As an unpaid intern, I don’t know if Monica Lewinsky qualifies as a Junior in the “employ” of the White House.

That is a distinct difference between Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. Jones was forced due to her job, Lewinsky willingly engaged in it.

Now that I’ve demolished your argument, perhaps you will re-address my point.

No crime against oral sex, but there are laws against sexual harassment of a junior by a senior employer. That was the issue in the Paula Jones case, and having sexual relations with an intern is certainly relevant to that.

But I think you know that, because you’re no dummy…

Clint

What part of government did Bush touch that he did NOT expand to make larger and more f*cked-up?

The stains on Monica’s dress would wash out. Bush’s stains are permanent.

Each case should be looked at in a vacuum. Scooter doesn’t get judged based on what happened to Slicky Willy, and, if Vernon Jordan were to get the means of time travel, Slick Willy doesn’t get judged on Scooter terms. Two separate cases, two sets of facts, etc.

Why do I keep getting the impression that Bill Simon blogs in his para-millitary fatigues from his “compound” in the Idaho wilderness? “Bush is a socialist…..” what a hoot!

I am with you. If I was the judge, I would sentence every perjury to the maximum punishment allowed by law.

The justice system, the very foundation of everything good in our nation breaks when perjury is condoned, particularly when the perjurer is a member of the government.

I have no quarrel with the President exercising his check on the judiciary, but I do take great issue with these Bushbots who defend Libby and the culture of this administration.

“No crime, no foul?” Interesting statement. I don’t recall there being a law against getting blowjobs in the White House, so, since Clinton “perjured” himself about an act that in itself wasn’t a crime, Bill Clinton should be pardoned, right?

Apologists for this administration have lost sight of Republican principles and are left gasping that “the Dems/Clinton administration did the same thing.”

I did not consider pursuit of Clinton for lying under oath about sex to be a “screw up” nor did I consider the prosecution of Libby to be one.

Since the prosecutor and judge were both Republicans it is hard to pull out the partisanship claim, hence the retrieval of the “screw up” excuse.

The failures and excesses of this administration are raining hammer blows against the GOPers who were lapdogs watching the looting.

Dems=GOP=Bad for you and me.

Republican judges and lawyers make mistakes all the time. Screwing up is a bi-partisan phenomenon.

For Fitzgerald to continue the investigation after it was clear there was no crime committed (and that is unquestionably the case – Fitzgerald knew very early on there was no crime) is an abuse of prosecutorial power.

It violates the concept of “probable cause,” reeks of entrapment, and is generally just a fishing expedition conducted on the taxpayer dime that resulted in a guy getting his career ruined, fined heavily and sent to jail – because he “obstructed” absolutely nothing.

No crime, no foul. Not sure why this is hard to understand unless one has just a general “bad feeling” about the Bush Administration and just think somebody needs to “pay.”

It was about PERJURY, the same offense I and so many other Republican voters were irate with Clinton about.

This case proves my point over the last 5 years – Bush is demonstrably no better than Clinton on ethics and far, far worse on every account, save the justices. (I still have some reservations about Alito.)

This is hardly what we expected after being promised the most ethical administration ever.

Instead we got the WORST POTUS IN US HISTORY.

I was talking about this one issue.

There are a few other things I applaud Bush for – like Supreme Court appointments – but sadly not many others.

I hope your applause is limited to this one issue, and not Bush in general.

The case against “Scooter” Libby was a total fraud. Completely bogus. The publicity-mad demoness Valerie Plame was not a covert overseas agent at the time the whole megillah about her erupted. So there was no, none, nada, law breaking by reporting that she was a CIA employee.

Second, there was no reason for the special prosecutor, the full on publicity hound Mr. Fitzgerald, to have even gone on with the investigation for a week or even a day. He knew in the first 24 hours who had told Bob Novak that Ms. Wilson was the one who sent her husband, the Democrat operative, de facto if not de jure, Joe Wilson, to search for facts about uranium in a little known African nation called Niger. And Mr. Fitzgerald knew it was not Karl Rove or Scooter Libby. Why then did he continue the investigation and torment the many totally innocent people he tortured? Why did he drive honest civil servants to despair and impoverishment when he basically had no mission?

I’m with Stein and I applaud Bush.

Did you really just posting something saying neocons are Jacobins? Comparing them to Robespierre?

I’ve got issues with big elements of neocon thinking, but that is breathless hyperbole and out of order.

And to think Powell’s Chief of Staff said this to a German newspaper.

No wonder Rumsfeld hated Powell’s operation at State so much…

I voted for Bush in 2000 and MY epiphany came in October 2002. In a short time span he fired loyal REPUBLICANS O’Neill and Summers for TELLING THE TRUTH while announcing plans for war on Iraq.

