The Democrats Gloat Thread

Well guilty as charged that I at least don't spend much time thinking about Shroeder's morality.

Were you on the Grand Jury or at the depositions, KW? How do you know what was asked so specifically?

Editorial
President Bush's Walkabout

Published: November 8, 2005
After President Bush's disastrous visit to Latin America, it's unnerving to realize that his presidency still has more than three years to run. An administration with no agenda and no competence would be hard enough to live with on the domestic front. But the rest of the world simply can't afford an American government this bad for that long.

In Argentina, Mr. Bush, who prides himself on his ability to relate to world leaders face to face, could barely summon the energy to chat with the 33 other leaders there, almost all of whom would be considered friendly to the United States under normal circumstances. He and his delegation failed to get even a minimally face-saving outcome at the collapsed trade talks and allowed a loudmouthed opportunist like the president of Venezuela to steal the show.

It's amazing to remember that when Mr. Bush first ran for president, he bragged about his understanding of Latin America, his ability to speak Spanish and his friendship with Mexico. But he also made fun of Al Gore for believing that nation-building was a job for the United States military.

The White House is in an uproar over the future of Karl Rove, the president's political adviser, and spinning off rumors that some top cabinet members may be asked to walk the plank. Mr. Bush could certainly afford to replace some of his top advisers. But the central problem is not Karl Rove or Treasury Secretary John Snow or even Donald Rumsfeld, the defense secretary. It is President Bush himself.

Second terms may be difficult, but the chief executive still has the power to shape what happens. Ronald Reagan managed to turn his messy second term around and deliver - in great part through his own powers of leadership - a historic series of agreements with Mikhail Gorbachev that led to the peaceful dismantling of the Soviet empire. Mr. Bush has never demonstrated the capacity for such a comeback. Nevertheless, every American has a stake in hoping that he can surprise us.

The place to begin is with Dick Cheney, the dark force behind many of the administration's most disastrous policies, like the Iraq invasion and the stubborn resistance to energy conservation. Right now, the vice president is devoting himself to beating back Congressional legislation that would prohibit the torture of prisoners. This is truly a remarkable set of priorities: his former chief aide was indicted, Mr. Cheney's back is against the wall, and he's declared war on the Geneva Conventions.

Mr. Bush cannot fire Mr. Cheney, but he could do what other presidents have done to vice presidents: keep him too busy attending funerals and acting as the chairman of studies to do more harm. Mr. Bush would still have to turn his administration around, but it would at least send a signal to the nation and the world that he was in charge, and the next three years might not be as dreadful as they threaten to be right now.

dlowan wrote:

Asking about Monioca had nothing to do with sexual harassment....or are you making the claim that he forced himself upon her?

Not my claim. Paula Jones' attorneys felt the line of inquiry to be relevant to her case, and the judge of that US Federal lawsuit, Judge Susan Webber Wright, obviously agreed with them that it was in order to allow that deposition.

I'm sure her attorneys were exploring the possibility of establishing a pattern of behavior. Jones was, after all, accusing Clinton of making crude and unwanted sexual advances toward her. It isn't that difficult to see that Clinton's sexual advances to a White House intern might be relevant to establishing such a pattern. Bear in mind this was in the context of pretrial discovery, so whether such a pattern was actually shown by the Lewinsky affair is immaterial.

Quote:

And now your turn, mr always hiding behind being ther inquisitor ("are you going on the record"....god, you're hilarious. What do you think you are doing, pontificating in a court of law?). Do you or do you not support politicians being questioned about non criminal sexual acts?

I support politicians who are lawfully under oath answering questions truthfully, whether those questions are about criminal or non-criminal sexual acts, or any other matter.

You have not confirmed it, but it appears you are still of the opinion that it was okay for Clinton to lie during his deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harrassment lawsuit.

Quote:

Will you "go on the record" as supporting the Starr crap?

What "Starr crap" are you referring to, and what does it have to do with the fact that Clinton lied under oath in the Jones lawsuit?

Quote:

What, and how many, sexual acts have you performed in your life which you would be uncomfortable answering questions about on tv in front of millions?

