Is or was Bill Clinton that bad?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The guys who said he was evil or worse were correct, imho. Remember the "little feller" (Perot) he took 19% of the vote which gave us his Billness. :barf: I admit George Bush the elder was a BIG horse's patoot, but his son seems to have taken after his mother, thank God! :uhoh:
 
Clinton is by no means stupid. However, he is a very calculating individual, and an excellent actor. One of the best liars we've ever had in politics. Some have defined a sociopath as an individual who has no moral restraints, or regard for society or other persons. This would appear to match Clinton rather well. Note that he never apologized for any wrongdoing on his part. In his eyes, his only mistake was in being caught.

At the time of the '92 elections, I categorized the three major candidates as follows:

Clinton - Someone who would say or do anything to achieve his ends. Untrustworthy in the extreme.

Perot - The human equivalent of a loose cannon. Some good commentary and ideas, but just a bit odd, to put it nicely. Unstable, to some extent.

Bush - The occasional good intention, but a country club republican who never believed fully in the 2nd Amendment, or in limited government. Also, an individual who was not capable of making snap decisions under pressure. Regardless of the issues pertaining to international/UN agreements, his decision to allow the Iraqi forces to escape and to avoid removing Hussein will be regarded by history as an incredible error.

FWIW,

emc
 
I disagreed vehemently with everything he did on the gun issue. However, he did nothing that the Republicans wouldn't have eventually done. The rest of his record? Since he was a "centrist" and took his positions from both the left and the right, if he was evil then so were the original sources of his material.
He was dishonest. So was his Bush I. So was Ronald Reagan. So was Gerry Ford. So was Jimmy Carter. So was Milhouse (on a grand scale). So was Lyndon Johnson (on just as grand a scale). So was John F. Kennedy. In fact, we haven't had an honest president in quite some time, if we ever did. The only differences seem to be in whether they got caught while still in office or not. It was easier pre-TV for presidents to get away with stuff, as there weren't enormous Nielsen ratings to be had for running the story of a presidential scandal.
Frankly, I don't think he materially different from the rest of the Republicrats.
 
Anybody remember Johnny Chung? Chung was registered with the state department as an agent of the Chinese Army. Not like a "secret agent", but a registered lobbiest.

Chung visited the White House on numerous occasions and gave Bill oodles and oodles of money - he also gave Hillary $80,000 on one occasion to bankroll a fundraiser for her.

It is against the law for a politician to accept money from a foreign government, for obvious reasons - treason, being one of them. Yet, when Hil and Bill were caught doing this, they finally gave the money back, claiming they didn't know Chung was Chinese... The guy had signed in to the White House a dozen times using his Chinese government credentials. He talked with Bill about all kinds of things of interest to the Chinese Government, and particularly the Chinese army which owns dozens of corporations (Norinco, for example).

But Bill had no idea he was Chinese. And Reno squashed any and all investigations into the matter.

A sitting president took millions of dollars from the Chinese Army and nothing was done about it! This isn't a tinfoil hat accusation - all of this happened, Clinton admitted he took the money, but it was just a "mistake" because he thought Chung, resident of Hong Kong, registered agent of the Chinese Army, was just an American businessman whose hobby was visiting the White House with enormous bags of cash...

Treason - there's no other word for it.

Keith
 
I all depends on your definition of 'evil' :D

Or was that depending on the definition of 'it'? :scrutiny:

Eh. He had a flawed character, and he let his personal relationships get out in the open, and as far as I'm concerned, the whole scandal was a big wad of egg on the US's face. Did he make the US look bad? Sure, but he had the media and the Starrish Inquisiton to help with it. Did he screw the American people over? Depends on your party affiliation. :p

-Tom
 
Did he screw the American people over? Depends on your party affiliation. :p
Click to expand...

What affiliation do you have with the Chinese Communist Party? If none, why would you excuse a politician who accepted millions from that party?

I'd say accepting money from the Chinese Communists is an insult to every American, regardless of party.

Keith
 
I'd say accepting money from the Chinese Communists is an insult to every American, regardless of party.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. So's giving weapons under the table to Islamic fundamentalist regimes, burgling your opponent's campaign headquarters, shredding documents, pardoning crooks, and numerous other wonderful acts done by previous administrations. The only really virtuous president we've had in the last 40 years was hopelessly idealistic, comically inept, and a trusting rube. The parade of executive branch malfeasance over the last several administrations is almost enough to make one look back and wonder what exactly Nixon did that was so scummy. It can make one a little jaded... :(
 
So's giving weapons under the table to Islamic fundamentalists
Click to expand...

That's largely an urban myth created by the liberals. We gave money and arms to the Afghani's, and we damned well should have.
But this "we armed Saddam" thing is silly and never happened.

*Note that he following reports uses "thousands of millions" instead of the more familiar (to Americans) "billions".

Excerpt from 1998 report on the Iraqi military for the Center for Strategic & International Studies:
In the key period between 1973-91 the US exported a mere $5 million of weapons to Iraq.
The UK sold $330 million-worth of arms.
Germany $995 million
China $5,500 million
France $9,240 million
Russia (USSR) $31,800 million.
 
