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

"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.

I don't like secrets either, but I don't think the invasion of Normandy
would've gone real well if it had been published in the newspapers a week
ahead of time. The Manhattan Project might gone badly, too.

Citing examples of the past is no excuse for bad behavior in the
present/future.


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.

Everyone needs to relax. Is it OK with you if a president plays golf a
couple of times a month? How about a few hours of fishing? Poker? Frankly,
what a president does for fun is none of anyone's damned business, as long
as it's legal.

I'm not gonna get down in the mud, talking about Clinton.
You know damn well that most male employees would get fired on the spot if
they had a lower female employee sucking their dick in the office on company
time.
If he and the cow were ****ing on the 11th hole, you're right, how is it
anyones business?

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.

Agreed. Unfortunately, it'll never happen, although Nader is suggesting
exactly this type of "cleansing".

The best we could hope for is that the next T-attack on the US would take
out a majority of the politicians and then the rest of us could get on with
the business of being human beings towards one another.