the other side is actually morally corrupt liars rather than people trying to also do good for the country, but have a different idea of what that is, is really the main problem in politics today.
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
Certainly Clinton and Obama lied.  Obama and supporters to this day claims you really *can* keep your health insurance, just like he said -- even while the cancellation notices have gone out!  Obama more significantly lied about the IRS and Benghazi, since they should be impeachable actions and lies.

What, specifically, did Bush lie about?  Certainly not WMDs.  

Although, when both Bill and Hillary Clinton say something is true, that does kinda make it 99% likely it's really not.  I mean, what are the odds of both Clintons telling the truth at the same time?!?  [You're more likely to win Powerball six times in a row!]
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
According to bergertime only the ObamaCare lie is a provable lie. Benghazi and IRS are believed to be lies, but if you think those are lies Scott, then that means the WMD's, IranContra, etc are also lies too.

They all lie! Most of the lies we never even know about. Stop being naive and thinking "My guys are the good guys!" They are all politicians and lie to get elected and get things done.
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
Blaming Benghazi on a months-old video is a proven lie.  The WH knew the day it happened that it was a terrorist attack, not a spontaneous demo.

It's a proven lie that a few "rogue agent(s) in Cincinnati" were "solely responsible" for the IRS abuse of tea party and other groups ... including those with "Constitution" in their purpose/mission statements!  Normally it would astounding in a constitutional republic to attack those who try to talk about the Constitution, but for Obamaites it makes sense: they hate the Constitution (as written).

Just because those are lies does not in any way prove that WMDs was a "lie".  Particularly WMDs.  Every major intelligence believe Hussein's (Saddam's, not the other Hussein) own claims that he had WMDs.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
Rogue agents were responsible for the IRS thing and that has been admitted. What is not proven is if an order came from the white house to do so and if the Prez knew it.

Obama did say it was a terror attack the day after Benghazi. I understand your point but proof is not there just as WMDs have no proof. IranContra, etc.

They are lies. All of them lie. These are just the ones we hear about. Tons of lying goes on in politics every day and we know nothing about it. It's both sides so stop being so righteous for Republicans. You're smarter than that.
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
"They all lie" is just sophistry.  There are serious lies and minor lies.

>> Obama did say it was a terror attack the day after Benghazi. <<

That too is a 100% lie.  He did NOT say that.  Too many enablers believe his cover-up lies to cover his original lies!  Exactly like with Bill Clinton.

Here's the relevant parts of what Obama actually said:

"
...
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.
"

This is a clear inference to the video, not to terrorism.

"
...
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.  
...
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.
"

That's the only place terror/terrorism appears in his statement, and it's "acts of terror", i.e., a reference to terrorist attacks in general, after mentioning 9/11 itself, and not this single specific attack.

For the specific attack, he referenced only the "anti-Isamic" video.


ALL evidence shows that Bush did not lie about WMDs.  Any sensible, reasonable person will accept that.  You may believe he was mistaken about it, but he 100% did not "lie".

Of course some tons of chemicals weapons were found in Iraq (not that old media ever reported it).  And there were reports of much of Hussein's WMD stockpile being moved immediately before the invasion, likely to Syria.  [By John A. Shaw, a former Pentagon official.]

How did they move WMDs from Iraq to Syria if Iraq didn't have any???
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>"clear inference"

nice oxymoron. Inference is not a fact or proof.

>>"That's the only place terror/terrorism appears in his statement, and it's "acts of terror", i.e., a reference to terrorist attacks in general, after mentioning 9/11 itself, and not this single specific attack."

Good subjective description of what was meant. Again, not proof or fact.

>>"How did they move WMDs from Iraq to Syria if Iraq didn't have any???"

But is that proof. So many gray areas. Waving hands around and smoke and mirrors.

They all lie! Take your head out of the sand. You're side is not always right about everything and Dems are not always wrong.

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes!" - Obi Wan Kenobi  :)
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
>> Good subjective description of what was meant. Again, not proof or fact. <<

Huh?  If that's a good description of what he actually meant, then Obama's claim the he called the Benghazi attack itself terrorism the next day must be a lie.

So you're saying, "yes, you've proved he lied, but that's not proof?  Huh??

Obama is the one that claimed after the fact that he "called the Benghazi attack terrorism the next day".  That's a lie unless you can show that he did.  He never made any statement like that on that day, never.
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
>> Rogue agents were responsible for the IRS thing and that has been admitted. What is not proven is if an order came from the white house to do so and if the Prez knew it. <<

Inconsistent.

