Dolt- He was impeached, just not voted out of office by Republicans who recognized that the economy was too good to upset the apple cart.. Ya see, no partisan politics. Impeached for the lying to the courts, but the rest was dropped for the good of the country...
Really? They hated his guts, they investigated him for years and did their best to throw him out of the oval office but they impeached him on reduced charges for the good of the country? Hmm, I always thought they had no case, I stand corrected.
Dems don't need to lie... they just change their story depending on what color the audience is! Or whether or not they're past position is still politically correct.
It went to the Senate for a vote. The Republicans were in majority. They didn't vote along partisan lines and he stayed in office. The Supreme Court (a liberal court btw) disbarred him because he was guilty of lying to the courts. What part of that confuses you?
The part about dropping additional charges. But you clarified that already, for the good of the country republicans wanted to impeach him and throw him out of the oval office...but only on reduced charges. As always your posts and your explanations make perfect logical sense.
According to the poll, more than 80% of ET members think Republicans are more convincing liars. My theory is that they are more convincing because they have no conscience, or are so deep in denial they have actually fooled themselves into believing their lies, or they are pathological. I would be interested in the view of the right wingers on why they think their party are better and more convincing liars.
It's because the right lies about things that matter and the left just lies about everything. Ask John Kerry what the High School drop out rate is and he may tell you it's 50%. Ask the left if they thought Sadaam was a danger and was seeking nuclear capabilities and now they would say no and 3 years ago they would have said yes.
Unfortunately for you, actions speak louder than words. The reason we are fighting a world wide war on terrorism is directly due to 2 democratic administrations; Carter and Clinton. Carter decimated the CIA and Clinton looked the other way when terrorists attacked. But he did bomb an aspirin factory. The only reason we had a balanced budget was due to a growing economy, which is widely viewed by economists as a direct result of the Reagan tax cuts. It sure as hell wasn't due to anything Clinton did or the Congress cutting spending. There is no lock box. Current FICA pays current retirees. Currently there is surplus, but congress has never met a dollar it couldn't spend. Do you really believe they would take money and lock it away? Do you still believe in the Easter Bunny? At least the Republicans are discussing SS. The democrats think the problemt will just go away. At every election, you guys lose because the American public sees past your "lock box" and "SS, what problem, there's no problem". I guess that's why the dems sound like Republicans when a election time rolls around.
Proof of sputdr's post: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
This is why Fox news is so successful. Pre fox news the mainstream media would NEVER challenge a liar like Ted Kennedy or another Democrat. Now whenever they lie Fox finds some newsclip of the lies and plays it over and over and you can do nothing but laugh. Democrats lie because they think people are too stupid to know it and they never were challenged before.