January 17, 2008
Happy Anniversary! The Lewinsky Scandal Celebrates 10 Years of Infamy
I put this under my History category because it's one for the books.
Ten years ago today, the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal erupted with a little nugget posted on the Drudge Report. Against Hillary Clinton has a recap:
On the evening of Saturday January 17, 1998, the internet gossip merchant Matt Drudge posted a story that opened the most sensational scandal season in the history of the American presidency. He reported that Newsweek magazine had killed a story about President Clinton’s sexual relationship with a former intern. The next day he had her name: Monica Lewinsky.
The mainstream media were slow to catch up, but by the following Tuesday they were reporting that Clinton was being investigated for encouraging others to lie to cover up the affair.
For the next year the story dominated the headlines as Clinton was investigated, impeached and eventually found not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours in a Senate trial.
Ten years on we know what happened to Bill Clinton. He is campaigning tirelessly for his wife as she seeks to win the second Clinton presidency. It is a curious twist of fate, and an indication of how deep were the repercussions of the scandal, that her campaign might not be happening if it weren’t for Monica Lewinsky.
For it was in the wake of the scandal, in which Hillary was seen as the wronged wife, that she decided to run for the Senate from New York. Her shamed husband, anxious to try to make things up to her, eagerly threw his weight behind the move. A wave of sympathy helped to sweep her to victory. As soon as she was elected, talk began about her running for president.
There's much more; be sure to check it out. You may want to shower afterward.
People talk about how President Bush has disgraced the Oval Office and makes America look bad with his policies. Yet Bill Clinton seduces a young intern (and we knew of his many instances of sexual misconduct before this), conducts his affair in the White House, lies about it before a grand jury, gets caught in the lie and has to 'fess up, is impeached (but not removed from office) and disbarred as a lawyer, makes Lewinsky a national laughingstock, but is considered the guy who kept America's international moral authority intact? What am I missing here?
Anyway, happy anniversary, Bill...thanks for nothing.
Show Comments »
A related Lewinsky/Clinton note; on voting for Mrs. Clinton because her husband was "good to us" (blacks):
Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton "because her husband was good to us," he continued.
"That's not true," he thundered. "He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky."
Obama's pastor Rev Jeremiah Wright as quoted in Baltimore Sun 1/17.
Its pretty sad when you repugs have to drag up Monica...whats next, Chappaquiddick?
Yawn......
Posted by: yoda M at January 17, 2008 01:08 PMYep, Monica and Chappaquiddick...both sad. And we're very sorry (yoda m) but they're both from YOUR side of the fence. (Pam...I think the pic I sent out this morning would fit nicely at the end of this post, no?)
Posted by: THIRDWAVEDAVE at January 17, 2008 01:58 PM...said the guy who resorts to third grade-style name-calling. Kudos to you!
I'm just reminding you all of the "moral authority" we had during the Clinton presidency. What fun that was. Good times, good times...
But I'll remember your little dictum the next time someone brings up Bush "stealing" the 2000.
Thanks for the visit!
Posted by: Pam at January 17, 2008 02:01 PMAgreed, Dave, agreed!
Posted by: Pam at January 17, 2008 02:01 PMThe "favor" heard 'round the world. Heh.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at January 17, 2008 04:22 PMclinton lied, no one died.
Clinton received oral sex, Bush led 3500 soldiers to their death for no reason. Hhhhmmm yeah, I am up for the oral sex receiving president any day.
Oh, when is Bush going to liberate Darfur?
Posted by: at January 17, 2008 05:44 PMIn regard to your 10 myths busted where we are not allowed to comment....
You need to do your research...
We are on our way to overpopulation, Darwin,Wallace, and Malthus all talk about carrying capacity. We will not realize we are overpopulated until we start to crash. A population always surpasses its carrying capacity before it crashes. If you think we are not becoming overpopulated you live in a fantasy world.
Also, cold weather does contribute to getting a cold. Yes you do have to have the virus in you, but most of us have the virus in us at low levels and our immune system can keep it in check. So we do not know we have it. However when you are in cold weather and not dressed properly your body has to work harder to keep you warm. So it puts energy into the immediate need to warm your body and takes it away from things like keeping viruses in check. Now the virus is free to multiply into levels that we will notice.
So going out in the cold can give you a cold.
Damn, he even spelled "cold" as "old" in the article, if he doesn't even proofread what makes you think he fact checks?
