Sex or Lying?

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Prove this one.

He did take credit for it. I know that. Proving it will have to wait until later tonight. I'll see what I can find. (That means I lack the proof right now, and sure, maybe it's wrong.)

Since you don't reject the other three, however, I will consider what I was trying to show, namely that Al Qaeda was attacking Americans during the Clinton years, has been accepted.

 

[Thorgasm]

Al qaeda did not strike on our shores during the Clinton Administration.

What country was the World Trade Center located at in February 1993?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
He did take credit for it. I know that. Proving it will have to wait until later tonight. I'll see what I can find. (That means I lack the proof right now, and sure, maybe it's wrong.)

Since you don't reject the other three, however, I will consider what I was trying to show, namely that Al Qaeda was attacking Americans during the Clinton years, has been accepted.

That's OK, I'll give you all the time you need. I've been in the same position. I know I have seen the article before, but I don't have them all catagorized and cross-refenced at a fingertip. Do what you got to do. I'm sure I'll be here.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002
What country was the World Trade Center located at in February 1993?

Your right, they did claim that one, didn't they?

 

[Thorgasm]

Your right, they did claim that one, didn't they?

Ramsey Yousef was linked to bin laden. bin laden has a funny way of taking credit indirectly.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Prove this one.

Frontline

* Al Qaeda members "provided military training and assistance to Somali tribes opposed to the United Nations' intervention in Somalia. ... On October 3 and 4, 1993, in Mogadishu, Somalia, persons who had been trained by Al Qaeda (and trainers who had been trained by Al Qaeda) participated in an attack on United States military personnel serving in Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope, which attack resulted in the killing of 18 United States Army personnel.

Any questions?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
Any questions?

Just one. Who took the jam out of your donut?

 

[alphieb]

Despite it being so long ago, it seems this silly debate continues. So which is it?

I agree, this is water under the bridge.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I agree, this is water under the bridge.

No, for many reasons.

1) The disgraced Rapist/Perjurer is still out there commenting of US policy. He should shut the **** up, since the position the US is in today is principally his fault.

2) His **** wife is planning on running for president, which means the Rapist/Perjeror could be the next First Laddy.

3) The actions of all the parties involved indicate a degree of moral corruption never seen in this country before, and that's for both major parties.

4) People like you are still confused on the issue, yet you feel competent to discuss other aspects of public policy.

 

[RidinHighSpeeds]

I shouldn't get started on this, but Clinton was impeached because of the republicans' fanatical lust for power at any expense to our nation.

Clinton was impeached because a dirty and biased prosecutor, who failed to find any wrong doing on a bogus real estate case, happened upon a sexual impropriety.

Clinton was impeached because biased members of the Supreme Court erroneously ruled that a civil court case be allowed to proceed against a sitting president...rather then realizing the greater good for our nation is to have a President not tied up in civil court proceedings, but to grant a "stay," or delay, to this civil case until after the President fullfills his constitutionally elected duties.

If they can impeach Clinton for lying about a perfectly legal sexual impropriety, and they can threaten impeachment of Nixon for his coverup in the Watergate scandal, then Bush should be impeached 10 times over for his lying to the American public about taking our nation to war, his lying about the leaking of Plame, and his lying about his association with Abramoff, among many other lies...too numerous to mention here.

Was not Clinton impeached for lying under oath?? What if he did not lie under oath...? Do you think he still would have been impeached??

I can see your points about Bush, but he was not tried in a court of law and he did not lie under oath. You would only be correct if a day like that comes.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
2) His **** wife is planning on running for president, which means the Rapist/Perjeror could be the next First Laddy.

I'll take a rapist/perjuror over a murderer/liar anyday.

 

[Deegan]

Well......at least we only have 5 idiots to fear here, or ignore, which ever comes first!

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I'll take a rapist/perjuror over a murderer/liar anyday.

Well, it's a good thing we've never had a murderer/liar in the White House then.


I wonder why the term "Arkancide" sounds so familiar...

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
Well, it's a good thing we've never had a murderer/liar in the White House then. I wonder why the term "Arkancide" sounds so familiar...

Wrongo. We got one in the White House right now.
Do you enjoy being wrong all the time?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Wrongo. We got one in the White House right now.
Do you enjoy being wrong all the time?

Do you think you're getting anywhere by imitating my parrot? I can't win an argument with him, either, he just keeps saying "Feed me!" over and over again...

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
Do you think you're getting anywhere by imitating my parrot? I can't win an argument with him, either, he just keeps saying "Feed me!" over and over again...

I've already had dinner, thank you.

 

[disneydude]

Please provide the details of the investigation and the subsequent lie that Bush told under oath, perjuring himself. When you can do that, you'll have an argument. Thanks.

