Vermont Towns Vote to Impeach President

[rubthebuddha]

Since when did Clinton deny a woman her day in court? Are you referring to Monica Lewinsky? He committed no crime with her - they had consensual sex. At worst, she was a jilted lover. She can only blame herself for that one. People were just irked that Clinton would do something so inappropriate in the White House. They should have just let Hillary smack him around a bit. It's none of my business who the president is diddling in his private life. But it is my business if the president is wasting my tax dollars for government sanctioned murder.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e ... mpeach.htm

The impeachment of President Bill Clinton arose from a series of events following the filing of a lawsuit on May 6, 1994, by Paula Corbin Jones in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In her complaint initiating the suit, Ms. Jones alleged violations of her federal civil rights in 1991 by President Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas and she was an Arkansas state employee. According to the allegations, Governor Clinton invited Ms. Jones to his hotel room where he made a crude sexual advance that she rejected.

After Ms. Jones filed the lawsuit, the attorneys for President Clinton moved to delay any proceedings, contending that the Constitution required that any legal action be deferred until his term ended, an issue ultimately decided against the President by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). Following the Supreme Court decision allowing the Jones lawsuit to proceed, pre-trial discovery commenced in which various potential witnesses were subpoenaed for information related to the Jones incident and, over objections of the President's attorneys, Mr. Clinton's alleged sexual approaches to other women. On April 1, 1998, Judge Susan Webber Wright granted summary judgment in favor of President Clinton, dismissing the Jones suit in its entirety, finding that Ms. Jones had not offered any evidence to support a viable claim of sexual harassment or intentional infliction of emotion distress. Ms. Jones appealed Judge Wright's decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, but before a decision on the appeal was rendered, Ms. Jones and the President settled the case on November 13, 1998.

Clinton was involved in witness tampering and cover up, essentially the same crimes as Nixon, only in Clinton's case instead of a break in it was rape. She was denied her day in court by his illegal actions, and as president he had sworn to protect her rights, which he then did his best to destroy.

The impeachment had nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky. She was just another of his escapades he lied about.

But the left loved Bill Clinton's lies, and when Serin gas was found in Iraq they all said"that doesn't count as a weapon of mass destruction" - Bush still lied.

Evidence rises to show the convoys moving WMDs to Yemen and the left says, So? Bush still lied.

You get a good, hard working, God fearing, strong president defending you against our enemies and you call him the liar, and you put the real liar and rapist on a pedestal.

Warped.

Yeah he's so strong he went AWOL from a cushy Texas Air Guard appointment during the Vietnam War while 54,000 soldiers who weren't born into a life of privelege died. As a veteran who has "fought for his country" I think it's just plain wrong that he is able send our men and women of the Armed Forces to war and ask them to make the sacrifices for America that he wasn't man enough to do when he had the chance. He's nothing more than the Wizard of Oz - a little man who talks big, hides behind a curtain and fools you with smoke and mirrors. And you sound like you're buying it all Bennetoid, or should I say Bushbot.

[bennettoid]

Another unsubstantiaed charge.

And Loonette, I wasn't necesarily refering to you, I was referring to people like the one who posted before me.

And yes the suit was all about sexual harassment and rape. Not "making an advance".

Apparently I'm the only one here that knows how to use google.

rubthebuddha -- Do you really resort to calling names when your debateing people? You spout leftist party line crap and call names. Whose the robot? You really impressed me.

[StrppngYoungLad]

Apparently I'm the only one here that knows how to use google.

Whoa, now, I did a precursory search of google and couldn't find any articles about WMDs moving to Yemen. You made the claim, so the responsibility to prove your point is yours, not mine. I'm still waiting...

Evidence rises to show the convoys moving WMDs to Yemen and the left says, So? Bush still lied.

EDIT: Furthermore, the Juanita Broddrick(sic) rape scandal had absolutely nothing to do with Clinton's impeachment trial.

[jackM50black]

Its about time. We can impeach a president for lying to a court about his personal life, but we can't impeach one for lying to the nation.

Clinton was impeached for lieing under oath and denying a citizen her right to a fair trial. He was also disbarred by his home state of Arkansas.


Bush has not lied to his nation, and if you believe that then your as whacko as these people. He's going to be gone in 2 years, then who are you going to hate?

Bush is either a liar or the dumbest, most ill-informed lunkhead president this nation has seen for many years. Then again there is a third possibility; that he is incredibly intelligent and has surrounded himself with crafty connivers who made sure he was only given intel that supported going to war. He made sure he was never shown any intel that argued the strong case for not going to war. That way he never had to really tell and out and out lie, and when it all went south, he can safely retreat behind the wall of his handlers. Three choices. Never-the-less I urge everyone to support our troops and their families, both over there and when they come home.