Posted by: at January 17, 2008 06:03 PMDisgrace the oval office? Are you kidding? None of the world's leaders cared what Clinton did with Lewinsky. However the world leaders sure do care what Bush has been doing.
You are probably the type of person that calls French Fries freedom fries.
Posted by: at January 17, 2008 06:06 PMHmmm...I see you have hecklers too. Well at least you didn't get called "anti-Christian."
On the other hand, a hit is a hit.
Posted by: John Ruberry at January 18, 2008 01:46 AMDamn, I knew I forgot to close the moron corral. Sorry.
My favorite is Clinton lied, no one died. Yep, she did.
October 10, 2002, Hillary Clinton lying, (according to steve):
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. ............So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Sorry, steve, you are not a moron. But, according to someone that has no name, 3500 died because of Clinton's lying.
Posted by: Two Dogs at January 18, 2008 09:40 AMwait, september 11th happened during clinton's presidency?
oh, that's right, it didn't.
clinton lied, no one died.
Posted by: steve at January 18, 2008 04:10 PMsteve, your comment had nothing to do with the Trade Center attacks, the reference that you made was to invading Iraq. That's where the "Bush lied, people died" lunacy comes in. I took Clinton's words, which were the exact same as Bush's and made your point for you.
"Clinton lied, 3500 died."
Them's is facts, boy, if you use your logic.
Posted by: Two Dogs at January 18, 2008 09:54 PMwait a minute, are you saying bill clinton or hillary clinton were president in 2002 and decided on a full-scale invasion of iraq?
oh wait, no, you're just confused again.
clinton lied, no one died.
Posted by: steve at January 18, 2008 10:29 PMThanks for straightening me out, steve. Your vastly superior intellect will help you achieve much in life.
I am vanquished by them smarts of yours. Salute.
Posted by: Two Dogs at January 19, 2008 10:06 AMNow, will you please finish making my latte?
Posted by: Two Dogs at January 19, 2008 10:07 AMWhat confuses me is how any Christian can support Bush. I don't want to point out the obvious but "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the ten commandments. Now christian conservatives have no problem upholding this with abortion yet when it comes to A-rabs it does not apply? Explain please.
A.R. Wallace
PS Oh, where is the link to the "ten myths" article?
Mr/Mrs Wallace, if I may be so bold. Our military is not TRYING to kill anyone. I know a couple of those military types, that are deployed, and they never want to kill anyone. Well, okay, I know a few that do want to kill people, but that's another story.
In case you didn't know this, the Bible tries to convince you to protect the weak and helpless, that is what we are trying to accomplish in the Middle East. If there are people in the Middle East, that happen to be Arab, and they attack innocents or our military, they will die. Que sera, sera. According to their religion, they get a bunch of free stuff if they die while trying to kill innocent people that don't practice Islam. Everybody wins!
Maybe I misunderstood part of your comment. Compared to the gianormous, stupendous, monumetal intellect that is the living sir steve, I'm kinda dumb. Are you wanting Christians to modify the Bible to ape the death and destruction demanded in the Muslim's holy book, the Quran?
Posted by: Two Dogs at January 20, 2008 01:29 AMI am glad you brought up the Bible. I have followed Christianity for many many years. The bible is not the end all for we know it is translated and a lot can be changed or modified in translation. However if you are bible loving individual I give you these...
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mathew 5:21-22
When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.
Proverbs 16:7
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Isaiah 2:4
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Matthew 26:52
Those are some of my favorite passages on war and killing. You see my friend Two Dogs if we were truly trying to free the oppressed we would not be in Iraq, we would be right here at home or in Darfur where a true genocide of the innocent people is taking place.
I often wonder how seemingly intelligent people can be so easily fooled by people. I will pray for you in hopes that you will see the true Lord, not the false one created by our government you seem to follow.
peace
A.R.Wallace
I disagree.
Posted by: Two Dogs at January 21, 2008 11:48 AMI disagree with your passiveness, I think that we are doing the right thing. And I appreciate the prayers.
Also, I am not seemingly intelligent, but I believe in doing the right thing, which I believe saving those people was. I must have missed the passage in the Bible that tells me to ignore the plight of the oppressed and to stand by and idly watch as people are brutally murdered by their oppressors, but I'll try to find it, though.
Posted by: Two Dogs at January 21, 2008 11:52 AMTwo Dogs,
May I quote you? Thank you...
