NY Governer who veto Segways busted with Hookers

[wwhopper]

Bill Clinton made a couple of mistakes.

One he should have admitted it right up front (hey our DC Mayor Marion Barry admitted everything he did, well almost) and said he was sorry and then kept it in his pants until the end of his second term.

He should never have said that he did not do it, when he did

And he should have not let his position of power go to his head (either one of them) and abstained from his extra marital activity. Especially when he knew the Republicans had it out for him and his wife.

And as we all well know most politians do not have any morals, though as a President, he did a good job of being a world leader.

Myself I much preffer him to the one we have now, who may not have lied to his wife, but he has sure lied to the American people, and swindled the world out of much to the benefit of his friends and associates.

If we can impeach a President for dropping his trousers, we sure should impeach this one for any one of a number of things he has done.

(now waiting for the firestorm that will follow)

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by wwhopper

Bill Clinton made a couple of mistakes.

One he should have admitted it right up front (hey our DC Mayor Marion Barry admitted everything he did, well almost) and said he was sorry and then kept it in his pants until the end of his second term.

He should never have said that he did not do it, when he did

And he should have not let his position of power go to his head (either one of them) and abstained from his extra marital activity. Especially when he knew the Republicans had it out for him and his wife.

And as we all well know most politians do not have any morals, though as a President, he did a good job of being a world leader.

Myself I much preffer him to the one we have now, who may not have lied to his wife, but he has sure lied to the American people, and swindled the world out of much to the benefit of his friends and associates.

If we can impeach a President for dropping his trousers, we sure should impeach this one for any one of a number of things he has done.

(now waiting for the firestorm that will follow)

I don't think he was impeached for dropping his trousers. If not telling the truth while under oath is not a big deal, then you are right. Still, the Dems surely hate George Bush as much as the Reps hated Bill Clinton, yet Bush was not impeached, and Clinton was.

I don't know about your reference to the Bush Friends and associates benefiting from lies to the American People, but I can guess...

Check out the Bush family's net worth compared to what it was when he took office. Then check out the Clinton family's net worth compared to when he took office, and you may get a hint at who is profiting more... I would love an honest accounting.

Now, when it comes to friends and family getting benefit... I believe the United Nations is very aware of how to do that...

I dislike being in a place to have to defend our President, but I am unaware of any lies. I am aware of mistakes, that he and others have made. Bill Clinton, the declared 'world leader' did state that he agreed with the early decisions of the Bush Administration after 9-11. He was aware of, and believed the same intelligence.

Lastly, a specific question.

Do you really believe that 9-11 happened because of George Bush? Remember that he has only been in office for several months. Do you believe that it was planned and started after he got elected? Or were they working on it before that. Please recall that there were flight schools and other prep work done.

I believe that it was planned and started long before Bush was elected.

I believe that Bush made some mistakes in the execution of the actions he got started. I do not believe those actions were all dishonest or inappropriate.

I also believe that Bush is a big disappointment to conservatives and traditionalists all over. He has capitualted all over the board. He spends like a drunk. He sees border security as different from national security, which is crazy.

I also believe that Bill Clinton's affair in the white house with Lewinski is not as big a deal as the other things he was involved in, as less people were dead at the end of it, and less secret documents were in someone's pants at the end of that also...

They all have much to be ashamed of. And given the chance, the dems would love to impeach Bush, but can't because he has not been found to have broken the law, as Clinton was found to have done.

[X-man]

Originally Posted by quade

He lied about something that was not anything to do with his job as the President, wasn't a state secret and wasn't the business of the person asking the question nor anyone else except his wife. The question should not have been asked to begin with.

The entire thing was a tempest in a tea pot and an intentional distraction by some over zealous members of the opposite party.

Looking for a date with Hillary?????

[quade]

Originally Posted by X-man

Looking for a date with Hillary?????

What a bizarre question!

How in the world would that logically follow?

