Hannibal

Very honorable words. Shame they didn't apply ten years ago. I kinda doubt they'll apply four years from now either. President Clinton cheated on his wife. It was embarrassing for the country. We should have downplayed it for the country, not the person. The right spent over $70 million to make sure it was worldwide and national headlines to make sure the office of the President of the United States of America was disrespected and the country was embarrassed.. We seem to have very selective respect for the office of the President of the United States of America.

herb

You are of course right, seems many right wing folks are only willing to see one side of things.
I wouldn't swear to it but i beleive the amount spent to insure the downfall of President Clinton (even tho he was reelected and served two full terms) was 144 million.

herb

AND armaments for King George to invade Iraq , you forgot to add that part .

herb

I wonder how many folks are going to be able to admit the economy has been in a slide for the preceding 8 years when the next administration has to take corrective measurements to get it back on track again?
Not many righties going to be able to accept a tax raise that will be needed to service the interest payments on the federal depiciet

BigBlue

I'm glad he had armarments to invade Iraq and afghanistan. What would you have rather us do? Sit back with our thumbs up our rear ends and let Al Quaeda run free? To just stand by while they attack us again and again and not do anything? How would you have done it? Would you have rather talked to them? No. People like them deserve to be shot as many times as possible with the biggest guns we have. My only fear is that President Bush doesn't have enough armarment to get the job done. I usually don't get involved in politics but dang herb. What did you want us to do after being attacked on 9/11? I wish Bush would nuke the whole place back to the day of the dinosaurs. I'm proud that our president had the guts to attack them. Lord knows the rest of the world doesn't and slick willie would have been caught with his pants around his ankles. Literally. I'm sorry herb but I believe our President is doing a fine job. I might not agree with everything he does, but for the most part I believe that he is doing a fine job and for that I stand up and salute him.

gobucks

I have to completely disagree with you on this...In my very humble opinion, the previous administration was not disgraced by the impeachment hearings. The disgrace happened when he did what he did in the Oval Office. He further disgraced the Office and our Country by lying about it; which, of course, was the reason for the impeachment hearing. He was charged with two separate articles. The first charged him with committing perjury in testifying before the grand jury about his sexual relationship with a White House intern and his efforts to cover it up; the second charged him with obstruction of justice relating both to the civil lawsuit and to the grand jury proceedings. So, who really cost the Country $70 million? Without the act and lying, there was no hearing....

I also disagree that we, as a country, should have looked the other way. There is one huge fundamental difference between what happened then and what is happening now. The disrespectful ambush on the current administration is the direct result of a difference in opinion on policy matters. Love him, hate him, he is the President and has the power to set policy, which is open for intelligent debate; not derogatory rhetoric. What Clinton did was deemed unlawful by an independent prosecutor, and, as such, subject to investigation.

Shovelhead

Actually, that would bring them UP about a thousand years.......

PanteraGSTK

Is it just me or does the president (no matter who at the time) always has people ******* everything he does, while others blindly follow everthing he does. No person is always right. Bush thinks he is doing what needs to be done and he is the president so we kinda elected him to make hard decisions. People need to relize he wasn't put into office to make YOU happy, but to make the country as a whole happy and safe. While some people have a problem with the way bush has done things others agree. those that have problems with bush (or anything else) need to remember one very important fact: people that don't agree with you don't have to care what you have to say, true or not.

Also, if hillary were elected it would end it for all women who wanted to be persident. I can hear it now(hillary on the phone with Iraq) "you should know what you did"

BigBlue

True. But at least we wouldn't have to deal with again.

MCMLV

You are of course right on the part that the disgrace was not caused by the impeachment hearings. Please remind us again why was it important for the nation to have that 'pilar of society' star dig into the sexual escapades of the President. The embarasment was caused by that zelot star, who for whatever reason could not wait for new elections to replace the elected President.

And again you are right, the country should not had to look the other way. Come to think of it the country should not have looked at all.

Now if you care to debate what the lasting efects of either presidency will have on the nation, of course we can have valid points on both sides. The object of course is to support either on merrits, not puting the other side down.

gobucks

I thought it was eloquently stated (if I do say so myself ) in the message you quoted, as to why it was important to investigate. This is America and no one is above the law; even the POTUS. Why should we demonize independent counsel for doing his or her job? We have a very real problem with personal responsibility and misdirected blame in this country...and I see this as a case in point. I think you need to look at the root cause. Again, without the extreme lack in judgment which leads to the sexual act and the subsequent perjury, there is no impeachment.

Further, I think if you read my previous post you would see that I am advocating intelligent debate, as well. I just choose to do it without the rhetorical finger pointing and name calling.

MCMLV

Maybe it is just me, but for the world of me I can't find a single reason for investigting the President's sexual escapades in your post. Homor me tell me in plain English.

Now about being above the law, I tought that was a Steven Segal movie, and I certainly did not imply that anybody should be above any law. As far as misdirection and responsiblity, well, I am sure that we all have our own view on what is the right direction and what is misdirection. I am sure there are merits on both sides. Lack in judgement? certainly; reprehensible? of course; illegal? NOT, merriting special counsel investigation? ludicrous and a vaste of money, lots of it.

On edit: I hope you do not mean to tell me that President Bush, or any single person that you know of is above lapses in judgement. I think the key in looking at and criticizing those lapses is not a personal view, but rather the lasting efects of those lapses.

Lary Ellis (Top)

I agree with Gobucks, The President committed perjury to Congress and the entire country, that IS Illegal. Simply put he lied under oath about his affair, which would tend to offer credence that he lied under oath when he agreed to defend the constitution as President.

In my book he lost all credibility and I lost what little respect I had for Hillary, when she didn't toss his clothes out the Lincoln bedroom window like any other wife would have done.

Since the President broke the law, any expense that was incurred because of that he was responsible for. If you or I had been guilty of Perjury, we would have been forced to pay the court costs.

gobucks

Thank you! I can only keep this up for so long before I lose consciousness...

As I stated in my original post on this matter:
He was charged with two separate articles. The first charged him with committing perjury in testifying before the grand jury about his sexual relationship with a White House intern and his efforts to cover it up; the second charged him with obstruction of justice relating both to the civil lawsuit and to the grand jury proceedings.

MCMLV

Yea, but you are too old so it does not count...

I do not disagree with you in the context you are puting it, I just do not agree with the context. I think you will readilty agree that life is not nearly as black and white as 'he lied under oath' although that is what we as people would like to make it. Honestly, I am not trying to either defend what he did nor argue any merrits of the man, or faults, and if you will do the same, not even for him but for a hypotetical, the question still remains, and it is a valid question: Why even look into the sexual afairs of the President, any President, just to embaras him? Men of integrity would not stoop that low. And even after having caught him, why force it?

The answer is not as simple as "he lied under oath" it really isn't unless the other questions can be answered honestly.