If an order came from the WH, they were not "rogue" agents.  They only violated the law because the president ordered them too.  Not a valid reason, of course, but they will just take the 5th and try to hide from it anyway.  Lois Lerner was the scapegoat, but she was ordered from higher up to do it.  You just don't freewheel that type of thing at an agency like the IRS.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
Subjective is not absolute. That is not proof. Your analysis of what he meant by the word terror is not fact no matter how right you think you are.

You also have no evidence or proof that any order came to the IRS from the White House.

"It must be!" or "It had to be" means absolutely nothing. Stop filling in the blanks that nobody knows with your made up facts.
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
That's been reliably reported from several sources.

I'm so sick of the response to "Obama clearly lied about a, b, c, d and e" is both, "Well, all politicians lie" (equivalent to "what difference does it make") and "no it's not a lie".

I've directly addressed the supposed Bush lie of WMDs.  You have no evidence that shows it was a lie. But  you continue to insist it was a "lie" just to cover for Obama's known lies.

If the president can do it, everyone should be able to do it.  The next time someone is charged with a bank robbery, they should simply point out that Charles Manson killed a bunch of people, so why are you worrying about a stupid old bank robbery!
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
You keep acting like I'm defending Obama's lies. I'm not. I'm just trying to make you realize your side isn't so innocent. The "You have no evidence" argument pretty much goes both ways across all Presidents. Who knows what evidence is true or not when every news agency has an agenda pushing out their story.

I'm just able to accept reality as it is, while you are making reality what you want it to be to support your agenda.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
AR, would you agree that both Obama and Clinton are proven liars?  Obama clearly stated in 2010 that millions would lose their health coverage, yet he went out the next day and claimed no one would.  That's a flat out lie.  Makes you wonder what else he lies about.

Clinton clearly stated he did not have sex with Monica, yet he knew she gave him oral SEX.  Maybe liberals have changed the definition of sex to try and cover for Clinton, but in the 90's bj's were still considered sex.

Can anyone show where Bush Jr. actually knowingly lied?  Or Bush Sr.?  I'm not saying they don't, maybe they are just better at covering it up, I don't know.  I just got on this at work with a big Obama supporter who says Bush lied about this and lied about that.  But Obama, Clinton and Nixon were the only ones I could come up with that are proven liars.

Makes me wonder about OBL.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
I've said over and over here that the keep your healthcare was a lie and Obama said it to get the law passed.  Clinton clearly said over and over he did not have sex "in the way it was described to me" which is BS totally, but it's the way politicians talk to get around crap. He lied too. I didn't vote for him for his personal sex life but for how he would run the country.

So they both lied. Do you honestly believe that they are lying to damage the country? They are lying because they have less morals than Republicans? They are the 'bad guys'?

Obama wanted to get something done and it wouldn't have gotten done without the lie, so he lied. Clinton got caught doing something and lied to save his ass. Do you think none of the other presidents haven't done this over and over, including these two? Really? These are just the public ones we know about.

This whole good guy vs bad guy debate is frustrating. Both sides are good guys trying to do what they can to make the country better (aside for sniveling self important politicians just wanting to better themselves, which there are plenty on both sides). The only difference is the idealogy of the sides is different as to what will make the country better. One side isn't good and the other evil? They are just doing different things to try to do good. (again with the caveat of the selfish on both sides).
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
bergertime:

That is the issue exactly!

Since the presidents they support, like Obama and Clinton, lie wantonly, they reflexively claim the same about everyone else, but will present no evidence to support it!

A lie is an intentional deception.  It's 100% clear to every reasonable person that Bush did not intentionally lie about Iraq's WMDs -- right or wrong, he genuinely believed they had them.  As did, at the time, btw, both Clintons, John Kerry, Pelosi, Reid and a host of other Dems.

So, give me one case where Bush intentionally directly lied?

Obama has dozens of clear examples, unless you just pretend the overwhelming evidence of it is not "proof".  There's no 100% absolute proof of almost anything, even that "x=x" in mathematics, but the evidence is so overwhelming it's not credible to ignore it.
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
>> Both sides are good guys trying to do what they can to make the country better <<

So claimed Stalin, Mao and, yes, Hitler.

That doesn't automatically make them moral, or even decent, people by default.

Obama is a marxist based on his actions, words and background.  Marxists have perpetrated the greatest evils in the history of the world, and they have done it by using lies and propaganda.

You can have, in your own mind, the best intentions and still do horribly destructive things to countries and people.
0
What Security Threats Are You Missing?

Enhance your security with threat intelligence from the web. Get trending threat insights on hackers, exploits, and suspicious IP addresses delivered to your inbox with our free Cyber Daily.

