You now know that all the condeming of Clinton by Democrats..

[WCGreen]

is giving our party ammunition to combat the RW talking points....

We condemned Clinton, we called for censure, we went along with every investigation and not one of us was involved with any cover up....

It's a shame the republican party places party loyalty over the laws of the land, the safety of our children and the sanctity of the House of Representative, the People's House....

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Funny how those things work, isn't it?

And at the time of all Clinton's troubles, I thought it was horrifying that we were on his case...

Never did I think it would come back to help us....

I'm with you on what a shame it is on the republicans for their stance...

I'm all for party loyalty.....but not when it means crossing moral boundaries.

[tomreedtoon]

2. You mean the way that Democrats stabbed Clinton in the back?

You mean the Democratic support of Clinton's impeachment that gave Bush and the Republicans the ammunition they needed to start a "moral crusade" against terrible, sexual people like Bill Clinton? Which they have expanded to a crusade against Islam? And a crusade against the middle class, schools, teaching science, tolerance and even child protection laws?

Yeah, that was a REAL good idea. Voting for the torture bill was also a REAL good idea.

In other words, what the hell are you talking about?

Are you one of those Republican plants here to pollute the forum? I kind of think so...

[WCGreen]

3. Are you crazy......

[Greyhound]

4. Yea sure, he's been sitting here posting 20,000 times just to jump

in here for one last bash on Clinton. :eyes:

C'mon, if you disagree then disagree, but this calling everyone a re:puke: shit, just because they don't see things the same way you do, is absurd and counter-productive.

[tomreedtoon]

5. When Democrats backstabbed Clinton, they killed their own party.

Which is MY point. By agreeing to support the Republican torture of Clinton, those Democrats gave the Republicans what they like to consider the "moral high ground." Which is really just the Grand High Inquisitor post from which they have been toruturing America ever since.

And I called this bozo a "Republican ****" - not my words - because there are a lot of them here, deliberately trying to stir up trouble. I was lookign for someone to provide corroborating evidence that this person was a Freeper plant, for which I thank you, greyhound1966.

But while we're talking, greyhound1966, why are you afraid to use the word "Republican?" It's like those people who use the "*" instead of calling Bush by his proper name. It's just like being afraid to call Lord Voldemort by his name; fear of a name inspires fear of the thing itself, as Dumbledore said in the original books.

[blm]

7. What Democrats are YOU talking about who backstabbed Clinton?

They were mostly very solicitous of clinton throughout his two terms = and I paid very close attention.

[Greyhound]

8. Not fear, but an utter lack of respect for disgracing the name.

This country is a Republic, they are despots attempting to co-opt the name.

Why do you think that he is a plant? I see no evidence of this, so please enlighten me.

[tomreedtoon]

9. The "evidence" is that it is a post attacking Clinton...again.

The guy basically said, "It was a good thing that Democrats attacked Clinton. It proves they were moral. That proves they're not entirely made of of anti-Christ monsters. So IF Republicans should stray, Democrats can't be called hypocrites for complaining."

I'm sure some Democratic congresscreatures LIKE to think they would be appreciated by the ruling forces for impeaching Clinton. Doesn't seem like it during the Bush Adminstration, does it? Aren't Democrats still slammed as "Washington liberals?" (My Democratic candidate for Florida's Governor is being called just that, and he's so scared he isn't even running TV ads to defend himself.)

And this guy thinks we should still heap dirt on Clinton, and when he's dead, gather in a long line to urinate on his grave. You don't think that's a Freeper attitude?

If that's not his attitude, he can always post again and explain just what the hell he meant.

[Greyhound]

11. OK, I see your point now. I didn't interpret his post that way.

I withdraw from the field. Peace.

[blm]

6. Few Democrats supported the impeachment process to go forward

so why are you acting as if they did?

Most of the Dem senate wanted CENSURE as the proper way to handle what occurred, NOT impeachment.

[AtomicKitten]

10. you mean like this?

Russ Feingold for impeachment of Clinton:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/28/feingold.01/

And those that wanted censure of Clinton:

Daniel Akaka
Max Baucus
Byron Dorgan
Dick Durbin
Dianne Feinstein
Daniel Inouye
Jim Jeffords
Ted Kennedy
John Kerry
Herb Kohl
Mary Landrieu
Carl Levin
Joe Lieberman
Blanche Lincoln
Barbara Mikulski
Patty Murray
Jack Reed
Harry Reid
Jay Rockefeller
Chuck Schumer
Ron Wyden

[onenote]

12. not sure the situations are comparable

First, there was no opportunity for a cover up comparable to the one perpetrated by the repubs for Foley -- I don't think any Democratic congressional leaders knew anything about Lewinsky until it was out in the open. I also don't recall a lot of Democrats leaping to condemn Clinton when the word of his dalliance with Lewinsky first came out. Certainly, as the matter progressed, there were numerous condemnations and there were calls for censure. However, keep in mind that Democrats opposed the public release of the Starr report as well and voted, while not unanimously, overwhelmingly, to oppose the impeachment investigation.

I understand the OP's point, which I take to be that the Democrats can't be accused of hypocrisy in their response to the Foley affair (unlike the repubs who have hypocrisy smeared all over themselves). But I think the comparison of the Lewinsky and Foley situations really doesn't go too far.