"I must have missed the passage in the Bible that tells me to ignore the plight of the oppressed and to stand by and idly watch as people are brutally murdered by their oppressors, but I'll try to find it, though."
You are right we should not stand by. However you avoided my original question. If we were there for the interest of liberating the oppressed from slaughter then why are not policing Darfur? There is a TRUE genocide going on there.
So please, explain to me the difference between Iraq and Darfur. Because I know what it is, however I don't think you want to admit it.
peace,
A.R. Wallace
No, Mr/Mrs Wallace, you don't know what my answer is. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to put down that hotbed of Muslim murdering as well. You see, I am not opposed to say exactly what the problem is. Islam does NOT mean peace, it means murdering anyone who is not Muslim. It's actually written in the Quran, you know.
The Sudan does seem less pressing than Iraq, Iran, Saudi, and a bunch of other indutrialized countries that have bomb making capabilities, however. You see, the Sudan is not known for its overly aggressive attempts to accumulate weapons of mass destruction like, let's say, Iraq. They simply want water, that lies underneath their soil in great quantities, I might add.
And I am really sorry that you think that the Iraqis deserved to be thrown in the plastic shredders by a murdering tyrant. I have no clue why anyone would think that, but your opinion is your own. Again, I disagree with your opinions. But, it's a good thing that you can contradict yourself completely and still maintain that self-righteous attitude. I salute.
Posted by: Two Dogs at January 22, 2008 06:58 PMAh, Perfect you brought up exactly what I hoped you would.
To quote you... "and a bunch of other indutrialized countries that have bomb making capabilities,..."
Hmmm, kind of sounds like the good ol USA.
Then you said... "Sudan is not known for its overly aggressive attempts to accumulate weapons of mass destruction like, let's say, Iraq."
I would also say not just Iraq but the good ol USA as well. You see Two Dogs, you are slowly coming to the conclusion that we are not there just to free oppressed people. Now we are there because there was a dictator who was murdering people AND a threat to the good ol USA. Ah, so because Sudan is not a threat to us the horrific genocide there isn't as pressing?
Where in the bible does it tell us to murder people who we see as a threat?
I am sorry I didn't see where I contradict myself. I never said we should not help the Iraqi people, I just said we didn't go in there just to help them, we went in there for other reasons.
I am getting a good idea of what type of person you are since you quickly resorted to this statement...
"And I am really sorry that you think that the Iraqis deserved to be thrown in the plastic shredders by a murdering tyrant".
Excuse me, where did I say such harsh things? Oh wait, i didn't. It is so sad when people have to resort to things like that. So un-Christian.
Now can you bring something to the table or are you just going to fabricate statements about me and give me canned responses?
peace (true peace, not the republican kind)
A.R. Wallace
Mr/Mrs Wallace, you should try to reread what you attempt to quote and make an effort to understand, you are arguing a point that is ridiculous and has been proven to be such for thousands of years. Close-mindedness is never a good thing, but such is the case with Bush-haters.
So, in other words, to help someone when you actually stand to gain something is a bad thing? Geez, do refrigerator magnets fly off and strike you in the head as you walk by?
The plastic shredder comment was made by me when YOU referred to the Sudanese as innocents and did not make that same statements of the Iraqis. I apologize if you think that freeing the INNOCENTS in Iraq is the right thing, but remember, I am not very smart, so I misunderstood your statements. I am glad that you back our efforts in Iraq. Wait, you said you didn't, but you want us to invade the Sudan. Nope, you don't contradict yourself at all.
Your oblique statements are somewhat hard to follow. I think that you are wrong thinking that Iraqis did not need help from us. That's my opinion and you can maintain your wrongness simply because our soldiers have sacrificed for you. It is guaranteed in our Constitution for you to disagree with what is right unless you break the law doing it. Which again is very common with the Bush-haters.
Posted by: Two Dogs at January 23, 2008 10:25 AMTwo Dogs,
This debate simply started when I said I didn't understand how it was OK to kill A-rabs but not fetuses. You then said we were didn't want to kill but we had to in order to free the oppressed iraqi people.
FYI: "The objectives of the invasion, according to U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. former PM Tony Blair were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."[9] Bush said the actual trigger was Iraq's failure to take a “final opportunity” to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and coalition officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace."
It seems freeing the Iraqi people was third on the list of reasons and the final trigger was a failure to disarm itself. So it seems freeing the people was a side note, not the reason.
Hey, remind me, who profited from all this? Weren't there some republican owned companies getting no bid contracts?