 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
>> I've said over and over here that the keep your healthcare was a lie <<

But Obama will not admit even that!!
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>So claimed Stalin, Mao and, yes, Hitler.

Your comparison is the exact problem in politics today.

>>You can have, in your own mind, the best intentions and still do horribly destructive things to countries and people.

But you don't think they have good intentions. you act as if they are evil and trying to hurt people and the country.

>>But Obama will not admit even that!!

He's a f'n politician. No kidding!


Bergertime, do you believe Obama and the dems are tying to hurt the country? Do you believe Bush and the Repubs would not lie to get what they want or save themselves from something?
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
>> do you believe Obama and the dems are t[r]ying to hurt the country? <<

Or, are they hurting the country, intentionally or not, but they refuse to admit it?


>> Do you believe Bush ... <<

Bush hasn't been President for SIX years.  How is that relevant?


>> the Repubs would not lie to get what they want or save themselves from something? <<

Again, specific examples.  The Repubs lose to the Dems so often partly because they simply won't wantonly lie about things.

The vast of majority of Repubs just don't have the stomach for repeating blatantly obvious lies over and over louder and louder while expecting everyone to simply believe them because they are "the One, the Messiah, the Obama".

One never expected to see Clinton's narcissism exceeded in politics, let alone in the presidency.  Then the unqualified Obama (according to Obama himself before he ran!) comes along and say this:
"
this [my election] was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless;
"
Wow, no one ever cared for anyone sick before Obama came along??

"this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal
"
How much longer before he claims to raise the dead?!
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
AR, of course I don't think they want to hurt the country, I do believe Obama doesn't believe the irresponsible people in this country have gotten a fair shake and those that work hard get too much.

AR, you don't think it's odd that out of the last seven presidents, the only 2 proven liars were the last two dems elected?  And don't you think it's odd that not only do their supporters dismiss the lies, but they defend the lies.  ("It's ok, they all lie", "They did it for our own good", "But I like him", "He had to lie to help us").  

I couldn't care less who Clinton has sex with, but I don't like being lied to, not by anyone, it appears you don't mind being lied to.

So now we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama has no problem lying to the American people....what else has he lied about?  What can I believe him on?  Did he get OBL, or was that just a political gamble?
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
I could care less about narcissism in a President. It's policies that matter. I'm not electing a friend. I'm electing someone to lead the country. I dont care if he cheats on his wife, thinks he's high and mighty, or is an alter boy. Make good policies and support them and stand up for them and be logical and reasonable and try to provide what the country needs. All this other crap is meaningless to me.

>>Bush hasn't been President for SIX years.  How is that relevant?

You started this bringing up WW2??? So pick any other Repub. Bohner, McConnell. Whoever.

>>Or, are they hurting the country, intentionally or not, but they refuse to admit it?

If they are hurting the country un-intentionally then what is there to admit? They don't think they are hurting the country because they think it is the right thing to do to help the country.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>AR, of course I don't think they want to hurt the country, I do believe Obama doesn't believe the irresponsible people in this country have gotten a fair shake and those that work hard get too much.

That is a reasonable position. You don't agree with his plan, but admit his plan is because he is trying to help, not hurt.

>>AR, you don't think it's odd that out of the last seven presidents, the only 2 proven liars were the last two dems elected?  And don't you think it's odd that not only do their supporters dismiss the lies, but they defend the lies.  ("It's ok, they all lie", "They did it for our own good", "But I like him", "He had to lie to help us").  

I don't defend the lies. I explain them. They are lies and they lied. I also am realistic and know things don't get done in politics without lies. Also when drowning, they all will lie. If you think the others aren't lying, I think that is a naive mindset.

>>I couldn't care less who Clinton has sex with, but I don't like being lied to, not by anyone, it appears you don't mind being lied to.

Again, I elect a person to lead the country, not a friend. If a friend lies to me I am upset. If a corporation lies to me, who cares. They are trying to make money and I always expect the lie if it will make them money. The government is trying to get things done and will lie to do it. Hopefully the things are good things, but not always.

I don't like to be lied to, but I'm a realist. When someone I care about and expect honesty from lies to me, I sure am against it. When some faceless corp or politician does, it is just part of the system.

>>So now we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama has no problem lying to the American people....what else has he lied about?  What can I believe him on?  Did he get OBL, or was that just a political gamble?

