This might surprise you, NaplesX, but I believe we are in agreement on this also.
I think that the government and the nation in general wasted too much time and money and energy and "emotional angst" on the whole Starr/Monica/Cigar thing. I won't comment on how it reflects on the sanctity-of-office defenses offered up by some Bush-lovers, although it's tempting. I'm just glad to hear your position on this matter, and how much we agree. It reflects well on your overall approach to politics.
I also agree that he should have suffered consequences such as being censured as President and being disbarred, but I don't think that impeachment was warranted.
Any comments on how Monicagate influenced Clinton's actions against AQ... a possible changing of counterterrorism plans to avoid more Wag The Dog attacks?
Another thing we would agree on, since we are on a roll is:
The whole clinton/whitewater/monicagate thing was a huge waste of money and time. I really think that anyone objectively looking at it would agree.
However, I think one must agree that the Clintons did not make good decisions throughout their political careers to much avoid such controversies. This all confirms my theory that they took the easiest route to power, and that was their motivation. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily think that power being a motivation is necessarily bad. In this case it brought with it controversy.
Taking Clinton down on the Lewinski matter is somewhat akin to getting Al Capone on tax evasion. The Clinton's VERY irregular past was only matched by the loyalty of their organizations. Slick Willy got his name for a reason---the best anyone could do was get him disbarred. A consumate politician.
Sorry to derail all the fun stuff but do we actually have a date and time yet for her testimony? I want to make sure this one doesn't slip under my radar....
Just saw a news flash on NYT... she will testify (presumably all day?) on April the 8th... one week from today. Mark your calendars and get the chips and dip ready... this will be interesting.
It will amost certainly a careful parsing of Clarke's allegations, rebutting them as far as is possible without anything that could later be considered perjury.
Look for lots of "to the best of my recollection" and "there is at this time no evidence that" and "we have been unable to verify".
It will amost certainly a careful parsing of Clarke's allegations, rebutting them as far as is possible without anything that could later be considered perjury.
Look for lots of "to the best of my recollection" and "there is at this time no evidence that" and "we have been unable to verify".
The whole purpose of the commission is to discredit bush and co.
I think that will be made crystal clear during her testimony.
Good luck on the 8th, dmz and NaplesX. Your girl's going to rip them a new whatsit.
Yeah, I suppose a speech that was never given proves some point. How many speeches were given by admin officials that had nothing to do with terrorism?
How about in the clinton admin?
I think people are smart enough to figure that one out.
Like I said the 9/11 commission is simply an opportunity to lay blame, and it looks like they are focused on this admin. No brainer really.
Yes. Of course. I'd like to see you get up there and defend a decade of groupthink, Mr. Smartypants.
Oh wait, wrong thread.
I trust you will be watching the showtri..... er, hearings on BBC or CSPAN. If I didn't consider my privacy offlimits, (and I'm sure you do to) I'd ask you to make a small wager on the outcome of Condi's performance.
We may have a daytime Emmy potential, here. I guess Clarke is a shoo-in for best male lead in a Soap Opera.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
dmz that's one of the most racist things I've read here in a long time.
She can take it---she's arguably the most intelligent memeber of the Bush admin. It's satire for Clarke, not Rice.
(it's still okay to make Whitey jokes, yes?)
Originally posted by FormerLurker
This might surprise you, NaplesX, but I believe we are in agreement on this also.
I think that the government and the nation in general wasted too much time and money and energy and "emotional angst" on the whole Starr/Monica/Cigar thing. I won't comment on how it reflects on the sanctity-of-office defenses offered up by some Bush-lovers, although it's tempting. I'm just glad to hear your position on this matter, and how much we agree. It reflects well on your overall approach to politics.
I also agree that he should have suffered consequences such as being censured as President and being disbarred, but I don't think that impeachment was warranted.
Any comments on how Monicagate influenced Clinton's actions against AQ... a possible changing of counterterrorism plans to avoid more Wag The Dog attacks?
Another thing we would agree on, since we are on a roll is:
The whole clinton/whitewater/monicagate thing was a huge waste of money and time. I really think that anyone objectively looking at it would agree.
However, I think one must agree that the Clintons did not make good decisions throughout their political careers to much avoid such controversies. This all confirms my theory that they took the easiest route to power, and that was their motivation. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily think that power being a motivation is necessarily bad. In this case it brought with it controversy.
Originally posted by dmz
Top Ten Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her, errr, Appearance From:http://ace-o-spades.blogspot.com/
*offtopic here*... was just just reading the Democratic candidates as D&D characters posts there... LOL
"I swing my crossbow!"
Look for lots of "to the best of my recollection" and "there is at this time no evidence that" and "we have been unable to verify".
Originally posted by addabox
It will amost certainly a careful parsing of Clarke's allegations, rebutting them as far as is possible without anything that could later be considered perjury.
Look for lots of "to the best of my recollection" and "there is at this time no evidence that" and "we have been unable to verify".
The whole purpose of the commission is to discredit bush and co.
I think that will be made crystal clear during her testimony.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The whole purpose of the commission is to discredit bush and co.
An amazing thing to say.
Oh, and Condoleeza Rice was due to give a speech on September 11 on national security. Its theme?
Star Wars.
Good luck on the 8th, dmz and NaplesX. Your girl's going to rip them a new whatsit.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Good golly.
An amazing thing to say.
Oh, and Condoleeza Rice was due to give a speech on September 11 on national security. Its theme?
Star Wars.
Good luck on the 8th, dmz and NaplesX. Your girl's going to rip them a new whatsit.
Yeah, I suppose a speech that was never given proves some point. How many speeches were given by admin officials that had nothing to do with terrorism?
How about in the clinton admin?
I think people are smart enough to figure that one out.
Like I said the 9/11 commission is simply an opportunity to lay blame, and it looks like they are focused on this admin. No brainer really.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Your girl's going to rip them a new whatsit.
Yes. Of course. I'd like to see you get up there and defend a decade of groupthink, Mr. Smartypants.
Oh wait, wrong thread.
I trust you will be watching the showtri..... er, hearings on BBC or CSPAN. If I didn't consider my privacy offlimits, (and I'm sure you do to) I'd ask you to make a small wager on the outcome of Condi's performance.
We may have a daytime Emmy potential, here. I guess Clarke is a shoo-in for best male lead in a Soap Opera.
The whole purpose of the commission is to discredit bush and co.
I think that will be made crystal clear during her testimony.
Boy, you may be legally retarded. </sean connery on celeb jeop>