"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...


Most presidents give orders to kill people. But the blowjob was in no
way
related to the deaths of anyone. That's the difference. Clinton didn't
use
a
continuously evolving fairy tale to justify a war.

Clinton lied his ass off continuously and ordered the killings of
thousands
during his 2 terms.
There is little difference at all between Clinton and Bush.

As far as being consummate politicians, and therfore liars, no. There is
little difference. As far as keeping certain things secret with regard to
foreign policy or military action, there are similarities, but ALL
presidents have to maintain a certain amount of discretion, or plans
simply
won't work right.

Right there is where the *slippery path* starts.
I don't believe there is anything that one of the citizens employees does
that should be secret.
Let's be clear, the president and all politicians are paid by the taxpayers,
who are therefore their employers.
Employees cannot keep secrets from their employers.
The truth is, the politicians should not be fooling around with stuff that
requires secrecy, period.
And that includes clandestine manueverings with foreign entities/gov'ts.


However, lying about blowjobs is still the focus of many people who didn't
like Clinton. These people pretend not to understand that Clinton's
exploits
in a closet are in no way related to foreign policy. These same people are
quite happy to ignore the fact that every time someone lets the air out of
one of Bush's reasons for going to war, he reaches into his pocket and
says
"Wait! I have another one here somewhere...."

While I dispised Clinton, it was not for his personal choices.
I couldn't care less what he does with a dumpy cow, just don't do it on
company time.
That's not what the taxpayers are paying him for.

BTW: According to the precise wording of the Constitution the current
military action in Iraq is NOT a war.

Do you consider that statement positive or negative? Explain why.

Negative, of course.
The Congress basically wrote a blank check to the president, so that he may
declare war as he deems it appropriate. This is a direct violation to the
wording of the Constitution. This action has taken the responsibility of war
off the shoulders of the congressmen whom would be accountable to their
constituents and possibly voted out of office at the next election. The
president is a 2 trick pony, will be out of office in 2 terms anyway, so
being voted out of office is not a deterrent to him.
In my opinion, all of the politicians that voted to give the president the
sole authority to wage war, in direct violation to the Constitution, should
be brought up on charges. Perhaps treason.