[jryan]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I don't think he was impeached for dropping his trousers. If not telling the truth while under oath is not a big deal, then you are right. A big Deal, yes, understandable, yes, but there are far worse things out there then lying to protect your family. We are all human. Should prejury in that case be grounds for impeachment, that is up to an individual to decide.Still, the Dems surely hate George Bush as much as the Reps hated Bill Clinton, yet Bush was not impeached, and Clinton was.

I don't know about your reference to the Bush Friends and associates benefiting from lies to the American People, but I can guess...

Check out the Bush family's net worth compared to what it was when he took office. Then check out the Clinton family's net worth compared to when he took office, and you may get a hint at who is profiting more... I would love an honest accounting.Well, this is not really a fair representation Karl. You see, in the Clinton's case I do not know of any suspicion of any of his personal money coming from decisions as President. There is suspicion that Bush and co. profited off the war. A lot of Bill Clinton's fortune came from speeches and his book. Not from actions as President.

Now, when it comes to friends and family getting benefit... I believe the United Nations is very aware of how to do that...

I dislike being in a place to have to defend our President, but I am unaware of any lies. Just because they have not been irrefutably proven does not mean that they are not there!I am aware of mistakes, that he and others have made. Bill Clinton, the declared 'world leader' did state that he agreed with the early decisions of the Bush Administration after 9-11. He was aware of, and believed the same intelligence.

Lastly, a specific question.

Do you really believe that 9-11 happened because of George Bush? Remember that he has only been in office for several months. Do you believe that it was planned and started after he got elected? Or were they working on it before that. Please recall that there were flight schools and other prep work done. Keep in mind that the evidence of timing, etc. is all coming from government intelligence, which could have been skewed. Do I believe GW was behind 9-11, no. Do I believe that he could have been, yes. I am not accusing but the suspicion is there. He definately benefited from the tragic event.

I believe that it was planned and started long before Bush was elected.This is possible as well, but GWB has been friends with the Bin Ladens for many years before his presidency.

I believe that Bush made some mistakes in the execution of the actions he got started. I do not believe those actions were all dishonest or inappropriate.

I also believe that Bush is a big disappointment to conservatives and traditionalists all over. He has capitualted all over the board. He spends like a drunk. He sees border security as different from national security, which is crazy.

I also believe that Bill Clinton's affair in the white house with Lewinski is not as big a deal as the other things he was involved in, as less people were dead at the end of it, and less secret documents were in someone's pants at the end of that also...

They all have much to be ashamed of. And given the chance, the dems would love to impeach Bush, but can't because he has not been found to have broken the lawNot neccessarily, he has admitted to wiretapping before it was legal. This is illegal in itself, but somehow does not seem to hold as much merit, sadly, as prejury!, as Clinton was found to have done.

I think our answers will mostly come one way or another when he is out of the white house. Until then it is mainly speculation, but I would love to see what comes!


Jeremy Ryan

[citivolus]

As far as abuses of wiretapping go, it has happened for a long time. The LA Times just had an interesting opinion piece on the topic. It seems many of the past administrations have been busy keeping tabs on political adversaries.

With respect to Spitzer I do find the irony simply delicious. He harassed tour operators on allegations that they were booking travel for the purpose of prostitution which is completely out of his jurisdiction and he gets harassed into resigning for just that thing he harassed others for. As for how it was leaked, I haven't much sympathy there either as rumor has it that he had the state police keep track of the movements of one of the politicians from the other party. I chalk it up to political style blow-back and I would think it would be completely expected by a savvy politician like Spitzer. He must have forgotten the first political rule - CYA.

[KSagal]

Jeremy, I know you cannot stand Bush, as you have made that very clear, but I deal in facts...

I asked that people who claim dollars are involved, to offer up research, not opinion. Your views are clear, but not documented. If you want to look into it, you will find that in the last days of the Clinton Presidency, there were pardons sold that totaled into the millions, both in cash payments to Hillery's family members, and to the the Clinton Library/Massage Parlor. (Okay, cheap shot, LOL)

Regardless of my joke, the allegations of inappropriate sales of pardons is well documented if you care to get into it...

