MSNBC Poll 86% say impeach Bush

[nelms]

Hey, lay off Barney Frank. He's a smart and tough congressman. Or does his sexual orientation send your mind into scared apoplexy?

I can't believe we are back on Clinton.

For the record: Clinton did not admit to committing perjury. In fact, Clinton did not commit perjury. Perjury is a specific criminal offense that requires certain elements. Some, if not all of these elements, were missing in the Clinton case.

Clinton's statements and testimony regarding his relationship with Lewinsky were for the most part technically correct. Much as in the same way that police officers are trained to testify for cross examination: you only answer what you are asked. Technically and specifically. You volunteer nothing even if your specific answer ends up being misleading. They almost always get away with this. Very rarely does a judge find anything wrong with this. They just blame the questioner for not asking better questions.

Regarding the allegation of lying to the press and the American people when he said he did not have sex with that woman: Actually, the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention - a federal agency) officially defines sex as sexual intercourse not oral sex. Oral sex and other sexual activities are defined as foreplay. I was surprised when I read that, but there it is. So if what they (Bill & Monica) did was just oral sex then he has a case that he was accurate when he denied having "sex." And, of course, that statement at the press conference was not under oath.

The response Clinton gave under oath in the civil law suit was initially a 3 part question regarding his sexual activity. His attorneys objected to it and refused to allow him to answer until the judge ruled on it's relevance. I always felt it was irrelevent to the civil case but the judge disagreed with me. The judge, however, struck 2 parts of the 3 part question and allowed that 1 part to be asked. Clinton answered that one remaining part. I can't remember the 3 parts exactly now but when I read them way back when I thought that the 3 parts were pretty specific and would corner any response. The one part Clinton was required to answer left the door wide open. At that point, it was easy for him to give an honest and technically correct answer to the question, even if he had some sexual contact with another person. So I don't even think the answer he gave under oath could be considered a lie. It may have been misleading but it wasn't a lie.

What Clinton did admit to was having an inappropriate (maybe he even said sexual - I don't remember now) relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

And who really thinks that Bush W. is a real man? Someone who has had his life and career handed to him on a silver platter by his daddy and his daddy's friends and business associates is not a real man. Bush has never earned anything on his own and what he was given he almost always failed at. He was a serious drunk and a coke user until he was about 40 for heaven's sake. What does that say about him? And what's worse, he never sought real help in stopping - he just allegedly stopped on his own - although there are many suspicions that he has not really stopped - which just means he has never dealt with the reasons he was a drunk and a drug user in the first place. Dry drunks are usually not mentally healthy people. That's scary to me cause it means his demons can resurface espcially when he's subjected to stress.

So, his politics aside, any idea that George W. Bush is a REAL man is just laughable.

One question: can you give me what the definition of "is", is? :laugh:

[nelms]

Excuse me, but the ONLY people who think this is a "reasonable question" are people of your ilk who seem to think that if they can push this onto the national spotlight somehow they can get Bush even when there is no PROOF of a crime being done. That's what should be forwarded is some PROOF of a crime being done. Until you have any valid PROOF this will cont to be nothing but a smear attempt. Btw, I just got done reading quotes from the editor at the Washington Post telling people who keep asking for polls and articles on impeachment to STFU because it's based on NOTHING.

Oakton gave some proof in a prior thread that this wasn't illegal and showed other Presidents did the exact samething including your precious Bill Clinton. If you are so concerned with the Constitution and abuse of power did you have the same reaction over Waco when the federal gov sent tanks into a private residence and burned dozens of women and children alive and then lied to cover their big F up? I bet you didn't. Or how about when an FBI sniper put a bullet through the head of a women standing on the front porch of her house while holding a baby at ruby ridge? Where was the outrage from you and other liberals?

There was none because a Democrat was in the White House. hypocrites...

Maybe this will shut Mr. KIA's pie hole .... nah, probably not.

[Henry]

12.5% of all moderators polled think this thread should be closed.