The Worst US President of All Time - According to SYM (no spam)

[Dowaco]

What is your source for this? I personally detest the man, but I don't go around restating the neo-con sleaze they state that passes for Clinton biographical material. If you're going to make accusations of this sort, please back them up.

My source is my brother-in-law who was a Lieutenant General in the Air Force and an air base commander as well as an Adjudent General (ret). He has met both Bushes and Clinton and their spouses. One trait Bill Clinton has when meeting groups of new people is that he scans the crowd for babes and flirts almost openly. This personal observation coupled with facts that are not in dispute concerning his affairs with Lewinsky and Paula Jones as well as numerous reports from a variety of sources concerning affairs with other women, one must come to the conclusion that Clinton was indeed a "womanizer". I don't think anyone disputes this. I assume your request for source is to validate that his work suffered as a result.

During the impeachment hearings there were incidents that happened overseas that gave rise to the "Wag the Dog" theory. That Clinton staged important events outside the US in an effort to deflect scrutiny at home. I am not saying these theories were true but any time a president spends defending himself from wild speculation detracts from the time he could be spending doing the job he was elected to do. If you think Clinton did great things while in office, think how much he could have accomplished had he not been hounded by the right, the press, his wife and the Senate. Why do you think he was under so much pressure?

Its simple really. No sex in the oval office = no special proscecutor = no perjury = no impeachment = 2+ years to do good works for the country instead of rendering all three parts of the government stagnant while they danced around pointless issues.

[VonDondu]

During the impeachment hearings there were incidents that happened overseas that gave rise to the "Wag the Dog" theory. That Clinton staged important events outside the US in an effort to deflect scrutiny at home...

I suppose it's true that every time Clinton tried to do his job, his enemies accused him of trying to "wag the dog". These days, the same people who hounded Clinton now say, "We undermine the President's authority at our nation's peril," but I guess they were traitors back then instead of patriots like they are now.

Its simple really. No sex in the oval office = no special proscecutor = no perjury = no impeachment = 2+ years to do good works for the country instead of rendering all three parts of the government stagnant while they danced around pointless issues.

The special prosecutor was appointed to investigate a failed land deal from the 1970s, and after six years of investigating they came up with nothing against Clinton. The investigation had nothing to do with sex until Ken Starr used his powers to conduct a witch hunt. He broadened his investigation and wasted millions of taxpayers' dollar until he finally found something with which he could charge Clinton. The Republicans were determined to impeach Clinton, and they didn't really care what the issue might be as long as they could use it to obstruct the office of the President, since he was the enemy. So what did Ken Starr finally come up with? Lying under oath in the Paula Jones case, encouraging Monica Lewinsky to lie in the same case, and obstructing justice because of the previous two actions. Was that really worth all the trouble? Paula Jones's case should have been thrown out of court in the first place, since she couldn't demonstrate that she was hurt in any way by Clinton's actions. He made a crude pass at her, she declined, and they both went their separate ways. That's not harrassment. Case dismissed. And it's not much worse than some of the things that Clinton's most vocal critics, such as Newt Gingrich, have done in their own personal lives, like having an affair with one of his aides and serving his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer. Say, I hear that Newt might be running for President in 2008, and he already has a lot of support. Just the kind of leader we need! And even if he doesn't run for President, we still need to listen to what he says on TV. Let's put him next to Mark Furman and Ollie North. They're the champions of law and order because they had the courage to break the law to serve their country or, uh, whoever it was they were serving. Gingrich made himself rich, and we all all admire people who do that, right? What would we do without people of such conviction and moral authority?

When you put it all in context, it's clear that the conservative movement is not about principles; it's about using any tactic to win. These petty little sex scandals don't mean anything at all to them unless they can be used as a political weapon.

[Magrus]

[QUOTE=Dowaco]One trait Bill Clinton has when meeting groups of new people is that he scans the crowd for babes and flirts almost openly.[/QUOTE]

So that's what makes someone a womanizer? I flirt randomly. Not all the time, but if I feel like it, I flirt. It's like a hobby for me. I don't do so in order to "get some" or belittle women, it's simply a fun habit I picked up years ago from hanging out with girls instead of boys. It made them feel better about themselves and amused them. *shrugs* Girls need to know that they can and will be complimented and have people flirting with them just to do so, and not to get in their pants.

He could have been sleazy scumbag. Then again, IMHO his marriage with Hillary was, and always has been a political thing, not out of love. Which, I am guessing is a mutual decision. A show to make them have a "decent family", when both of them wanted to do what they wanted to do. In that case, him being with other girls was simply him doing what they had agreed upon. Which would mean, in order to protect HER image, Hillary would have to throw a public fit. Which, may seem like a horrible thing to those who think marriage is some divine institution, and should be sacred. Then again, the point of people "falling in love" is simply so that they will breed and raise children together. A biological reaction to the need to father/mother children and raise them, with marriage as a rationalization for people staying together when things go bad. In this day and age, it really isn't necessary to stay together, more a choice than a necessity.