About the impeachment thing, you can say what you like, but if Bush really did illegal things, and Clinton did not, then why has the Democrat majority in congress not even considered Impeachment, while Clinton was the first president in modern times (maybe ever? I do not know) to actually be found guilty by impeachment, and has lost his law license. That is far more than any claim even waged against Bush, and again, no charges have been made against him, and FAR more people are vocal about the negatives on Bush... (Like yourself)

You say that perjury should be up to the individual to decide if it is grounds for impeachment, but in fact, it is up to the majority of congress to decide, and they did. This is not theoretical, this is fact. One was impeached, one was not. Not much wiggle room there.

The intelligence that fed the will to go to war was not from the Bush Administration. The intelligence management was a hold over from Clinton. There have been many questions as to what was known to whom and when, yet the public statements at the time (just prior to going to war) had the Clintons clearly and dementedly in favor of that intelligence, and the need to go to war.

After the commission started their research about what was known by whom and when, then cabinet members of Clinton's administration were caught with top secret documents in his pants and rolled up in his socks, while secreting them out of the national archives. This was a Clinton staffer, not a Bush Staffer.

Bear in mind that Bush was only in office for 8 months when the World Trade Centers were attacked. If you actually do some research, you will find that the dates of the issues at the flight centers involved started before George Bush was president. If Bin Laden was in fact a friend of Bush, why would he wait till his friend was in office before doing the deed?

Bill Clinton was caught on tape (I heard it with my own ears) that he had the opportunity to have Bin Laden, who was in jail in another country who offered him to us as a prisoner, and it as Bill Clinton at the time who said no thanks. A year later, the towers fell. I seems that Clinton is clearly more supportive of Bin Laden that Bush.

Again, you are welcome to offer up your opinions. I was requesting however, a document trail of some sort, not just spouting of at the mouth.

[JohnM]

Originally Posted by KSagal

About the impeachment thing, you can say what you like, but if Bush really did illegal things, and Clinton did not, then why has the Democrat majority in congress not even considered Impeachment.....

Maybe because the Democrat majority isn't crazy enough to want Dick Cheney sitting in the Oval Office?

Originally Posted by KSagal

I don't think he was impeached for dropping his trousers. If not telling the truth while under oath is not a big deal, then you are right. Still, the Dems surely hate George Bush as much as the Reps hated Bill Clinton, yet Bush was not impeached, and Clinton was.

Officially, Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress in his statement "I did not have sex with that woman." As I said, that was the OFFICIAL reason, but the GOP made it clear via the press he WAS being impeached for the sexual affair - the GOP taking the moral high ground, even though every single one of the GOP on the Impeachment Committee had also publicly admitted to their own sexual peccadilloes outside the bounds of matrimony. One even admitted to a "youthful discretion" in which he impregnated a woman and did not marry her. That "youthful indiscretion" occurred when the Congressman was 40... and it was later revealed he had also never financially supported the child; that the mother had been on AFDC until the kid turned 18. The child was, at the time of the revelation, in, I believe, his late 30s to early 40s, himself. That Congressman, Henry Hyde, was actually re-elected to Congress after the admission... but quickly placed himself on sick leave, and died in 2007.

As far as I was concerned: The Republicans in Congress had made up their mind from one minute after the election they were NOT going to tolerate the people's choice for the President, and were bound and determined to find something to get Clinton out of Office. They publicly alluded to the "Whitewater" incident, which had already been adjudicated in Arkansas, and for which people had already been sentenced to prison. Then came the "they murdered Vince Foster" charges, despite the fact Foster had been clinically depressed for quite some time, and his suicide surprised no one... neither Foster's wife nor his psychiatrist were shocked at Foster's suicide. Then "Travelgate," in which the President replaced the entire White House travel agency with an outside, Clinton-friendly, firm... but the GOP failed to point out all Presidents do much the same thing with the in-house travel agency. The only reason this one got press coverage is that agency had been in house for 12 years - 8 years of Reagan, 4 of Bush I - and the employees, rightly or wrongly, felt they had been mistreated. And, finally, Monica Lewinski... 7 years and $50 million later, the GOP had a "case," however hypocritical that case was. In my mind: the entire matter should have been left to Hillary and Bill Clinton - he was a man who cheated on his wife, and got caught. It happens every day, and the couples involved either decide to end their marriage or seek counseling, or maybe just "let bygones be bygones."