I knew it before the 'proven' lie. They all do it and who knows which ones have more of a problem with it than others, but its part of politics. I'm sure he, and others, lied about plenty, again as its the way politics works unfortunately. I believe him or any politician based on research, motivations, and my own intelligence. Their word? Never. OBL? Who knows but apparently not surfacing anymore so out of the picture either way. I'm sure none of us will never truly know what happened there, because we really don't need to.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
" Make good policies and support them and stand up for them and be logical and reasonable and try to provide what the country needs"

That leaves out Obama then.  Have you seen the ACA?  It sucks.  My insurance went up because of it.  I'm right in the middle of the middle class.  How does hurting me help?  Oh yea, it gives the irresponsible something for nothing, well nothing for them.  

Here is a rundown of Obama's ACA, the cornerstone of his presidency that's built on lies.  Lies to get it passed, then decides not to enforce portions until after midterm elections because it will hurt several million middle class americans and will hurt his party in the midterm elections.  He PASSES a LAW and decides not to enforce parts till after an election.  I can't even believe I'm typing that.

So AR, you said ..." Make good policies and support them and stand up for them and be logical and reasonable and try to provide what the country needs"
Then why is if putting off enforcing it?  Is it bad policy or just not standing behind it?
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
I agree 100% that the delays are stupid and they piss me off. If you created a good piece of legislation to help people than put it in play and let it be vetted in the real world. I know personally people that ACA has hurt, and has helped. How it will affect the country overall is still unknown. I hope it is beneficial, but it might not be. Time will tell.

The politics of the delaying is obvious. I don't like it either. It's obvious that the initial hit of ACA is going to have enough negativity to it to look bad but the plan is it overall levels out and is better in the end. Will it be? Nobody knows that to be honest but the dems sure aren't taking the initial hit before the mid-terms and it sucks.

We agree on that.
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
>>  couldn't care less who Clinton has sex with, but I don't like being lied to <<

It's not a matter of "liking" it or not.

Clinton lied to a federal judge while under oath.  If ANYONE else had done that, they WOULD have gone to jail.  Presidents are not supposed to be above the law.

But why did he lie?  That could be relevant if he lied for a greater purpose, to save people, to help the country, etc..

Clinton lied to save himself money; $250,000 or so, IIRC.  Chump change.  He made hundreds of millions after leaving office.  But he was willing to lie over that trifle.

If he's willing to lie just because of that, what lie couldn't he tell?  How can you ever believe a word he says.

As to harming the country, selling advance missile info to China, again to gain financially personally, hurt the country more than we fully realize ... yet.  Someday we'll see the full effects in action somewhere, but Clinton's part will never be mentioned by old media.
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
>>  All this other crap is meaningless to me. <<

Bernie Madoff for president then?  Oops, in jail, too bad, he was an "effective leader" also ... if one is willing to overlook at the "personal" issues.
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
>>  [ACA/ObamaCare] but the dems sure aren't taking the initial hit before the mid-terms and it sucks.
We agree on that. <<

That's the thing I couldn't care less about -- how it affect Dems prospects for re-election.  I don't care about that a whit.  

I care about how it is harming, even killing, people in the country.  Given that it was rushed and rammed through, I think it's outrageous to say if it helps a few and hurts a few more that's OK, because it helped some.  They refused to take time to do it for political reasons, and when you're dealing with peoples' lives and health, that's despicable.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Clinton lied to save himself money; $250,000 or so, IIRC.  Chump change.  He made hundreds of millions after leaving office.  But he was willing to lie over that trifle.

Really? You think the money was his motivation to lie rather than trying to get out of the mess and the impending impeachment?

>>As to harming the country, selling advance missile info to China, again to gain financially personally, hurt the country more than we fully realize ... yet.

I'm sure you have absolute impartial proof of this, and know all the details of the situation, because the Pres should clear things with Scott first.

>>Bernie Madoff for president then?

He's an outright criminal that has been prosecuted. If not, and he had good policies for the country, then he could be President. I don't know if I'd vote for him but I would examine what his policies are. Once again, I'm not voting for a friend, or moral compass. I'm voting for someone to lead the country and I vote for the guy who is running that I think will do best at the job based on his policies, regardless of party.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>> I think it's outrageous to say if it helps a few and hurts a few more that's OK, because it helped some.

I agree.  But that isn't what I said. I didn't saw it helps a few but hurts a few MORE. It helps some and hurts some. Which is going to get the MORE is the part that is unknown still and wont be known for a couple of years but the initial hit of it is expected to hurt more so that is why they are delaying it, which I don't agree with.
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
>> Really? You think the money was his motivation to lie rather than trying to get out of the mess and the impending impeachment? <<

You're completely wrong on the history here.

Of course money was the only motivation.  It was a civil case, therefore only money was at stake all along in the verdict.

There was no impeachment until after he lied.  The lying under oath was the main stimulus toward the impeachment process.  Again, he lied under oath to a federal judge, a felony on the same level as rape (under the fed guidelines for levels of felonies).

