Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Sen. Joseph Lieberman Speaks On Clinton -- Sept. 3, 1998

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Khephra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-12-03 11:58 PM
Original message
Sen. Joseph Lieberman Speaks On Clinton -- Sept. 3, 1998
Edited on Fri Sep-12-03 11:59 PM by khephra
(It's public record, so I'm posting it all.)



LIEBERMAN: I was disappointed because the president of the United States had just confessed to engaging in an extramarital affair with a young woman in his employ and to willfully deceiving the nation about his conduct. I was personally angry because President Clinton had, by his disgraceful behavior, jeopardized his administration's historic record of accomplishment, much of which grew out of the principles and programs that he and I and many others had worked on together in the new Democratic movement.

I was also angry because I was one of the many people who had said over the preceding seven months that, if the president clearly and explicitly denies the allegations against him, then of course I believed him.

Well, since that Monday night, I have not commented on this matter publicly. I thought I had an obligation to consider the president's admissions more objectively, less personally and to try to put them in a clearer perspective. And I felt that I owed that much to the president for whom I have great affection and admiration and who I truly believe has worked tirelessly to make life tangibly better in so many ways for so many Americans.

But the truth is that after much reflection, my feelings of disappointment and anger have not dissipated, except now these feelings have gone beyond my personal dismay to a larger, graver sense of loss for our country, a reckoning of the damage that the president's conduct has done to the proud legacy of his presidency and, ultimately, an accounting of the impact of his actions on our democracy and its moral foundations.

The implications for our country are so serious that I feel a responsibility to my constituents in Connecticut, as well as to my conscience, to voice my concerns forthrightly and publicly. And I can think of no more appropriate place to do that than on this great Senate floor.

I've chosen to speak particularly at this time before the independent counsel files his report because, while we do not know enough yet to answer the question of whether there are legal consequences of the president's conduct, we do know enough from what the president acknowledged on August 17th to answer a separate and distinct set of questions about the moral consequences for our country.

Mr. President, I have come to this floor many times in the past to speak with my colleagues about the concerns which are so widely shared in this chamber and throughout the nation that our society's standards are sinking; that our common moral code is deteriorating and that our public life is coarsening. In doing so, I have specifically criticized leaders of the entertainment industry for the way they have used the enormous influence the wield to weaken our common values. And now, because the president commands at least as much attention and exerts at least as much influence on our collective consciousness as any Hollywood celebrity or television show, it is hard to ignore the impact of the misconduct the president has admitted to on our culture, on our character and on our children.

To begin with, I must respectfully disagree with the president's contention that his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and the way in which he misled us about it is nobody's business but his family's and that even presidents have private lives, as he said.

Whether he or we think it fair or not, the reality is in 1998, that a president's private life is public. Contemporary news media standards will have it no other way. And surely, this president was given fair notice of that by the amount of time the news media has dedicated to investigating his personal life during the 1992 campaign and in the years since.

But there is more to this than modern media intrusiveness. The president is not just the elected leader of our country. He is as presidential scholar Clinton Rossiter (ph) observed, and I quote, "the one man distillation of the American people." And as President Taft said at another time, "the personal embodiment and representative of their dignity and majesty."

So, when his personal conduct is embarrassing, it is sadly so not just for him and his family, it is embarrassing for all of us as Americans.

The president is a role model. And because of his prominence in the moral authority that emanates from his office, sets standards of behavior for the people he serves.

His duty, as the Reverend Nathan Baxter (ph) of he National Cathedral here in Washington said in a recent sermon, is nothing less than the stewardship of our values. So no matter how much the president or others may wish to compartmentalize the different spheres of his life, the inescapable truth is that the president's private conduct can and often does have profound public consequences.

In this case, the president apparently had extramarital relations with an employee half his age and did so in the workplace in the vicinity of the Oval Office. Such behavior is not just inappropriate. It is immoral. And it is harmful, for it sends a message of what is acceptable behavior to the larger American family -- particularly to our children -- which is as influential as the negative messages communicated by the entertainment culture.

If you doubt that, just ask America's parents about the intimate and frequently unseemly sexual questions their young children have been asking them and discussing since the president's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky became public seven months ago. I have had many of those conversations with parents, particularly in Connecticut, and from them I conclude that parents across our country feel much as I do that something very sad and sordid has happened in American life when I cannot watch the news on television with my 10-year-old daughter anymore.

This, unfortunately, is all-too-familiar territory for America's families in today's anything-goes culture, where sexual promiscuity is too often treated as just another lifestyle choice with little risk of adverse consequences.

