when bill clinton got lewinsky the job at the pentagon did he disclose that he had an affair with her making her a security risk to being blackmailed.

bill clinton lied about a blowjob
he also participated in a cover up to prevent that secret from comming out
including getting someone who had a blackmailable secret a job with the pentagon.

Nixon the republican who resigned (to avoid getting impeached) didn't plan the break in, didn't even know it was going on until it was already done, but he covered it up afterwards, using government resources to do it.

The one thing democrats did well (and i have to give them credit for because it was brilliant) was turn impeachment process into a sex scandal.

Take the sex out of the story Clinton is as guilty as Nixon if not worse
because NIXON did not put the countries military at risk by putting someone with a blackmailable secret in the pentagon.

What you learn from watching Fox News:

Bill Clinton put the U.S. military at risk by getting a blowjob.

George W. Bush did not put the U.S. military at risk by lying about reasons for sending the U.S. military to war with a country who did not attack America.

:1orglaugh

Clinton said he never thought that she would keep the secret, his lie was "I did not have sexual relations with that woman miss lewinski" he was saying a bj was not intercourse so he wasnt lieing. lol

I have not read the whole thread but the answer is that the two times they testified they were under no obligation to do so and thus they would not be allow themselves to be placed under oath as they did not want to set any kind of a precedent they may be used against future Presidents.

How times do i have to say this The blowjob is irrelevant, lying about it to his wife/friends is irrelevant it using government resources to cover up the affair that is the problem (covering up her security risk, giving her the job, calling in favors to get her good jobs to cover up the affair)


As to arguing that bush lied there isn't one single fact anywhere that supports that accusation in fact the report you keep pointing to as proof that he lied (han blix report)
states

"While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current ?unresolved disarmament issues? and ?key remaining disarmament tasks? in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. "



The fact is if report proved what you guys keep claiming it proved that would not only be an abuse of power (impeachable offence) but a violation of the Geneva convention (tried for war crimes) and they could have forced Bush to appear before congress to testify, just like they forced Regan.

Hell they don't need proof they all they need it to be is a reasonable possiblity that what he did was wrong and they could call him before congress and force him to testify under oath (just like they did with reagan).

How many times do i have to say this that not the lie that the star report said Clinton should be impeached for, that the lie the democrats kept shoving down the media's throats to shift the blame from the abuse of power when covering up his affair.

1. he put a security risk in A1 security clearance job at the pentagon
2. He called in favors to get her jobs in the private sector
3. He called in favors to keep linda tripp quiet when she found out

That the same crap that Nixon did when he resigned.

Look at the way reagan (bush jr) did it and you will see the correct way to do
reagan admitted that he knew about the exchange of hostages for arms, he said he did not know about the deversion of funds to the contras.

He told the truth when he first got caught he did not cover it up.

After reading this last part of the "discussion" here's what ya'll need to think about - first some history:
Testifying under oath for a president is something that was not really thought of by the framers of the Constitution - the idea that Anyone would testify under oath for their own defense was not even allowed in this country till after the Civil War - before that (and at the time of the Constitution) everyone figured a defendant would lie to cover himself so this wasnt even an option in court cases. It only became an option after the Civil war when after a few highly publicized cases of negroes being allowed to testify, the whites figured if they were allowed then they better change the court system to allow all defendants to testify under oath.
Historically, Presidents haven't been forced to testify, although the only thing that kept them from being called was either deals with congress or allowing their subordinates to testify for them. With the establishment of the "special prosecuter" which is a very recent event, things changed a little although keep in mind that the only thing that keeps a President from testifying is the public will - the American people have never required it and probably (with the huge amount of apathy rampant in todays America) they never will.

The spin "facts" that are being put out here are just that - spin - and although you guys may believe all of your biased opinions from both sides - it isnt gonna change anything - both of these events have already happened and no amount of bickering (discussion) is gonna go back and put it right for either side :)

If you need an example of a true lie by the current president - its real simple - look to the accounting by all news organizations about the 9/11 crisis - both conservative and liberal presses have reported that the President stated when he saw the first plane hit the WTC on that morning when he was in an elementry school classroom (he got shown this supposedly right before he went into the classroom - or so the news has reported) his words were "stupid pilot" - Im sure all of you will agree that this is what was reported and what he has always stated - right???
Here's the part thats a lie - if you go back and check with the news stations - NONE of them showed a video of the first plane hitting the WTC till the next day - only the second plane later on while Bush was already in the classroom - follow the timeline! When the second plane hit his aide came into the classroom and informed him - we've all seen his reaction to that - so here's my question - Did he lie about seeing the first plane hit and saying "stupid pilot"? Its the story he's always told - and yet - not one media source ever broadcast the first plane that day.
All of you that needed some fuel - there ya go

As far as the original post's question - Should they be required to testify under oath? My answer/opinion is yes - but I'm only one voter out of all of the Americans that vote - the rest would have to vote to settle that issue. And getting the country to vote would be the biggest hurdle to all of this.

And just how did an unknown statement about a wife working for the CIA cost thousands of lives?

Typical response. Whenever a person with conservative values defends their point, they are brainwashed, but all the people on here that are hardcore liberals are not. Stop namecalling and defend your point. It's that easy.