Clinton Gifts Total $400G
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020212/ap_on_re_us/clintons_gifts_8"; target="_blank">Score</a>!
[quote] President Clinton left office with more than $400,000 in gifts, including $75,000 in china, crystal and furniture received in his last weeks in office, according to a congressional report.
Rep. Doug Ose, R-Calif., said Tuesday that some items were undervalued, others were not disclosed and some were labeled missing or lost so the true value of all the gifts may never be determined.
"The current system is broken and needs to be fixed," he said. Ose spoke at a hearing intended to boost support for his bill to give the National Archives responsibility for overseeing presidential gifts, instead of the six agencies that now are involved.
<hr></blockquote>
When you want free stuff there's the presidency, for everything else there's MasterCard.
[quote] President Clinton left office with more than $400,000 in gifts, including $75,000 in china, crystal and furniture received in his last weeks in office, according to a congressional report.
Rep. Doug Ose, R-Calif., said Tuesday that some items were undervalued, others were not disclosed and some were labeled missing or lost so the true value of all the gifts may never be determined.
"The current system is broken and needs to be fixed," he said. Ose spoke at a hearing intended to boost support for his bill to give the National Archives responsibility for overseeing presidential gifts, instead of the six agencies that now are involved.
<hr></blockquote>
When you want free stuff there's the presidency, for everything else there's MasterCard.
Comments
<strong>...and several thousand blow jobs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gennifer Flowers!? Monica Lewinsky?! What appalling taste in women.
<strong>...and several thousand blow jobs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find it humorous that your only criticism of Clinton revolves around his social problems and not his ability to govern.
I wonder how many gifts came from Ken Lay, Mark Rich and convicted drug king pin Vignali.
Clinton had the "most ethical presidency ever".
(And you still haven't told me anything bad that Clinton did other than his sexual "escapades")
If you think taking bribes to pardon a drug king pin is ethical then more bribes to ya.
<strong>Those are Clintons words.
If you think taking bribes to pardon a drug king pin is ethical then more bribes to ya.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So... all I have from you is that Clinton took bribes and blowjobs, and that's why he's bad. Any comments on his abilities as the President?
Also note that he denied a woman her civil rights when he lied under oath. He got disbarred by the US Supreme Court for that.
Then there's that whole "failure to deal with terrorism" thing. We all know how that ened up.
Sure. Say whatever you think will make the Republicans look better, based on no facts whatsoever. Try using some evidence sometime, it might help your 'case'.
Seriously though. When Clinton had terrorist plants blown after the embassy bombings, the Republicans were the ones that were outraged. They said that Clinton was wasting the money of the taxpayers and the time of the military in destroying those facilities to draw attention away from impeachment. The Republicans actually wanted him to do less in that case.
Plus, Republicans say they have been fighting terrorism since Bush took office. If they had really stepped up against terrorism like they claimed they had, maybe there wouldn't have been the problem on September 11. At least under Clinton's watch, the terrorist activities were thwarted. No such luck under Bush.
<strong>I still maintain that Clinton only bombed those areas because of impeachment. He did not do it because he wanted to get bin Laden et. al. He even ****ed that up. Had he not told the Pakistanis then bin Laden would have been killed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a nice bogus conjecture. We can all think up wag the dog stories, but it doesn't get us anywhere. The only credible evidence that we have is that, when confronted with terrorism, Clinton acted. Lest we not also forget, Clinton never stopped bombing Iraq. He didn't need the rhetoric of the "Axis of Evil" to get his point across.
(Fran, nice post)
Well that's not fair. He met with him once. Before he got the job. But not after. Not ever focused on terror is he?
<strong>If you consider that Clinton NEVER met with his head of the CIA it isn't.
Well that's not fair. He met with him once. Before he got the job. But not after. Not ever focused on terror is he?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Couldn't that just as much mean that Clinton was very satisfied with the CIA's operation and saw no reason to intervene? There's a thousand plausible explanations for everything. And I don't think meeting with the CIA head is a necessary step for conducting attacks against terrorist. And, finally, what, did you stalk Clinton for all 8 years of the presidency to check to see if he met with George Tenet? C'mon, Scott, where are the facts here? Stop with the rhetorical bullshit.