Besides all of that, Clinton wouldn't have had to waste all of that time covering up his actions if people would have left him alone. Right? Right. He was doing a wonderful job, and getting some on the side. His wife was doing her thing, he was doing his, they were both fine. Until the people who wanted to make him look bad invaded his privacy and made a huge mess out of it. That should have been between him and his wife, no one else. I have had girls cheat on me, and I once cheated on a girl. NO ONE had the right to say anything about it aside from me and the people involved. It simply isn't their business. Which makes me wonder, what more could have been done to improve this country if the Republicans had left him alone?

[fable]

During the impeachment hearings there were incidents that happened overseas that gave rise to the "Wag the Dog" theory. That Clinton staged important events outside the US in an effort to deflect scrutiny at home. I am not saying these theories were true but any time a president spends defending himself from wild speculation detracts from the time he could be spending doing the job he was elected to do.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You're saying that any acting official accused of any crime that requires some defense should immediately resign, because they can no longer act effectively in office? Or are you saying this should have been the case only with Clinton? Despite the accomplishments of his administration (whether you like them, or not) continued during those two years when Congress was trying to gut him, and his approval ratings were as high as ever: in the mid-60% area.

If you think Clinton did great things while in office, think how much he could have accomplished had he not been hounded by the right, the press, his wife and the Senate. Why do you think he was under so much pressure?

Because the conservative wing of the other major party, the Republicans, had hit on Carl Rove's strategy of throwing ridiculous filth at the leading figure in the opposing party from Day One in the hopes that though it was false, some of it would stick and knock him from office, thus giving them both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. The accusations themselves were remarkable and would cause anybody with half a brain to laugh out loud. Apparently much of the American public thought so, too, since as I've mentioned before, Clinton's ratings never slipped.

Its simple really. No sex in the oval office = no special proscecutor = no perjury = no impeachment = 2+ years to do good works for the country instead of rendering all three parts of the government stagnant while they danced around pointless issues.

Clinton's presidency was hardly stagnant, and I have again to warn you to stop stating opinions as established fact in an international forum when the facts themselves are plainly otherwise. There were numerous major accomplishments in his administration, probably the most significant being the removal of the worst national debt (up until Dubya) in US history, accumulated by Reagan, and its replacement with a national surplus. Had he done nothing else--and this, in the teeth of Congressional Republicans yelling that his budget was doomed to be a failure--it would be cause for a degree of respect. He spent a lot of time saving the economic wellbeing of the nation.

But in any case, "no sex" wouldn't have led to an absence of a special prosecutor. As you undoubtedly know, the issue involved wasn't sex, but being asked inane questions by A hostile Congress, and stupidly lying instead of telling them the answers were none of their business. They had no business asking about his personal life, and it was not discussed in any useful context. It was simply done in the hope of entrapping him, and it worked, because Clinton has a history of speaking before he thinks. So if sex hadn't been the point, something else would have been brought up. And a Congress that is prepared to overlook a enormous amount of evidence that brings disrepute on the current executive branch of their own party, whether rightly or wrongly, simply went after a president representing the other party because he lied to them--about having sex.

He deserved to be impeached, because he lied to them. That's the law. But Dubya's detainment of a large number of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has been declared unlawful, and his wiretapping was known to be unlawful when he sanctioned it. Dubya deserves the same treatment for the flaunting of various federal laws--and I don't hear you saying a word in favor of bringing him to book because of that. Why not?

[VonDondu]

But in any case, "no sex" wouldn't have led to an absence of a special prosecutor. As you undoubtedly know, the issue involved wasn't sex, but being asked inane questions by A hostile Congress, and stupidly lying instead of telling them the answers were none of their business. They had no business asking about his personal life, and it was not discussed in any useful context. It was simply done in the hope of entrapping him, and it worked, because Clinton has a history of speaking before he thinks. So if sex hadn't been the point, something else would have been brought up. And a Congress that is prepared to overlook a enormous amount of evidence that brings disrepute on the current executive branch of their own party, whether rightly or wrongly, simply went after a president representing the other party because he lied to them--about having sex.

He deserved to be impeached, because he lied to them. That's the law.

I'm sorry, but that account of events leading to President Clinton's impeachment is not quite correct. Clinton was never questioned about his personal life by Congress, and he was not impeached for lying to Congress. He was impeached solely for actions related to the bogus, Republican-funded sexual harrassment lawsuit brought against him by Paula Jones.

