Blame Clinton For 9-11

[Nuclear]

You've got to be kidding me that you want to argue the definition of 'sex'.....note the second word in the title of 'oral sex'......it happens to start with an S, end with an X, and has an E in the middle. Any questions?

He turned definition so he could weasel out of it.

[Craig Read]

He perjured himself. By definition perjury is a crime. So why didn't he step down or why wasn't he removed ?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Read and Nuclear,

Mr. Clinton, in true lawyer fashion, also used the phrase "..It depends on what your definition of 'is' is...."

However, he was aquitted in a court of law. Ergo, not guilty.

[Synon]

...

Who is this guy?

Craig, you need me to cite a source that 2+2 doesnt equal 5? If it's illogical(which it's NOT) then stop avioding what I'm saying like a bad politician. Instead, I DARE you to attempt to actually stay on the topic of what I said and prove me wrong. I don't care how many biased 'sources' you have, you can't predict what would have happen, you can only guess... and not a very educated guess at that. Maybe this will work, say either "yes I was just guessing" or "no I have supernatural powers to predict the future". Can you handle that? if not, don't reply like a hyprocrit about not responding to you book.

[FastNed]

Clinton was never brought before a Court on criminal charges, thus he was never "acquitted".

He was censured by a Judge for false and misleading testimony, under oath , in a Civil Deposition. The Judge referred the matter to the Bar Association of Arkansas and he agreed to be "Disbarred" quietly rather than face the full range of penalties available to the Bar Association. For an Attorney to loose his license, to be disbarred is a disgrace which never can be overcome, at least not among the legal profession.

We spend years in Law School after College, three or more in most cases, to obtain a degree which allows us to take a rather extensive examination to be licensed to practice Law and hold ourselves out to be an "Attorney and Counselor at Law". It is a special and privileged status and bears substantial responsibility.

He was not disbarred because of his sexual practices, or because he liked a good "BJ" or even because he was a sexual predator. He was disbarred because he committed a criminal act, he lied under oath and had he contested this before the Bar of Arkansas, there is little doubt that a criminal prosecution would have been recommended. It had nothing to do with politics at the end, but everything to do with the special responsibility of an Attorney to comply with the Law in his personal actions.

[djpark121]

I'd just like to know why the hell you people are arguing about someone who's been out of office for 4 years, and not focusing on issues in the present. Wake up. The Clinton era is over. Blaming Clinton for 9-11 is the stupidest thing I've ever heard and I don't care how much anyone tries to prove it, it won't change the mind of anyone who has a brain. Right now, I think it would be the sensible thing to do to concentrate on who's in office right now, and what he's doing to this nation, instead of criticizing someone who's been out for a while. So what if Clinton had a personal life nobody should care about? What are you going to do, impeach him? I'm a conservative and a Republican, but this is disgusting.

[daniel]

As long as there's a leftwinger (Clinton a left-winger?!), the rightwingers will divert all the blame on him.

When was the last time you heard a right winger make an "I will accept full responsibility..." speech?

[Craig Read]

Did you 2 clowns read anything on the post ? If not get lost.

9-11 did CHANGE the World. In case you did not know there is a struggle going on in the world at large.

What the post states is that 9-11 could very well have been prevented.

This is why it is relevant and your assinine drivel irrelevant.

[RB]

question for Fastned

could clinton be instated in different state as a lawyer

[nova_satori]

Guys, don't even bother talking to Craig.

He has shown

1) A disgrard of all evidence you bring

2) Hatred for all things that do not share his beliefs

3) Selective reading

4) Cherry picking evidence

5) the inability to even see the other side

6) the inability to question authority

7) removes the credit the people rightfully deserve should they not agree with him

8) hatred of most news

9) Disgreard for past human follies

10) hatred of muslims and Arabs

11) Failure to see the problems of America

12) Blind faith in Bush

13)....need i go on?

Unlike Hugo, who shows the ability to see the other side, entertain that view, remove his bias to a degree, entertain the idea he MIGHT be wrong, craig fails to do anything but sling sweeping, false allegations aganist someone he cannot disprove.

[Hugo]

So what if Clinton had a personal life nobody should care about? What are you going to do, impeach him?

Just a point here:

If you were an executive, and you were found receiving oral sex from your secretary or an intern, in your office, on company time, you would be fired. That's an offence worthy of summary dismissal, in any company you care to name.

Clinton was an employee. He was employed by the people of the United States, their tax dollars paid his salary. While he is in his office, he is being paid to run the country. If he isn't doing that and is receiving oral sex instead, I'd say he can be fired, or impeached, just as the executive who wastes company time and resources by having sex in his office during business hours can be fired.

[daniel]

Hugo:

Good analogy, so can we expand that to include Bush? During most of his term he has been preoccupied with sending US troops somewhere - Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia. Though 9-11 is an event beyond his control, any other President would still provide a balanced agenda so as to look after domestic affairs too.