Thankfully, I'm not the President of the US. I'm also not a philanderer, so it's really not a good comparison. But in any case, it would not be prudent to leave it up to me to decide whether I got to answer the questions or not. The judge decides in the first instance whether the questions are relevant. If relevant, they must be answered, and answered truthfully.

Quote:

Details please, since you appear to consider private legal sexual matters as being appropriate to ask about in public fora.

Many public officials are required to answer potentially embarrassing questions, occasionally under oath. You apparently feel it is okay to lie, -- even after having sworn to tell the truth -- under certain circumstances. I do not believe this is the case.

We know where each other stands: You think it's okay to lie ... I do not.

ps...

As a sterling example of the moral compass headed directly and unerringly towards complete amorality let's consider on the one hand lying about sex in one's personal life and on the other hand using political power to attempt to institutionalize torture.

Pentagon Plans Tighter Control of Interrogation

By ERIC SCHMITT and TIM GOLDEN
WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 - The Pentagon has approved a new policy directive governing interrogations as part of an effort to tighten controls over the questioning of terror suspects and other prisoners by American soldiers.

The eight-page directive, which was signed without any public announcement last Thursday by Acting Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, will allow the Army to issue a long-delayed field manual for interrogators that is supposed to incorporate the lessons gleaned from the prisoner-abuse scandals last year.

The Army intends, for example, to ensure that interrogation techniques are approved, up to the highest levels in the Pentagon, that interrogators are properly trained and that personnel in the field are required to report any abuses, Army officials said.

Such changes have been under consideration since the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison were disclosed in April 2004, and reflect continuing problems with abuses by troops in Afghanistan and Iraq since then.

The Senate has approved a measure by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, i to ban abusive treatment of prisoners in American custody.

The new interrogations directive is also part of a wider effort by the Defense Department, which began last December, to review the treatment of prisoners in military custody.

A second directive, governing all aspects of prisoner detentions, not just interrogation methods, has caused sharp debate within the Bush administration. At issue is whether the Pentagon's broad guidelines on detention should include language from the Geneva Conventions barring the use of "cruel," "humiliating" and degrading treatment.

Now, though, we are witnessing a debate in Washington that any American at one time would have thought impossible: whether to allow "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons under custody or control of the United States government." The words are taken from the amendment introduced by Sen. John McCain, which would prohibit such practices. It has passed twice, the first time by 90 to 9, the second by a voice vote. It has the support of a former POW, McCain; a former Navy secretary, John Warner; a Reserve military judge, Lindsey Graham -- and, outside the Senate, former military men such as Colin Powell. Nonetheless, the administration vows a veto.

The Bush administration's effort is being led by Vice President Cheney, who -- give him credit -- is indomitably shameless. Given the ridiculous things he said in the run-up to the war, you'd have thought the man would have sought the contemplative life and retreated to some swell retirement community. But he not only perseveres, he has become the unashamed lobbyist for torture. He must have a reason. Apparently it is this: Sometimes ya gotta play rough.

Look. Paula Jones claims, with little substantiation, that Clinton tried to force himself on her. Monica, on the other hand, freely admits that she came in Clinton's office to deliver a pizza, then entirely of her own volition, bent over and revealed her thong underwear to him. Don't give me any jazz about "employees" or whatnot. What Clinton did with Monica in no way supports Jones' story that Clinton tried to force himself on her. Starr knew it, and almost certainly Jones' lawyers knew it.

In my opinion, Clinton probably did lie under oath about Monica. I think he figured he could dodge around and mislead, and thought he did so successfully, but he did not.

However, the reason the public, save a small percentage of Clinton-haters, does not hold it much against Clinton is that they, too, do not see why Clinton was asked questions about Monica, when Jones was alleging that Clinton tried to force himself on her.

Ticomaya wrote:

So, yes, I certainly do defend the questions that were asked of Clinton.

I don't see how. Monica's testimony could not possibly support a charge of sexual harassment-she admits she came on to Clinton.