[EDIT: I felt like ranting when I wrote this message, and when I went back to do some editing in the middle of the night, I decided to show everyone how I look at the events that led to Clinton's impeachment. The following remarks are not addressed to anyone in particular. I'm sorry if anyone took offense before I clarified this.]

During questioning under oath in that lawsuit, Clinton and Monica Lewinsky both denied that they had a "sexual relationship". Paula Jones couldn't show any evidence that she had ever been harmed by Clinton, but her lawyers tried to prove that Clinton had affairs with other women who worked for him to establish a pattern of aberrant behavior. That's why they questioned Clinton about his consensual affair with Lewinsky, even though his affair with her was not a supporting example of sexual harrassment. Clinton ALWAYS thought about what he was going to say before he spoke. Before Clinton answered whether he had a "sexual relationship" with Lewinsky, his attorneys asked for a definition of "sexual relationship". Clinton claimed during the lawsuit as well as afterwards that under the definition that Jones's attorneys gave him, he did not in fact have a "sexual relationship" with Lewinsky. You know, the whole damn country debated that question. Does oral sex count as "sexual relations"? Does one sexual encounter constitute a "sexual relationship"? Was Clinton lying when he told the nation that he "never had sexual relations" with Lewinsky? Clinton felt like he was telling the truth, but only in a slippery, technical way. That's what people do in lawsuits all the time. That's what the Bush administration does every time you ask them a straightforward question about ANYTHING. Nobody is shocked by it anymore.

Anyway, the case was dismissed. Paula Jones appealed, but the case wasn't really going anywhere until the special prosecuter Ken Starr came along. He was originally appointed to investigate "Whitewater". (I'd REALLY bore you if I told you what THAT was all about.) After six years of investigating, Starr had failed to find anything with which he could charge Clinton-- ANYTHING at all--so he expanded his investigation. When Linda Tripp betrayed Monica Lewinsky's confidence and told the whole world that Clinton and Lewinsky once had an affair (it was already over when the public found out about it, because Clinton had put an end to it and kicked Monica out of the White House), Ken Starr jumped on it. He looked at the testimony that Clinton and Lewinsky had given under oath, and he decided that they had committed perjury. When Starr found Clinton's semen on a dress that belonged to Lewinsky, Clinton could no longer deny that he and Lewinsky had been involved in an illicit affair. When questioned under oath by Starr, Clinton gave reasonably truthful answers. On the same day after giving his testimony to the Starr Chamber, Clinton addressed the nation and publicly admitted the affair.

After Ken Starr released the boring piece of smut called The Starr Report, he himself said that no special prosecutor should ever be given the same powers he was given ever again, but the damage was done. In the report, he accused Clinton of committing perjury in the Paula Jones lawsuit. He also accused Clinton of encouraging Monica Lewinsky to commit perjury. (It was certainly true that Clinton had advised Lewinsky to conceal "the whole truth".) The Republicans, who had been looking for ANYTHING they could use to impeach Clinton from the very first day he took office, used those findings to bring three articles of impeachment against Clinton. The charges were: 1) lying under oath, 2) suborning perjury, and 3) obstruction of justice. All three charges were related to the Jones case. That's what the whole impeachment farce was all about. I was amazed by the debilitating grip it seemed to have on everyone's brain. But it's funny how it seems like no one can remember what Clinton was accused of. What is the matter with this country?

Keep in mind that when Clinton was questioned by Starr, Judge Susan Webber Wright had granted summary judgment in favor of President Clinton and dismissed the Jones suit in its entirety, because Paula Jones had not offered any evidence to support a viable claim of sexual harassment or intentional infliction of emotion distress. What it boils down to is that Clinton was impeached for "technically" lying in a lawsuit that had been thrown out of court because it lacked merit. That speaks volumes about Republican priorities.

After Clinton was impeached, he was acquitted by the Senate, for good reason: the whole thing was completely ridiculous. Some of his most vocal critics had been caught having affairs (involving multiple cases of REAL sex), including affairs with aides and interns. The Republicans completely embarrassed themselves, and they've never been able to forgive Clinton for that. That's why they still lie about him constantly to this day.

[fable]

After Ken Starr released the boring piece of smut called The Starr Report, he himself said that no special prosecutor should ever be given the same powers he was given ever again, but the damage was done. In the report, he accused Clinton of committing perjury in the Paula Jones lawsuit. He also accused Clinton of encouraging Monica Lewinsky to commit perjury. (It was certainly true that Clinton had advised Lewinsky to conceal "the whole truth".) The Republicans, who had been looking for ANYTHING they could use to impeach Clinton from the very first day he took office, used those findings to bring three articles of impeachment against Clinton. The charges were: 1) lying under oath, 2) suborning perjury, and 3) obstruction of justice. All three charges were related to the Jones case. That's what the whole impeachment farce was all about. I was amazed by the debilitating grip it seemed to have on everyone's brain. But it's funny how it seems like no one can remember what Clinton was accused of. What is the matter with this country?