He is being paid to run the country. And as an employee he is spending $1billion a week with no progress or end in sight, who has torn international relationships within the first nine months of his term, and most importantly, his ventures have been promoted based on false pretenses.

What would you do with an employee like that?

[Craig Read]

That is right guys. He is suppose to support the STATE. He is a SERVANT not a tyrant. When you break the law, befoul your office, engage in unethical behaviour and perjure yourself, you MUST resign.

Any right or reasonably responsible man would have resigned. The fact that he lied, defended himself with publicly paid taxpayer lawyers, and refused for the longest time to admit his deeds illustrates that the man is a liar, a thief of public trust and the worst President since Jimmy Carter.

[FastNed]

Hello,RB, you pose a complex question. Could Clinton be licensed to practice Law in another Jurisdiction?

In theory, Yes. But in reality, it would be a very difficult process.

He is not now, an "Attorney in good standing" in any jurisdiction so even the most liberal States on this question of Licensing would not allow him to apply under relaxed standards. Let me use Vermont as an example - were he in good standing, he could "Clerk" for a period of months under an established (and licensed) Attorney and then apply for admission to the Bar of the State of Vermont. Such admission requires public notice, a hearing should someone file an objection and a determination by Bar Officials that he is of such character (i.e., good) as to warrant admission. You see the obvious problem - the "character" issue.

I did not read the Arkansas Bar decision in which he was "Disbarred" so I can not speak to the period of his disbarment - it could be for life or, there may be other cases in Arkansas which hold that after a period of years, an Attorney may reapply for admission.

Nothing is impossible (especially for an Attorney) but the practicalities of Bar Membership, its special status, make readmission after disbarment a highly difficult process and justly so.

To touch on something raised in other conversations on this matter, while an Attorney is expected to fold, spindle and mutilate the Law on behalf of a client that selfsame Attorney

is mandated to comply with the Law in his personal life. There are exceptions of a very narrow nature but those are in the area of what I would call human frailties, i.e., drunk driving, becoming sexually involved with a client and so forth. Violations in those areas bring private censure, referral to alcohol counseling programs and so forth, not disbarment. Repeated violations in such areas does bring suspension and absent remedial action, eventual disbarment.

Theft of client funds and perjury are examples of essential character flaws, of major violation of the ethics of the Law and few if any excuses are accepted - ever! A highly respected friend of mine was disbarred some years ago for failure to properly supervise his practice when it was discovered that his senior legal secretary had been 'borrowing' clients funds for years! He made good from his own pocket when it was all discovered and there was never a question that he had received any of these 'borrowed' funds. Tough result but he was the custodian of these funds by virtue of his status as an attorney - he delegated "his" personal responsibility and was responsible for the result.

Great privileges create great responsibility.

[FastNed]

Daniel, I am forced to disagree with you.

You state: "any other President would still provide a balanced agenda so as to look after domestic affairs too."

The last President to be in this situation was FDR after Pearl Harbor. You need to go back fifty years to make such a comparison. In addition, Congress has been under Democratic control for the most part during the Bush administration. Again, compare President Bush's performance domestically against others in the same situation. I'd give him a B- or C+, myself.

I really have problems with the remainder of what you said:

And as an employee he is spending $1billion a week with no progress or end in sight, who has torn international relationships within the first nine months of his term, and most importantly, his ventures have been promoted based on false pretenses.

1): "no progress or end in sight" - your crystal ball is better than mine if you can provide a date by which we will defeat these Islamo-facists.

2): "who has torn international relationships within the first nine months of his term" - your position on this indicates you believe in the politics of Chamberlain rather than Churchill.

3): "his ventures have been promoted based on false pretenses" - please read exactly what President Bush said at the UN in Sept. 2002 and justify your position, I do not think you can. Here is a cite to read it.

[daniel]

Who's forcing you? I thought you lived in a free country? You compare the current situation with something that happened 60years ago. Isn't that soooooo long ago it's no longer revelant - as some of my critics have pointed out? They (or you) refused to even look back 30yrs.

No progress in sight: where have you been in the past three weeks?

Weren't you the one to state this?

Watch for President Bush's speech to the UN late this month, a great many questions about WMD will be settled at that time.

Sept 2nd "Bush looks to UN..."

And you're the one who thinks $1billion a week is chump change, right? A lot of starving kids could be fed with that money but some people would rather point missiles at them.

Maybe you don't read any newpapers outside of the US, so you wouldn't know that on Sept 10, 2001, Bush was both the laughing stock and the outrage of the world.

Drop a couple of bombs and any US President can stake out a 90% approval rating. Now even though the bombing has stopped, the US soldiers continue to do so, he still can't get international support and his approval rating is fast approaching his norm.