Originally Posted by KSagal

I don't know about your reference to the Bush Friends and associates benefiting from lies to the American People, but I can guess...

Check out the Bush family's net worth compared to what it was when he took office. Then check out the Clinton family's net worth compared to when he took office, and you may get a hint at who is profiting more... I would love an honest accounting.

Now, when it comes to friends and family getting benefit... I believe the United Nations is very aware of how to do that...

All that may be true, Karl, but the Clinton's didn't prosper by setting national policy to benefit their friends. Bush has. The energy companies are the only people who had input on this Administration's energy policy - Enron, Exxon, Mobile, etc. Rather than implementing policies and procedures that would have reduced dependence on outside energy sources, the exact opposite occurred, and regulations were put in place that actually increased our dependency on those outside sources. Laws that had been on the books for years concerning carbon emissions and the usage of coal were, de facto, canceled via a simple pen stroke. And with coal suddenly being the favorite domestic energy source for this Administration, coal production dramatically increased... and mines that had been closed for decades were re-opened.

Yes, economically, for those areas in which coal mining is still the primary source of revenue - my family comes from decades of West Virginia coal mining stock; all my male relatives have worked the mines at one point, even my contemporaries; my father, in 1947 made a conscious choice to escape that trap, enlisted in the Armed Services, and got out of that circle - the new policy came as a boon. So old mines were re-opened... and within months, in two recently re-opened mines, in two separate states, there were two different cave-ins, claiming the lives of almost two dozen coal miners. My uncle Moody - not only is that his name, but he's a Jr., no less - told his sister (my mother) that the companies just pulled down the walls at the opening of the shafts that had blocked them, and sent miners back in, with no safety inspections. On a Saturday, those shafts were closed, and on Monday, they were re-opened.

And while you might be correct about the income that's come into the Bush family coffers being less than that of the Clinton's... the income that came into the Clinton's, as far as I know, has no blood associated with it.

I also assume you are referring only to the Bush family, and haven't looked at Cheney? When an Administration takes office, since Rockefeller, they have to put all their holdings in, essentially, an escrow account. They may not touch them for the duration of their term in office - so that they cannot profit from "insider information."

So when Cheney took office as the Veep, he took leave as Haliburton's CEO - notice he did NOT retire/resign, merely took extended leave - and all his shares went into escrow.

Suddenly, Haliburton is the company of choice in no-bid contracts on goods and services being provided to the government and armed forces. In 7 years, Haliburton's stock price has nearly tripled. When Cheney leaves office, his portfolio comes out of escrow... and it's worth 300% what it was when placed in escrow. If he had $1 million dollars in shares, he's now to $3 million... and I guarantee he's got a lot more than a mere million bucks worth.

Originally Posted by KSagal

I dislike being in a place to have to defend our President, but I am unaware of any lies. I am aware of mistakes, that he and others have made. Bill Clinton, the declared 'world leader' did state that he agreed with the early decisions of the Bush Administration after 9-11. He was aware of, and believed the same intelligence.

Karl, I really mean no offense with my next statement, but if you are "unaware of any lies" told by this President, then it's because you don't want to be aware of them... you're choosing to ignore them, calling them "mistakes" instead of "lies."

Let's take the question of WDMs in Iraq out of the equation, and generously attribute that to a "mistake" of "misinformation." Fine.

