No. The entire point is that a 6 year, 70 million dollar witch hunt that ruined scores of innocent lives and livelihoods succeeded in cornering a man who tried to mask a highly personal indiscretion with a fungible twist of a phrase. A crusade of moral folly if ever there was one.
Thanks for pointing that out to me Max. I guess I must have NOT KNOWN THAT! Nixon's lies were excusable because even though he made them very publicly, and also conspired in private to protect himself, and had the special prosecutor fired, I suppose because he wasn't "under oath" that it didn't count. Nixon was just more experience in deception I guess. Everyone has their talents. But I am sure I will get a response that will vindicate a man who was a true Republican saint. And when you explain why Nixon was a better man than Clinton, please go the extra step and explain to ignorant me how he got away with his promise to the American public when he ran for office how he had a "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam. Or if he really did, what was it? When you do that, I will keep the questions coming. I am very confused about this guy, and I know you will have all the explanations I have always craved. Thanks Max, Rs8.5
My moral compass is in fine working order as is my capacity to recognize the hypocrisy, deceit, and the false-morality of the stone-throwers. If you look to Washington for your moral bearings, perhaps it is you who ought to recalibrate your compass.
Optional, I don't see where our argument is. Maybe you should re-read my post. I specifically talked about the impact Clinton's lies had on children. And if I did not agree with your comment on the "state of Europe", then why would I have mentioned the whole episode as being so "European"? Hope you are having a good day trading. Peace, Rs8.5
Some of you people either have very short memories or you just weren't paying attention. I am referring to several posts that say clinton was a good president except for that one indiscretion. I don't want to take the time to detail the history of the Clinton administration nor the sordidness that pervaded their lives in Arkansas. Perhaps the best testament to the latter is what happened to their two closest friends and associates from Arkansas, Web Hubbell and Vince Foster. Hubbell was disgraced and sent to prison where he lamented that he was the fall guy for the Clintons but was afraid to blow the whistle. The other was found dead in a remote park overlooking the Potomac River, under incredibly suspiscious circumstances that were never believably explained or even properly investigated. As for the Clinton presidency, to say that his only shortcoming was the Lewinsky fiasco is an incredibly selective reading of history, even that filtered part of history that gets published in the NY Times. To me the Clinton administration was frightening because of the nonstop abuses of power that occurred. I remember Watergate quite well, and the abuses that occurred under Nixon were minor indiscretions compared to the nonstop abuses under the Clintons. Congressional investigations were stonewalled, federal courts were stonewalled, traditionally nonpartisan departments were relentlessly politicized, immigration rules were bent or ignored to foster large scale immigration of potential democrat voters, illegal Chinese political donations were pursued and national security compromised in return ( remember John Huang?), large scale espionage occurred in national nuclear labs and went unpunished and virtually every conservative organization found itself under attack by the IRS. Those are just some of the macro problems. The individual disgraces were even more poignant. Who can forget the seemingly endless stream of women who were smeared, threatened and abused by Clinton thugs for telling the truth about the President? Not exactly the stuff of the West Wing, is it? What about those poor souls incinerated at Waco on the orders of possibly the worst, most corrupt Attorney General in history, who served loyally for 8 years? Who can forget the face of little Elian, clutched by the brave fisherman who rescued him from the sea, as a deranged government storm trooper aims a submachine gun at them? What better symbol could there be of a truly odious administration than sending in storm troopers armed with submachine guns to snatch a scared little boy whose mother gave her life to give him freedom and send him back to the dictator Fidel?
This is the rationalization: "But the seriousness of Nixon's transgressions, seem to me to be far more blatant in reality. One guy lied about sex, which, shamefully, almost everyone does at one time or another. He just got caught in a big one in a very public way." "He just got caught in a big way" is the qualifer, as if to say that if he didn't get caught it was okay. This mentality, to justify cheating on a spouse, as OKAY in any way is the disease. The denial of the disease, the moral decay, is minimizing the double damage done by lying about it. It is Don Bright disease. You know. He ain't that bad, at least not as bad as the other guys.
Since when are politicians our ALLIES? since when are politicians expected to tell the truth - and not enjoy blowjobs ?
No offense, but now that the war is over, we Amercians can focus in on our own domestic issues. We don't even need to read the Guardian to figure out how to deal with domestic issues, thanks anyway. Why don't you go to a German website and post about Schroder and his gang of merry men. You blew out any credibility you might ever have had during the war with your nonsense. Nazi, go home!