The first I heard convincingly that the Iraq war was planned, I literally stopped in my tracks and shouted “Do WHAT?” It was clear from the word ‘go’ that the criteria for war fit ‘ally’ Pakistan better.

The list of good conservative Republicans and patriots scapegoated, fired, and railroaded by the Bush/Cheney gang is now longer than my arm.

For 3 years after I broke ranks and started blasting Bush, the flames emanating back at me from the Bush loyalists were tough to take and have actually made me fearful for this country.

We HAVE TO TAKE BACK THE GOP from charlatans and apologists like Saxby Chambliss, who acted as lapdogs while the greatest wave of corruption ever seen in the USA swept government, the neocons launched an unwinnable war, and the debt/money supply/inflation-to-come exploded.

The pain of overcoming the damage will be excruciating and it won’t be assignable to Bill Clinton (I NEVER voted for him.)

As for Bush, I am in favor of surrendering him to the Hague for trial as a war criminal. I realize that sounds like something a liberal radical might say, but the harsh reality of the damage done to us all by Bush has not yet manifested itself.

In 2002 I KNEW that the vast majority would come around to my thinking and I am pretty sure it will on the fact that Bush is the WORST POTUS in US history.

Bull Moose is right, good conservatives should throw Bush and his gang overboard in the wake of his monarchical behavior, trashing of the Constitution, ruinous print and spend financial methods, and especially lying us into a war that could not be ‘won.’

There is not much we can do at this point to set things right, but dumping all of the enabling GOP incumbents is a pretty good start.

The litmus test was Medicare D and they ALL flunked it, save our dear late Charlie.

We need to unite behind RON PAUL and send both parties of Wall Street a message.

Let freedom ring!

Has anyone else in recent memory lied under oath and is getting away with it? I guess that depends on what your definition of “is” is. The problem here is, republican get trials. Democrats don’t. I could stomach his punishment alot better if the dems at least pretended some parity.

Neo-cons did not cause the problems, and I argue that the party needs them. Ronald Reagan had the foresight to recognize that. The problem, I maintain, is complacency and disregard on the part of our elected officials. Now, let’s all think, how many of our elected officials are really neo-cons?

Aside from Sonny. I know that’s going to be the first one people point to, and yes, I’m aware he is.

But if you look at our Congressmen and Senators I think you’ll see most of them have been life-long Republicans. Perhaps Nathan Deal is the exception? I remember him being a Democrat at one point. What about our neighboring states? I believe you’ll find the same thing with them – they’ve been long-term Republicans. Anyway, my point is that there is a collective problem among elected Republicans and it is definitely not constricted to the “neo-cons” or “Reagan Democrats” or whatever we’re calling them today. I feel like too many of us use them unfairly as a scapegoat.

I say often on these threads that I think nationally, Republicans are out of touch with their base. They downright ignore them. Remember back in the 1990s when Republicans would do things like vote against COLA? Good thing they’ve finally gotten back to that. . . now that they’re in the minority and COLA passed anyway. Good to see them standing up against the earmark issue. . . again, once in the minority. Better late than never, maybe, but I think I see some hope for some of our boys and girls in Washington. I think perhaps some have realized they needs to get back to the principles of the party. Baby steps, but in the right direction, and I’m glad to see it.

At this point, I do not think Bush represents the Republican Party’s ideals, certainly not the conservative base. I think we should’ve known that in 2000 – he ran as a moderate. “Compassionate conservative” meant “I like spending your tax money,” and boy howdy, has he. I don’t think, however, the social conservatives ever expected him to abandon them, but at this point, he has. He should’ve alienated fiscal conservatives like our Indy Injun from the get go. (I’m pretty sure Indy agrees.)

I think we the electorate bear a responsibility here. As we saw with our senators, they will listen if we involve ourselves in the process, but we have to continue to do it. People came out of the woodwork over the immigration reform, and I was glad to see it. Will those people go back into their holes now? Gosh, I hope not.

I believe we have good men from Georgia in Congress. Sometimes they don’t vote the right way, but we can help them by keeping in contact with them. And when these good men leave office, it’s our responsibility to find new good men who will represent us well to replace them. If we ever dislike a vote they make, the responsibility is on us to let them know.

I am going to have someone tell me that this is wishful thinking. I can already see that comment coming, and it will be from someone who has likely 1) been burned out from trying to change things or from someone who 2) is too lazy to participate. But if some of you will take me seriously, then I think we can make a difference for the better.

Erick encourages this kind of involvement all of the time. Why? Because he knows voters need to voice their opinions to ensure they are represented well by their elected officials.

Also, lastly, we have to vote. Vote, vote, vote. I try not to miss an election. We should be encouraging our friends and neighbors to do the same. We need an active, involved electorate, now more than ever.