KCC: two thoughts

First, its interesting how you carefully choose your words similar to the way Clinton chose his words. Sounds to me that what you are saying is, Yes Bush has told countless lies to the American public, but not under oath.....so its ok.


Second thought: Why are Republicans so obsessed with Clinton's sex life that they are still talking about it 5 years after he left office. Get over it and move on. Certainly, there are more important things to be talking about.

 

[teacher]

Well he did lie about it but since he did not actually have "sexual relations" I can't say he lied about sex because I guess I don't consider a blow job sex.

Which begs a question that should be asked of the married women on this site.

So hubby gets a hummer by some girl and gets caught. He explains to his wife it wasn't sex.

Care to weigh in on this ladies?

Oh hell, let's get the married men involved in this too.

You catch your wife bobbing someone else's nob. The little lady explains to you it isn't sex.

Care to weigh in on this gents?

Didn't think so...

Turns out I haven't had as much sex in my life as I had thought. Why, I'm practically a virgin.

Oh, let's get nasty. So you catch your 15 year old daughter doing the same. You gonna tell her, "Well, at least you weren't having sex"?

Then I guess we can say VD's are non-sexually transmitted in certain cases.

 

[Stinger]

Well he did lie about it but since he did not actually have "sexual relations" I can't say he lied about sex because I guess I don't consider a blow job sex.

That lame excuse was throughly dismissed by Judge Wright in her contempt of court finding. He not only lied about having a sexual relationship with a subordinate employee (which is why it was in court in the first place), he suborned perjury (by having Monica commit a felony, a very serious felony, in an attempt to cover his behavior and he was willing to let her go to jail in necessary, what a nice guy) and obstructed justice by tampering with witnessess the very same day Judge Wright instructed him not to discuss the case with anyone let alone coach testimony.

The man is an utter disgrace.

 

[Stinger]

I guess you need to be reminded that President Clinton was found NOT GUILTY. An impeachment is simply an indictment. For example, if that lowlife asshole Tom DeLay is found not guilty will it be OK to act as if he was convicted?

In the judicial system he copped a plea and was held in contempt by the judge and paid a heavy price for it. That he committed perjury and obstructed justice is undeniable. As far as the congress they only have the power to remove him from office, they cannot punish or apply judicial sanctions. The House impeached him, they found he did it, they then sent it over to the Senate to vote on removal, which is the ONLY thing they decide. The Senate declined to remove him. That is a gross misconception that the Senators vote on whether he did it or not, they can only do one thing remove or not remove, thus the attempt by several Democrats to censure him for what he did so they would not have to vote to remove him. That they are required to either say guilty or not guilty when they vote is not a measure of that guilt.

I can post statement after statement from Democrat Senators from thier speeches before their vote saying just what I stated above.

 

[debate_junkie]

Al Qaeda was responsible for attacks on US servcemen in Somalia.

Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole.

Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia.

In all those, Americans were the target, and Americans were killed. Does it matter that they weren't on US dirt?

Wasn't the first attack on the WTC also claimed by al Qaeda?

 

[KCConservative]

Why are Republicans so obsessed with Clinton's sex life that they are still talking about it 5 years after he left office. Get over it and move on. Certainly, there are more important things to be talking about.

I was asked to compare the current smear campaign with the lies Clinton told which resulted in his impeachment. So, to answer your question: They asked, I answered.

 

[Goobieman]

Second thought: Why are Republicans so obsessed with Clinton's sex life that they are still talking about it 5 years after he left office. Get over it and move on. Certainly, there are more important things to be talking about.

Interestingly enough, MoveOn.org was created to get people to, well, Move On from the impeachment thing.

So, when are they and their people going to Move On from the 2000/2004 elections?

 

[disneydude]

KCC:

Your latest post doesn't address my last post.
Have you forgotten that you are the one that started this post on 1/24.....what was that ....approx. 2 weeks ago?

 

[KCConservative]

KCC:

Your latest post doesn't address my last post.
Have you forgotten that you are the one that started this post on 1/24.....what was that ....approx. 2 weeks ago?

No, I haven't forgotten, disney. But thanks for keeping close tabs on things. The thread is an extension of another discussion that took place long before you were a member. I know you're very passionate about your Bush hate and I respect that. And you're new here. So once again, it's not an obsession with Clinton's past. The thread was started because several folks decided it would be worthy of discussion, in light of everyone's favorite topic: Bush Lied.

See what I mean? What topic, do you suppose, has stayed front and center these days that would make Republicans want to compare it to the Clinton perjury? Take your time.

It's kind of like the chicken and the egg, you know? Which came first, the left's persistent allegations of Bush lying or the right's using the Clinton perjury as a fair comparison for rebuttal?