It's too bad for Bush that 9-11 occurred a year too early.

So what does your crystal ball say? What date and time will democracy be instated with the last US soldier peacefully leaving Iraq? I don't see any progress at all. Can you?

False pretenses: Can you say "Weapons of Mass Destruction"? Can you say "imported Uranium"? Can you say "within 40minutes"?

[Hugo]

Good analogy, so can we expand that to include Bush?

There are three responses to this.

Firstly, President Bush has not been particularly inactive in domestic policy. For example, insistence upon mandatory school accountability standards (although his original plan was dismantled in Congress), healthcare reform, tax reform, a ban upon cloning, funding for religious institutions providing social services, other "faith-based initiatives" and the CARE Act, cutting state funding for abortion clinics, refusal to condone gay marriage, gay adoption, or to endorse hate speech laws that would muzzle people disagreeing with homosexuality for scientific and medical reasons, and so forth.

Secondly, since 9/11 the American government has been a wartime government. America was really at war before then, but 9/11 was when it was really brought home. Wartime governments always, out of necessity, focus on foreign policy before domestic.

Thirdly, even if what you said was true, we would be talking about incompetence or failure to perform rather than actual abuse and violation of policy. If an employee is underperforming, you don't fire them immediately, you take steps to improve their performance.

[Craig Read]

Hugo, come on, better to wait for da proof of da proof of da proof after a few thousand jews or Americans are dead from a chemical attack.

Then we can spend years identifying root causes.

Didn't something called 9-11 happen ? Geez that was so long ago............

[djpark121]

Did you 2 clowns read anything on the post ? If not get lost.

9-11 did CHANGE the World. In case you did not know there is a struggle going on in the world at large.

What the post states is that 9-11 could very well have been prevented.

This is why it is relevant and your assinine drivel irrelevant.

Mr Read, if you actually read my post instead spending all your time looking for "irrefutable" facts and statistics, you'll see that I wasn't talking about 9-11 and its effects on the world. I was talking about blaming the event on Clinton, which is utterly absurd. I realize that 9-11 had a lot to do in changing the world. I don't realize that according to the title of this thread, Clinton had anything to do with it. I realize that there is a struggle throughout the world. Again, I don't realize that Clinton caused any of it. Hey, I'm not a Clinton fan, but I know not to cross the line of stupidity.

[daniel]

War-time President? Just dawned on me. Perhaps this 9-11 thing has unfolded exactly as the terrorists had planned. Maybe the rest of the plan is to sucker the US into a drawn out war, battling with people they can't find (like in Vietnam) meanwhile exhausting all their capital doing so.

[Hugo]

Maybe. But the failure in Vietnam was not due to the North Vietnamese, who lost every battle they fought, it was due to a failure of political will.

[Hugo]

[response to deleted post]

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

the failure in Vietnam was not due to the North Vietnamese, who lost every battle they fought,

Umm, What? The NVA regulars you mean? The US grossly exaggerated body counts, so if you mean the US was winning the 'attrition war' you are still mistaken.

But you are correct when you say they lost because of 'political will'. The down side of democracy, for the hard right-wing.

[Hugo]

Thelonius,

If the USA wished to win Vietnam they could easily have done so. All they would have had to do is to launch a full invasion of the North and the vastly outgunned North Vietnamese would have crumbled before them. The US was not prepared to do this, however, and paid the price for the lack of political will.

As regards body counts, even Uncle Ho admitted that the NVA was losing 3 or 4 soldiers for every 1 that the Americans lost.

[Synon]

Wow, that response didn't surprise me at all...

Once again you managed to completely aviod a response to this post and instead of stating a counter point all you can do is insult nova like a little kid? How sad.

I can't even get a yes or no out of you and your crying about other people not refuting what you said? It's SO simple Craig, here is some logic for you. Life isn't made out of dominos which you seem to be setting up in the order that pleases you. You are picking and choosing events that you think(notice how that word is NOT objective) could have sparked 911. I still have not seen one fact from you that Clinton 'caused' the attack, all your facts lead to a subjective biased opinion that Clinton was to blame. But you honestly can't say you KNEW 911 was going to happen given what had happened in the past. If you KNEW, you would have been able to say it BEFORE IT HAPPENED. If it already happened, then you DIDN'T KNOW. See how that works? You can't just line things up and say 'this event led to this,' it's not as simple as you would like it to be. 2+2 does not equal 5 no matter what angle you look at it from.

I am happy to have a calm civilized debate, but unless you decide to grow up sometime soon I don't believe that will happen. The only type of response I can see getting from you is insults and absolutly nothing to prove me wrong, if Im right then I reserve the right to laugh at you. If Im wrong... well, more power to you my friend, if you can prove me wrong then Ill accept it.