Oh, laudy, how dare anyone write about the Clinton machine!

I supported Bill until he was caught sexually harassing a subordinate government employee. A firing offense.

In the sordid story of the Clintons' venality, the press was far too easy on him and her. The only reason why the scandels did not go further was that important records were hidden in the White House or key witnesses went to prison rather than testify only to be pardoned by Clinton.

A good example of the press largesse was that Clinton fired all but one Federal prosecutor but the press remained silent. Bush fired a handfull and he was crucified.

The press turned its eye with the teriorist attacks of the WTC, the Cole, and our embassies and, as such, were co-enablers of 9/11.

But how dare the press mention the Clintons' control of a compliant press!

drwinter,

I think the umbrage about Bush's firing a handful of Federal attorneys stems more from the fact that specific individuals were targeted and let go out of a perceived lack of political loyalty.

Many Presidents fire whole teams of prosecutors when then take office, a practice that is not that out of the ordinary. Bush's people, in contrast, did a witch hunt that "politicized" federal attorneys (some of whom were clearly good at their jobs) in a way that provoked many in the beltway, including the press.

As for the press being easy on the Clintons, I find that dubious. But in any event, all successful politicians has press "machines" that try to sway the spin of the stories. It's called politics and is practiced by both parties.

"until he was caught sexually harassing a subordinate government employee."

What are you talking about?

No one who actually supported Bill Clinton would lie about what happened with Paula Jones. As a result, it is clear that you are a liar. Having to do so to try and speak from the position of an allegedly disillusioned supporter, thereby giving you some passing credibility, is pathetic. If you have to lie to support your cause, your cause isn't worth supporting.

Clinton did not sexually harass a subordinate government employee. Paula Jones didn't work for him. She was a volunteer in his campaign. And there was no evidence that he actually did what the Scaife-funded legal team claimed. Which is why the case was dismissed by the judge.

And if you're talking about Lewinsky, a consenting relationship with a volunteer is not sexual harassment. Judge Starr determined there were no crimes committed by Clinton. While he was a screwed up guy, he at least was honest. Too bad you can't say the same.

I'm curious about what lies you've told to yourself. Who went to prison and was pardoned?

You are mixing apples and oranges when talking about the federal prosecutors. Clinton didn't do it as a method of political gamesmanship and an effort to pressure prosecutors. Both Bush and Clinton cleaned house at the beginning of their terms. Bush fired just as many as Clinton, not just a handful. It was the impropriety and cynicism and lies about the final handful that got Bush in trouble.

We got the first WTC bombers. We got close with the Cole and embassy bombings. We were aggressive in trying to find them. Bush did buppkiss before 9/11, and has done stupid things since.

I always laugh at the delusions of RWN like you that think the press went easy on Clinton. The reporting and investigation into everything he did, every woman he ever spoke to, every investment or matter Hillary handled, was beyond the pale.

It's too bad that the press never went after Bush's AWOL time at the TANG with the same vigor. The Supremes probably wouldn't have been able to steal the election from Gore in 2000 cause it wouldn't have been close enough.

Wolfen:

While he was a screwed up guy, he at least was honest.

Wait, what are you talking about?

Wolfen:

I'm curious about what lies you've told to yourself. Who went to prison and was pardoned?

<link> <link>

Not sure any of those have anything to do with his Impeachment trial though. And you're right in your comparision of the timing and motivations re: the Justice Department purge.

Wolfen:

We got the first WTC bombers. We got close with the Cole and embassy bombings. We were aggressive in trying to find them.

Yeah, that is Clinton's spin on it, but face it, it was hard to take those efforts seriously when on so many days, the bombings coincided with significant events in his impeachment trial.

And while we're on the subject of Clinton apologizing, I wanted to ask where all the staunch femnists were -- the ones who are vehement in having no tolerance for males abusing positions of power at the expense of any woman? Not that I'm expecting to get a serious response to that question or anything.

Grantoe: "Wait, what are you talking about?"

Wolfen: "Judge Starr determined there were no crimes committed by Clinton. While he was a screwed up guy, he at least was honest."

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough for you. Or that you think that taking my statement out of context somehow damages my response.

Sorry, but the Wag-the-Dog conspiracy theory is assinine. It's not hard to take his terror efforts seriously at all, except in the black helicopter community. [And just so you're not confused again, the bombing in Iraq in 1998 had nothing to do with terrorism. Bringing it up in this discussion demonstrates that you are truly delusional.]

The world doesn't stop, just because the Republicans want to punish Clinton with that revolting waste of time in the House and Senate. International actions required the bombing in Iraq and action in Kosovo. None of them were set out to distract from the Kangaroo Court. As such a thing would be doomed to failure based upon the relentless pursuit of Clinton's Crotch, the alleged distraction was meaningless. And while Clinton had many faults, being stupid wasn't one of them. He wouldn't bother with a distraction that wouldn't work.

And how revolting that you'd think that Clinton would put our troops in harm's way for politics. I bet you condemned Pete Stark last week for making a similar statement. How wonderfully Republican/Hypocritical of you.

Wolfen:

Grantoe: "Wait, what are you talking about?"

Wolfen: "Judge Starr determined there were no crimes committed by Clinton. While he was a screwed up guy, he at least was honest."

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough for you. Or that you think that taking my statement out of context somehow damages my response.

I swear I thought you were referring to Clinton's having been honest. My apologies. Honest!

Wolfen:

[And just so you're not confused again, the bombing in Iraq in 1998 had nothing to do with terrorism. Bringing it up in this discussion demonstrates that you are truly delusional.]

Look again, I never brought that instance up in this "discussion". What does that demonstrate about you? While we're on the subject, we could argue all day long about what his motives were for military action, but the fact is that Iraq had been failing to comply with the U.N. Security Council's resolutions for years, but apparently the time act on it was at the same time the House was executing the impeachment hearings. And what significant, long-lasting good did those four days of bombing do again?

Wolfen:

And how revolting that you'd think that Clinton would put our troops in harm's way for politics. I bet you condemned Pete Stark last week for making a similar statement. How wonderfully Republican/Hypocritical of you.

First of all, I have no opinion at all about Stark's comments, so thanks for jumping the gun in calling me a hyprocrite. Second, I'm pretty liberal ideologically (like pretty much every issue), but that doesn't mean I have to apologize for politicians like Clinton (so I don't appreciate your assuming I'm a Republican). Third, I never said he put troops in harms way for politics. I am pretty sure he launched some cruise missles as a diversion though during Operation Infinite Reach.

Sources in U.S. Intelligence apparently claimed that there was only one "window" through which to strike at bin Laden, and that the only time they could hope to hit his Afghan fastness by this remote means was on the night of Monica Lewinsky's return to the grand jury. Let's assume they were correct. After all, they helped build and equip his camps and they may know something we don't (even if they ended up missing him).

Politicians (especially ones as adept as Clinton) don't even use the restroom without being aware of how it could be perceived; so when military action was used at times his critics would perceive as being questionable (especially when it seems to have been pattern), he had brought it upon himself (unless you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that he absolutely had to act when he did). Plus, if it's true, it's revolting that he did it, not that I would suggest it's understandable he would have been criticized or that it's at least possible that's why he did it.

All that said, I completely agree with you that the Republican's unholy crusade against him was, at best, a colossal waste of time.

Grantoe1: Yeah, that is Clinton's spin on it, but face it, it was hard to take those efforts seriously when on so many days, the bombings coincided with significant events in his impeachment trial.

Grantoe2: Look again, I never brought that instance up in this "discussion".

---

I think you are in error.