If I thought you were referring to me in that last remark, I might take offense, especially since you began by disagreeing with my comments above, then proceeded to agree with them later in your post. You provided more background, but it doesn't remove the fact that Clinton was still impeached for lying to Congress, just as I wrote to the point. That he was under oath at the time I should have thought obvious. After all, presidents have lied since time immemorial to Congress about all sorts of things, most notably during their State of the Union addresses. Dubya's are perfect examples of this, even down to the point of including comments about Iraq that he demonstrably knew were false when he stated them. But unless uttered under oath, these are not considered impeachable offenses. Clinton was impeached for lying, also obstruction of justice; and sorry, but he did flap his mouth too much--that whole debacle about whether oral sex constitutes sex was an excellent example of tautology--and gave the Congressional House of Representatives just enough to go as far out on an illogical limb as possible, and impeach him. Had they been honorable people of personal integrity, they never would have pursued the farce, as you've pointed out; but Clinton did do what the monomaniacal Starr claimed he did.

And for obstructing justice repeatedly, in a far more clear cut manner, Dubya deserves to be investigated by a special prosecutor. But the Republican Congress won't go after him, despite more than enough serious cause under the law, because they're afraid how this will stain their own chances of holding onto federal power. It's disgusting, and a cause of mockery everywhere.

[VonDondu]

If I thought you were referring to me in that last remark, I might take offense, especially since you began by disagreeing with my comments above, then proceeded to agree with them later in your post.

I'm sorry, Fable, that wasn't meant to be an insult against you personally. I was just huffing and puffing in general, you know, since there are so many misconceptions about what the impeachment was all about.

You provided more background, but it doesn't remove the fact that Clinton was still impeached for lying to Congress, just as I wrote to the point.

I think the source of confusion is that four articles of impeachment were approved by the House Judiciary Committee and submitted to a vote by the House of Representatives, but only two of them were passed by the House. You must be thinking of the fourth article of impeachment, which was rejected by the House when it was put to a vote. That article held that Clinton had abused his office by lying to and obstructing Congress. Specifically, the House Judiciary Committee had sent Clinton a list of 81 questions concerning his deposition in the Paula Jones case and his testimony to a federal grand jury that was investigating his testimony in the Paula Jones case. (They really got a lot of mileage out of that Paula Jones case.) According to the proposed article of impeachment, Clinton gave perjurious, deceptive, or misleading answers to 10 of those questions. But that article was rejected by the House, so I don't think it's fair to say that Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress.

and sorry, but he did flap his mouth too much, and gave the Congress just enough to go as far out on a limb as possible, and impeach him.

Maybe we simply disagree about the semantics, but Clinton's answers to the House Judiciary Committee were written, not spoken. The fact that he was able to carefully craft his answers was one of the reasons why many Congressmen argued that he had been deliberately deceitful and misleading. Besides, Clinton didn't get in trouble for saying "too much"; he got in trouble for not giving full, honest answers while he was under oath. As I said, maybe that's just semantics.

As for the rest of the articles of impeachment, the first article of impeachment held that Clinton lied to the federal grand jury in August 1998. The federal grand jury was called to determine whether Clinton had committed perjury in the Paula Jones case (a federal civil rights lawsuit), so they asked him questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. That article of impeachment was passed by the House, so you could say that Clinton was impeached for lying about sex. However, the Senate later rejected that article, which is like saying he was found "not guilty".

The second article of impeachment held that Clinton committed perjury in the Paula Jones case, but that article was rejected by the House when it was put to a vote. In other words, the House decided that Clinton didn't lie about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case, but he lied to the grand jury that investigated whether he had lied before. It boggles the mind.

The third article of impeachment, which was passed by the House, held that Clinton obstructed justice in the Paula Jones case by encouraging others to commit perjury, concealing evidence, and allowing his attorneys to make false statements to the court, among other things. So according to the House, Clinton himself didn't commit perjury in the Paula Jones case, but he made other people lie about sex. However, the Senate later rejected that article, which is like saying he was found "not guilty".

In summary, Clinton was impeached for lying about sex to the grand jury and making other people lie about sex in the Paula Jones case. Lies about sex--that's really all there is.

If you want complete details, here's an article at CNN's website:
Text of articles of impeachment