Would this be mainstream American thought?

Originally posted by vsp
What does it say that the WORST thing they could throw at Clinton that the general public found credible was that he nailed a pudgy intern?

How is it that "lefties" (for lack of a better term) always miss the point that he LIED UNDER OATH.

Yeah, I think it's kinda disgraceful to the Office of the President that he is an adulterer - the world is supposed to look up to him and he's saying "it's okay to fuck other women". But that's not my issue with him. My issue is that he LIED UNDER OATH.

It wasn't about "nail[ing] a pudgy intern" - it was about breaking the law by perjuring himself. Pretty simple.

[Undertoad]

Lied... during an inquisition wholly created by his political opponents in which he was eventually found not guilty. Consider how convoluted the trial had to get, to get to that point. An Arkansas land deal led to an in-depth study of someone's sex life?

I think the guy's despicable, but there really was a vast right-wing conspiracy.

And I guess that just excuses him from his legal responsibilities.

[vsp]

Well...

I don't excuse Clinton's antics under oath, or point them out as proper behavior patterns. The same goes for the adultery issue -- it would be nice to have a President who acts in an admirable fashion. While I view him as an improvement over the guy in there now, I wouldn't put Clinton up on a pedestal as a model President by any stretch of the imagination.

But when I look at recent Presidential history:

* Nixon's maze of dirty politics, tapes (missing and otherwise), and impeachable offenses,

* the mirth and merriment of the Reagan-Bush years -- Iran-Contra, multiple underlings convicted of perjury and worse, conveniently-timed pardons designed to keep Bush off the stand, and Dubya's clampdown on Presidential records of that time period just as they were about to become publically available (gee, could some things in those have embarrassed or threatened Daddy's good name?),

* the current administration's extreme reluctance to let Congress or the public in on much of anything they're doing, much less the important details;

I feel less concerned about Clinton perjuring himself while testifying about what he did or did not do with his winkie. The behavior was wrong, the act of perjury was wrong, but I'm slightly more comfortable with that context. Clinton did plenty of other things more worthy of scorn, IMHO.

My other reason for not flogging Clinton over that incident is because, being the cynic that I am, I sort of EXPECT perjury from those in a court of law. The old joke about "a trial is a competition to determine which of two lawyers is the better liar" comes to mind.

[Undertoad]

In theory it does excuse him, because while I don't know, I doubt anyone has been prosecuted for purjury in a case where they were found innocent; and if there were, I should think that would be a case of overzealous prosecution. We should insist that the Pres be subject to the same treatment that any citizen is subject to -- and that means being prosecuted the same way as well.

[jaguar]

His actions might have been dispicable but damn, as a smartarse, i fully respect him. I mean they guy is a genius, and it shows, he was impeached, lied under oath, copped all that flack and still stayed in office! Over 3 terms he dealt with a screwed with everyone, man, what a legend! To pull off that kinda stuff with such style is incredible!

Two terms.