That's largely an urban myth created by the liberals. We gave money and arms to the Afghani's, and we damned well should have.
Click to expand...

Uh, actually I was referring to the Iranians...

(That's okay, though, as most of the principals couldn't "precisely recollect" it happening, either. ;) )
 
Follow Up Post-

And just think for one minute folk's; we the hard working
American tax payers have too pay for his Secret Service
executive protection detail for life, while he is out and
about his usual way's.:( What a waste of OUR money !

I have friends within the Secret Service who just cringe
on the thought of being assigned to protect Bro' Bill.:D

I'm sure glad I don't have to protect that scumbag. Cuz
I just might not could move quick enough to take a round
for that idiot?:uhoh:

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
No, but Khomeini was. But, hey, at least he helped get those four Americans out of Beirut! :cool:

How quickly we forget... :uhoh:
 
So lemme get this straight. Clinton is/was neither good nor bad. It depends on the context in which you view him and whom you choose to compare him to?????

So it all depends on what the definition of 'is' is. That's the same type of quibbling and moral relativism that was Clinton's stock and trade. Those of you who embrace it need to reset you compasses. The most evil thing the Devil ever did was convince man that He did not exist.:banghead:
 
Questionable actions on the part of others do not make questionable actions on the part of any given individual less so. In that same vein, when mention is made of questionable actions on the part of prior presidents, that does not excuse anything done by Clinton.

emc
 
Anybody remember Johnny Chung? Chung was registered with the state department as an agent of the Chinese Army. Not like a "secret agent", but a registered lobbiest.

Chung visited the White House on numerous occasions and gave Bill oodles and oodles of money - he also gave Hillary $80,000 on one occasion to bankroll a fundraiser for her.

It is against the law for a politician to accept money from a foreign government, for obvious reasons - treason, being one of them. Yet, when Hil and Bill were caught doing this, they finally gave the money back, claiming they didn't know Chung was Chinese... The guy had signed in to the White House a dozen times using his Chinese government credentials. He talked with Bill about all kinds of things of interest to the Chinese Government, and particularly the Chinese army which owns dozens of corporations (Norinco, for example).

But Bill had no idea he was Chinese. And Reno squashed any and all investigations into the matter.

A sitting president took millions of dollars from the Chinese Army and nothing was done about it! This isn't a tinfoil hat accusation - all of this happened, Clinton admitted he took the money, but it was just a "mistake" because he thought Chung, resident of Hong Kong, registered agent of the Chinese Army, was just an American businessman whose hobby was visiting the White House with enormous bags of cash...

Treason - there's no other word for it.

Keith
Click to expand...
thank you, thats perfect, and web sites to back this up?
 
No, he wasn't "evil", he was something even worse: a well-intentioned do-gooder who sincerely wanted to help you whether you needed it or not, and who knew what you needed better than you did.
Click to expand...

I have to vehemently diasgree with this. I don't think Clinton is a do-gooder at all and only wanted to help himself. Clinton is a sociopath whose life was dedicated to personal power and gratification. Even if the accusations of sexual assault and rape were not credible (and they are), his treatment of women argues against any claim of "having a good heart." The ease with which he subverted the legal and political systems for his own sake, and the fact that he willingly compromised American security at every turn in order to promote his own career are further evidence.

Most telling of all, he had a pattern of taking military action whenever necessary to divert attention from his personal situation. Lewinksy's testimony about to go public? Launch cruise missiles at a target you know is not legitimate. Impeachment about to begin? Start an aerial campaign.
 
Well, technically, we sold them arms. Some fellow called Oliver North.
Click to expand...

Well, to be really technical, the Israelis provided the weapons to the Iranians and we arranged the deal.
 
Evil? Amoral?

I prefer the term "cunning" to describe him.

While it is gratifying to pile on Slick Willard, we must not forget it was we, the voter who voted him in office. . . . .twice. First time we can have some slack cut because quite frankly he was an unknown. Second time around there are no excuses. We knew up front and in great detail what he was yet we the voter voted him in.

Let us also remember Clinton could not have gotten away with his actions without the active participation of Trent Lott. It was Trent Lott and Rick Santorum who gave Clinton a pass. If a real trial was conducted, Clinton would have been removed from office. Instead he was given a pass and from that point on outrageous, in-your-face crimes and malfeasance (?sp) was easy to get away with. I draw a straight, broad line from Lott's refusal to conduct a trial to selling of pardons to election 2000 hijacking to outright violation of the constitution when it comes to approval of judges. Spinelessrepublicans have consistently refused to exert any negative consequences on Democrat behavior. So why are we surprised at their behavior. Anyone with a two year old can write a book on what happens to a free moral agent when there are no consequences to bad behavior.

Clinton is responsible for what Clinton did. Trent Lott is responsible for making sure no price was paid.

I put Clinton and Lott on the same level. One is amoral. The other is amoral. What's the diff??????
 
I do recall that now that it is connected to Oliver North. A few of my synapses still function...

Ollie is (was) an ambitious idiot with no more regard for the law than any other criminal.

Keith
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top