[scan]

Never-the-less I urge everyone to support our troops and their families, both over there and when they come home.

Everyone seems to think people are reacting like Vietnam or something and spitting on military folks coming back. Far from it. Even those who hate the war and Bush still love the guys who pledged to defend us. Almost everyone respects them for doing their job, even though their boss put them in a bad place. They would rarely say a bad thing about this situation - because that too is part of their job. God bless 'em.

In reality, haters of the military are rare. I'm sure no one here doesn't support the men themselves.

[oldnslo]

The soldiers are golden, the government is chalk, and the prez is not particularly intelligent, but has multiple intelligent puppetmasters whispering in his ear and pulling his strings.

[jjhotrods]

First I don't believe in impeachment. And as for wiretapping it is an unfortunate evil needed for security purposes. From what I have seen in the news and online the taps were only used on international called between suspected foreign terrorists connections.

As far as the war I do agree with our actions. And yes the reports have been inconclusive. Although video evidence has been presented and several documents have been reported to contain info documenting contact between iraqi government officials and alqueda. Also prior to sanctions the history of the iraqi government gives the evidence and reasons for going to war credibility. Although I will admit it would probably be considered more circumstantial.

Also to my knowledge I have not seen or heard any evidence provided that really disproves the claims made other than politicians saying that its not true. What I mean by that is claims made were connected to documentation and agents who worked on the ground.

[jjhotrods]

Even the initial inspectors report admitted that even though no new wmds were found iraq had a fully developed delivery and reconstitution program in place. Also iraq was known to import starter chemicals and keeped them stored in seperated locations. While I do not remember the chemical name shortly after invading a large stockpile of containers were found buried in the desert. It was a pesticide but could be remanufactured to create a wmd as one of the chemicals used in its formula was a starter agent used in wmds.

Also you could go back to 94 when inspections were being held. And actually were being somewhat successful and then sadam suddenly began barring further inspection with the threat of force.

[ZooTech]

I posted a couple dozen quotes from Democratic leaders all stating that they knew Saddam had WMD's, had used them, and would likely use them again. Somehow they all get excused from being called liars and Bush takes 100% responsibility. Fact of the matter is, Saddam needed Iran to believe he had a full nuclear arsenal (a la the Cold War). But while he may not have had as much as he let on, arguing that there was nothing is rediculous and is flat out ignoring history.

[sv-wolf]

Evidence rises to show the convoys moving WMDs to Yemen and the left says, So? Bush still lied.

You get a good, hard working, God fearing, strong president defending you against our enemies and you call him the liar, and you put the real liar and rapist on a pedestal.

Warped.

Evidence?? There have been all kinds of stories of iraqi WMDs being shipped off to Yemen, Syra and elsewhere. One particularly imaginitive rumour had it that that the WMD had been shipped aboard large freighters and spent months travelling in circles round the Indian Ocean. None of these stories hold any water. Many of them have been shown to have originated from Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress in an attempt to justify the invasion and subsequent bloodshed. The media, as usual, slavishly repeated any stories that emerged from establishment sources without any critical analysis or sifiting of evicence whatsoever.

The UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspectors themselves, in all they have publicly said, have steadily asserted that there were no signifricant WMD left in Iraq by the time of the invasion. (Burton was the exception, but Burton was in the pay of the CIA and let the agency write his reports for him). [edit - sorry, late night slip: meant Richard Butler, not Richard Burton, just been reading about Richard Burton, the explorer] Scott Ritters view was that well before the war Iraq had been cleared of 90-95% of its arsenal. Kofi Anan and various UN agencies have repeaqtely confirmed there were no WMD. Powell demonstrably lied to the UN over various issues, particularly the chemical weaponry which experts had been repeatedly saying had degenerated into harmless sludge by 1993. If a government officer has to lie in public what the helll do you make of his government's motivation.

Fact of the matter is, Saddam needed Iran to believe he had a full nuclear arsenal (a la the Cold War). But while he may not have had as much as he let on, arguing that there was nothing is rediculous and is flat out ignoring history.

Not sure how this relates to "Fact of the matter" but all it ignores, as far as I can see, is a whole load of hokum served up in media reports." There's no convincing evidence for the existence of WMD of any kind, or a nuclear arsenal in particular. In the run up to the war, the country was subjected to the most extensive monitoring programme ever conducted and that programme found nothing, at least, nothing of any consequence. The building and maintainng of a nuclear arsenal is impossible to conceal from this level of monitoring. It is a hugely complex buisiness and leaves all kinds of easily detectable traces.

What we see in the media is what business and politicians want us to see.