But, when the President stated Al-Quedi had a "foothold" and "safe harbor" in Iraq, he knew that was a lie - all the information stated exactly the opposite; that Sadam Hussein had systematically hunted down and exterminated Al-Quedi cells in Iraq. There was even official documentation from Hussein's Administration that he feared an Al-Quedi factor in Iraq could cause the world to go to war with Iraq in reprisal of an Al-Quedi attack.

So, the President lied. Knowingly. He stated Hussein was purchasing "weapons grade" radioacative materials from Niger, even though the President was in possession of later intelligence gathering that said, essentially: "Oops. We bad. That didn't happen. Sorry, boss." The President chose to ignore that. In other words, he lied. And he KNOWINGLY lied.

Originally Posted by KSagal

Lastly, a specific question.

Do you really believe that 9-11 happened because of George Bush? Remember that he has only been in office for several months. Do you believe that it was planned and started after he got elected? Or were they working on it before that. Please recall that there were flight schools and other prep work done.

Actually, yes,I believe George Bush's plan for the economy, all along, was to be at war. Traditionally, a wartime economy is a booming economy, solely because while spending stays the same, unemployment levels out; up until the draft was abolished in the 1970s, in a wartime economy, the unemployed (in draft years age) suddenly found themselves employed by the US Army. A great many others, young men just out of school, or school dropouts, enlist in other branches, to avoid being drafted into the Army. Traditionally, women then have to pick up the workload at home (think: Rosie the Riveter) and, also traditionally, those women are not paid at the same rate a male in that position would be. And, of course, the national resources available, during war, start becoming shared by a populace that is... shrinking, as it were.

In his first State of the Union Address, Bush made it a point to label three countries as the "Axis of Evil." A month later, one of our spy planes, spying on China, was grounded, with the crew briefly interred. Bush demanded the Chinese apologize... though it was us who was out of line.

So, yes, from almost minute one, it seemed to me President Bush was, very publicly, attempting to goad either Iraq, Iran, North Korea or China into some sort of "aggressive" stance that, given the state of mind we've seen, since, that Bush possesses, would have led to a war.

Originally Posted by KSagal

I believe that it was planned and started long before Bush was elected.

I believe that Bush made some mistakes in the execution of the actions he got started. I do not believe those actions were all dishonest or inappropriate.

I also believe that Bush is a big disappointment to conservatives and traditionalists all over. He has capitulated all over the board. He spends like a drunk. He sees border security as different from national security, which is crazy.

I also believe that Bill Clinton's affair in the white house with Lewinski is not as big a deal as the other things he was involved in, as less people were dead at the end of it, and less secret documents were in someone's pants at the end of that also...

They all have much to be ashamed of. And given the chance, the dems would love to impeach Bush, but can't because he has not been found to have broken the law, as Clinton was found to have done.

And we come back to that: Clinton did NOT break the law; he was impeached for lying to Congress.

By ignoring the edicts of FISA - the Foreign Intelligence Securities Act - and utilizing federal employees, by Executive Order, to tap wireless communications of - in their own words, tens of thousands - American citizens, without benefit of a court-issued warrant, President Bush DID break the law, as the law was then written. It'll be up to the Supreme Court to decided whether the new law Bush got through Congress allowing for a "retroactive" change to the old law to make his actions "legal" holds water. In past cases, courts have ruled that laws MAY NOT BE retroactive in nature - there are still people in prisons serving time for crimes they committed in the the 60s and 70s that are, today, no longer crimes, or have been reduced to misdemeanors. Even though the draft was abolished in the 1970s, it took an Executive Pardon from Jimmy Carter, in the 80s, to allow those young men that dodged the draft to re-enter the country and pick up their lives. I, personally, believe they should have been submitted to some form of punishment, just as an acknowledgment to the service of those who DID follow the law at the time, and found themselves in the Army, but that's just my viewpoint.

Sorry, I didn't mean to get so long winded. But me and politics.... what can I say?