So I ask again, how does "Thou shalt not kill" not pertain here?
Posted by: A.R. Wallace at January 23, 2008 11:16 PMActually, you are mistaken as to why we went into Iraq according to every single published account. It was to enforce the fourteen resolutions passed by the UN. (Or however many, and the Dems also voted to do so. I'm sticking out my tongue right now, by the way.) True enough, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Iraq possessed WMD's, tried to aquire yellowcake, only Joe Wilson disagrees, and Hussein was murdering everyone that opposed him, inluding, but not limited to, members of his family.
Again, as far as your biblical references are concerned, yes, you know that one of the commandments is "Thou shalt not kill." So does my dog. What you fail to understand is that I believe that G-d knows what is in your heart. That commandment does not mean to sit idly by and watch murder happen. Our invasion is backed by doing what was right in my opinion.
If your interpretation of a single line in the Bible prohibits you from making the right move, then maybe you should dig deeper into the information contained in the Scripture. To sit and watch innocents slaughtered might come back to haunt you at some point.
By the way, Barbara Boxer's husband is not Republican and his company received no-bid contracts as well. Your point is taken and understood, is mine? Please try to understand that no-bid contracts are let by the government every single day of the year, including MLK Day. I find it hard to believe that Bush and Cheney called down to the purchasing office and told Jim-Bob to hook their friends up. I think that Jim-Bob might squeal for some cash and your side would be glad to ante up, as if they didn't search high and low to find the Jim-Bob, just to get a Republican President to fall to the level that our last Democrat President fell. Well, minus the rape. It's probably not going to happen in my lifetime, as a matter of fact, I don't think that there are a whole lot of Democrats that reach the level of sleaziness of the Clintons. Chelsea included.
Also, understand that Bill Clinton was impeached because he used his position as Governor of Arkansas to whip his junk out at a woman and then went before a Grand Jury and committed a crime by lying about his tactics of persuation. He was impeached because he was a lying scumbag that thinks nothing of women and has proven that how many times?
How Pam's post has anything to do with George Bush and Iraq is beyond my slightest comprehension. Unless, it's simply tit for tat, which at this point the idiotic folks screaming for impeachment of Bush and Cheney do appear to be trying.
Still, I disagree with your opinions. Pretty much all of them.
And, Pam, once again I am sorry for junking up the place. It's just closed-minded Leftists irk the crap out of me. And they are all that way, every damn one of them.
Posted by: Two Dogs at January 24, 2008 01:22 AMThis is one of the funnier things I've read in a while:
"It's just closed-minded Leftists irk the crap out of me. And they are all that way, every damn one of them."
Close minded? I am guessing you are open minded? Look back at the thread and see who comes off as the more close minded individual.
FYI: I am a registered republican and wear a cross around my neck. However I make my decision based on my beliefs, if I disagree with a republican I admit it, if I agree with a liberal I admit it. The problem with America is people just blindly follow their party and not their beliefs.
You should actually try being open minded and not just open mouthed.
Praying for you,
A.R. Wallace
Mr/Mrs Wallace, I answered your rhetorical question in the most friendly manner that I possibly could. I simply assumed from the onset that you were a card-carrying Bush hater because of your condescending and accusatory tone of your comments. You hit on a couple of the Left's favorite targets, I apologize for stereotyping you by reading what you said.
I answered your question as honestly as I could and you attempted to bring a world of hurt down upon my head. You attacked me. If you see it differently, then again, I must apologize. and in the same manner that I apologized to steve, with all of the same humility.
As far as you being Republican and wearing a cross, I could not care less about that. I really tried to, too.
Yes, I am the closed-minded one. However, you never heard me speak. Asshole.
Posted by: Two Dogs at January 26, 2008 01:18 AMHey, that last word in the comment above was a typo, it was supposed to "Sorry for upsetting you." I ain't too good on a keyboard.
Posted by: Two Dogs at January 26, 2008 01:22 AMI think my thoughts are best summed up with this statement...
"killing for peace is like f*cking for abstinence."
A.R. Wallace
Posted by: A.R. Wallce at January 26, 2008 10:00 AMCover the cross when you talk like that.
Posted by: Two Dogs at January 26, 2008 12:15 PMGod understands I am not perfect and I will make up for that. It is a nice cross, I received it when I was taken on a private viewing of St. Peter's tomb. It was breathtaking.
A.R. Wallace