It is this mindset that has helped to threaten the stability and integrity of the family, which continues to be the most important unit of civilized society, the place where we raise our children and teach them to be responsible citizens, to develop and nurture their personal and moral faculties.

President Clinton, in fact, has shown during the course of his presidency that he understands this and the broad concern in the public about the threat to the family.

He has used the bully pulpit of his presidency to eloquently and effectively call for the renewal of our common values -- particularly the principle of personal responsibility and our common commitment to family.

And he has spoken out admirably against sexual promiscuity among teenagers in clear terms of right and wrong, emphasizing the consequences involved.

Now, all of that makes the president's misconduct so confusing and so damaging.

The president's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky not only contradicted the values he has publicly embraced over the last six years, it has, I fear, compromised his moral authority at a time when Americans of every political persuasion agree that the decline of the family is one of the most pressing problems we are facing.

Nevertheless, I believe the president could have lessened the harm his relationship with Ms. Lewinksy has caused if he had acknowledged his mistake and spoken with candor about it to the American people shortly after it became public in January.

But, as we now know, he chose not to do this. This deception is particularly troubling because it was not just a reflexive, and many ways, understandable human act of concealment to protect himself and his family from what he called the embarrassment of his own conduct when he was confronted with it in the deposition in the Jones case. But rather, it was the intentional and pre-meditated decision to do so.

In choosing this path, I fear that the president has undercut the efforts of millions of American parents who are naturally trying to instill in our children the value of honesty. As most any mother and father knows, kids have a singular ability to detect double standards. So, we can safely assume that it will be that much more difficult to convince our sons and daughters of the importance of telling the truth when the most powerful man in the nation evades it. Many parents I have spoken with in Connecticut confirm this unfortunate consequence.

The president's intentional and consistent statements, more deeply,may also undercut the trust that the American people have in his word. Under the Constitution, as presidential scholar Newsted (ph) has noted, the president's ultimate source of authority, particularly his moral authority, is the power to persuade, to mobilize public opinion, to build consensus behind a common agenda. And at this, the president has been extraordinarily effective.

But that power hinges on the president's support among the American people and their faith and confidence in his motivations and agenda, yes; but also in his word.

As Teddy Roosevelt once explained, "My power vanishes into thin air the instant that my fellow citizens, who are straight and honest, cease to believe that I represent them and fight for what is straight and honest. That is all the strength that I have," Roosevelt said.

Sadly, with his deception, President Clinton may have weakened the great power and strength that he possesses, of which President Roosevelt spoke.

I know this is a concern that may of my colleagues share, which is to say that the president has hurt his credibility and therefore perhaps his chances of moving his policy agenda forward.

But I believe that the harm the president's actions have caused extend beyond the political arena. I am afraid that the misconduct the president has admitted may be reinforcing one of the worst messages being delivered by our popular culture, which is that values are fungible. And I am concerned that his misconduct may help to blur some of the most important bright lines of right and wrong in our society.

Mr. President, I said at the outset that this was a very difficult statement to write and deliver. That is true, very true. And it is true in large part because it is so personal and yet needs to be public, but also because of my fear that it will appear unnecessarily judgmental. I truly regret this.

I know from the Bible that only God can judge people. The most that we can do is to comment without condemning individuals. And in this case, I have tried to comment on the consequences of the president's conduct on our country.

I know that the president is far from alone in the wrongdoing he has admitted. We as humans are all imperfect. We are all sinners. Many have betrayed a loved one and most have told lies. Members of Congress have certainly been guilty of such behavior, as have some previous presidents.

We try to understand. We must try to understand the complexity and difficulty of personal relationships, which should give us pause before passing judgment on them.

We all fall short of the standards our best values set for us -- certainly I do.

But the president, by virtue of the office he sought and was elected to, has traditionally been held to a higher standard. This is as it should be because the American president, as I quoted earlier, is not just the one man distillation of the American people, but today the most powerful person in the world. And as such, the consequences of his misbehavior, even private misbehavior, are much greater than that of an average citizen, a CEO or even a Senator.

That's what I believe presidential scholar James David Barber (ph) in his book "The Presidential Character" was getting at when he wrote that the public demands quote, "a sense of legitimacy from and in the presidency. There is more to this than dignity -- more than propriety. The president is expected to personify our betterness in an inspiring way; to express in what he does and is, not just what he says, a moral idealism which in much of the public mind is the very opposite of politics."

Just as the American people are demanding of their leaders, though, they are also fundamentally fair and forgiving, which is why I was so hopeful the president could begin to repair the damage done with his address to the nation on the 17th. But like so many others, I came away feeling that for reasons that are thoroughly human, he missed a great opportunity that night. He failed to clearly articulate to the American people that he recognized how significant and consequential his wrongdoing was and how badly he felt about it.