What a heap of **** you talk, Tico. You use the standard ultra conservative line "if you do not agree with me I shall say you are an immoral person" ...you know, the "If you challenge the war, you are a traitor, and if you dare to point out the truth about torture you are dishonouring the troops" stuff.

Your version, here, is "If you say that you think the witch hunt of Clinton stank and was morally wrong, then you believe it is fine to lie under oath (and presumably, fart in lifts, steal from blind people, and steal candy from babies....)

Why don't you just say "When did you stop beating your wife"?

You know nothing about where I stand, but feel free to continue to make stuff up.

Oddly, I would defend even Bush for lying about such a matter.

I do think Clinton should have told the truth under oath.

And why are public figures, as you say, asked about their private and consensual sexual behaviour, about which there is no allegation of criminal behaviour? Do you see nothing wrong with this? The only possible relevance I see in this sort of questioning is where a public figure is using their power to attempt to punish or deny rights to people who perform such sexual acts, at the same time as they are committing them, or advocating them, elsewhere.

In any event, one purpose was to show that Clinton had an extramarital affair with Monica, regardless of whether he sexually harrassed her, in order to show a pattern of sexual behavior toward women over whom he was in a position of power.

... the deposition of Lewinsky and Clinton took place in the pretrial discovery phase. The scope of civil discovery is broad, and can delve into any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or a claim or defense of any other party.

Do you support as good for your political culture the public televising of Clinton's questioning? Do you believe that should have happened?

Do you believe that a public figure's private and legal, (if tacky, in my view, re Monica) behaviour ought to be the subject of ongoing interrogation and public mud slinging whan it is not relevant to their political actions?

What Clinton did was wrong.

I do not know what kind of lawyer you are, but I have worked in the legal system, and the circumstances of an offence are very much taken into account in sentencing....god knows how many lawyers I have heard get up on their hind legs and pontificate, (as you so easily do re blame) about mitigating circumstances, do you disagree with this legal principle?

I wonder what you would be saying it it were Bush or one of the right darlings in similar circumstances.

Foxfyre wrote:

Well guilty as charged that I at least don't spend much time thinking about Shroeder's morality.

Why exactl and for reason should someone think about Schröder's morality? You may like him or not, but what has that to do with morality?

The previous comments from tico and foxfyre regarding Clinton and sex are morally incomprehensible.

blatham wrote:

The previous comments from tico and foxfyre regarding Clinton and sex are morally incomprehensible.

No, the previous comments from Tico have been about Clinton and lying. Safe to conclude you agree with dlowan that lying is acceptable when about sex?

I would think my comments would only be "morally incomprehensible" to one who can't comprehend whether lying is morally acceptable behavior.

"We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will. We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful. That's the world these folks operate in, and so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective."

Ah, I think the international community just has grown used to US presidents

- ordering covert actions to assasinate foreign heads of state
- supplying dictatorships with weapons of mass destruction
- financing and training terrorists and pointing them at 'enemy regimes'

And all of that before the whole blowjob affair occured. What did you think the international reaction would be?

"Oh dear, I'm really shocked by what this president is doing"?

Tsktsktsk...

Because over time, the constant barrage of negative reporting will have an effect. If the average Joe doesn't get a dose of reality, but is simply swallowing what he reads in the Times every day, it is no surprise his opinion will be negative.

So let's be clear. You have a moral disagreement with Clinton lying under oath about a personal sexual matter. You have no moral disagreement with the torture of people in CIA or forces' custody (who've had no trial).

Ticomaya wrote:

Because over time, the constant barrage of negative reporting will have an effect. If the average Joe doesn't get a dose of reality, but is simply swallowing what he reads in the Times every day, it is no surprise his opinion will be negative.

Do you seriously believe that Bush's current negative poll numbers are explainable through referencing the liberal media bias you assert? I mean, are you for real here?

The odd thing is that last year, in the half-year run-up to the elections, conservatives' complaints here about the vicious slant of the liberal media and those media's unrebating onslaught of negative news reached a screeching zenit.

But it was during that half a year or so that Bush's numbers actually stabilized. (See here, not updated since the elections I'm afraid).