His first lawyer told him: don't testify, just allow a default $ judgment.  No testimony, no possibility of lying.

Superb legal advice, but Clinton was too narcissistic to listen.  The lawyer also told him, if you do testify, whatever you do, don't lie.  Again, same problem.  The old-media loved to adore him by calling him "slick" Willie, and Clinton believed their press.


>> I'm sure you have absolute impartial proof of this <<

Yes, it's fully documented, you obviously just don't care.  Perhaps you believe a country other than yours will get the first, more accurate missile strike, in which case it doesn't matter to you.  Good for you.  I don't like seeing evil people get better missile guidance in return for some criminal getting money for his defense fund, so we differ dramatically there.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
Clinton testified to handle the court of public opinion, which would greatly bring forth repercussions. The quarter million was NOT the reason.

I'm sure it's fully documented by an impartial trusted source and it just went away. Why would repubs have tried to use that to get rid of Clinton when they had the juicy sex scandal to focus so much attention on.
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
Clinton issued an Executive Order in 1996 to shift control over commercial satellite exports permits from the State Department to the Commerce Department.

That was necessary to avoid unwanted interference with Clinton's sale in Feb 1998 to China of classified, and not legally salable, documents relating to missile launches.

As Wikipedia states:
"Justice Department prosecutors who were investigating the company for possible violations of export law regarding the February 1996 failed rocket launch in China opposed this."
Yeah, that's putting it very mildly, they were furious.

"Clinton later signed into law recently passed legislation by Congress that reversed his 1996 Executive Order that shifted control over commercial satellite exports permits from the State Department to the Commerce Department."

But by then the Chinese had already paid the bribe -- er, "donated" -- to the Clinton fund.


Look at the "Cox Report" and the Congress's "Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China".

Again, of course msnbc and cnn, etc., would never cover that.  Clinton could have stabbed ten people in midtown Manhattan and they wouldn't cover it, as long as he supported abortion and raised taxes.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
And the GOP also decided not to investigate it further?
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
To what end?  The Dems in the Senate refused to even look at the evidence that caused Clinton's impeachment.  They were gonna cover for him, and their political party, no matter what.  

Dems don't care if at some unspecified time in the future millions of Uyghurs, or other Chinese targets, like say people in India, are better targeted by Chinese missiles.  Dems got to keep the power they had -- that's ALL they care about, obviously.
0
 
LVL 17

Accepted Solution

by:
Anthony Russo earned 50 total points
Comment Utility
I wasn't very into politics back in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal but I remember the constant parade of Repubs damning him and Dems defending him. It bothered me then as a non-political person how none of them seemed to have their own mind and just supported what their party said.
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
>>  I remember the constant parade of Repubs damning him <<

Like the constant parade of people condemning police when they break the law and violate other peoples' rights?

Pointing out criminal actions by a law enforcement official is not just "whining".

Clinton, his wife and other Dem apparatchiks savagely attacked the women Clinton assaulted, during the campaign and in his time of office.  Threatening phone calls, legal letters, op eds in newspapers, releasing "dirt", etc..  Betty/Betsy(?) Wright ran the Clinton "bimbo" squad that savaged these women.  The only real political "war on women" was run by Clinton's female supporters!

Or do you too believe that the IRS audit of Paula Jones just days after she turned down Clinton's settlement offer -- thus "forcing" him to testify -- was just a "coincidence"?  Yeah, right.

And it's just a "coincidence" that on-the-run felony fugitive Marc Rich got pardoned after his wife donated $500,000 to Clinton.

I mean, there's no chance Clinton would abuse his office just over money, right??

[Sure, I know JFK started the use of the IRS as a political weapon, but I don't think that should provide cover for Clinton, where he can claim he was "just doing what someone else had done".]
0

Featured Post

What Should I Do With This Threat Intelligence?

Are you wondering if you actually need threat intelligence? The answer is yes. We explain the basics for creating useful threat intelligence.

Join & Write a Comment

Learn more about the importance of email disclaimers with our top 10 email disclaimer DOs and DON’Ts.
Get an idea of what you should include in an email disclaimer with these Top 5 email disclaimer tips.
Internet Business Fax to Email Made Easy - With eFax Corporate (http://www.enterprise.efax.com), you'll receive a dedicated online fax number, which is used the same way as a typical analog fax number. You'll receive secure faxes in your email, fr…
This video demonstrates how to create an example email signature rule for a department in a company using CodeTwo Exchange Rules. The signature will be inserted beneath users' latest emails in conversations and will be displayed in users' Sent Items…

772 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

10 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now