He failed to show, I think, that he understood his behavior had diminished the office he holds and the country he serves and that it is inconsistent with the mainstream American values that he has advanced as president. And I regret that he failed to acknowledge that while Mr. Starr and Ms. Lewinsky, Mrs. Tripp and the news media have each in their own way contributed to the crisis we now face, his presidency would not be imperiled if it had not been for the behavior he himself described as wrong and inappropriate. Because the conduct the president admitted to that night was serious, and his assumption of responsibility inadequate.

The last three weeks have been dominated by a cacophony of media and political voices calling for impeachment or resignation or censure, while a lesser chorus implores us to move on and get this matter behind us.

Appealing as that latter option may be to many people who are understandably weary of this crisis, the transgressions the president has admitted to are too consequential for us to walk away and leave the impression for our children today and for our posterity tomorrow that what he acknowledges he did within the White House is acceptable behavior for our nation's leader. On the contrary, as I have said, it is wrong and unacceptable and should be followed by some measure of public rebuke and accountability.

We in Congress, selected representatives of all the American people, are surely capable institutionally of expressing such disapproval through a resolution of reprimand or censure of the president for his misconduct. But it is premature to do so, as my colleagues of both parties seem to agree, until we have received the report of the independent counsel and the White House's response to it.

In the same way, it seems to me that talk of impeachment and resignation at this time is unjust and unwise. It is unjust because we do not know enough in fact, and will not until the independent counsel reports and the White House responds to conclude whether we have crossed the high threshold our constitution rightly sets for overturning the results of a popular election in our democracy and bringing on the national trauma of removing an incumbent president from office.

For now, in fact, all we know for certain is what the president acknowledged on August 17th. As far as I can see, the rest is rumor, speculation or hearsay -- much less then is required by members of the House and Senate in the dispatch of the solemn responsibilities that the Constitution gives us in such circumstances.

And I believe that talk of impeachment and resignation now is unwise because it ignores the reality that while the independent counsel proceeds with his investigation, the president is still our nation's leader, our commander-in-chief. Economic uncertainty and other problems here at home, as well as the physical and political crises in Russia and Asia and the growing threats posed by Iraq, North Korea and worldwide terrorism all demand the president's focused leadership. For that reason, while the legal process move forward, I believe it is important that we provide the president with the time and space and support he needs to carry out his most important duties and protect our national interest and security.

That time and space may also give the president additional opportunities to accept personal responsibility, to rebuild public trust in his leadership, to really commit himself to the values of opportunity, responsibility and community that brought him to office, and to act to heal the wounds in our national character.

In the meantime, as the debate on this matter proceeds and as the investigation goes forward, we would be advised, I would respectfully suggest, to heed the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln's second annual address to Congress in 1862.

With the nation at war with itself, President Lincoln warned, and I quote, "If there ever could be a time for mere catch arguments, that time is surely not now. In times like the present, men should utter nothing for which they would not willingly be responsible through time and eternity."

I believe that we are at such a time again today.

There's so much at stake, we, too, must resist the impulse toward catch arguments and reflex reactions. Let us proceed in accordance with our nation's traditional moral compass -- yes -- but in a manner that is fair and at a pace that is deliberate and responsible.

Let us as a nation honestly confront the damage that the president's actions over the last seven months have caused, but not to the exclusion of the good that his leadership has done over the past six years, nor at the expense of our common interest as Americans. And let us be guided by the conscience of the Constitution, which calls on us to place the common good above any partisan or personal interest, as we now in our time work together to resolve this serious challenge to our democracy.

I thank the chair. I thank my colleagues. And I yield the floor.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/09/03/lieberman/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pasadenaboy Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. I'm personally angry
that Feebleman is such a self righteous jerk.

Maybe He'll pick Bill Bennett as his running mate!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
2. He's telling the truth
What Clinton did was wrong. And what you forget to admit is that he voted against the impeachment.

I don't see why the Lieberman bashers have any reason to use this against him, unless they honestly think Clinton's relationship with Monica was perfectly acceptable.

I didn't support the impeachment because I didn't think Clinton's behavior rose to the standardard required to remove him from office. I didn't also like how the VWRC "ganged up on him".

But even I had problems with what Clinton did at the same time. I supported him but didn't approve of his behavior with Monica.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightTheMatch Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Which part was wrong?
Which part of Clinton's behavior was wrong, the affair, or the lying about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. The affair
Also the president shouldn't be fooling around with an intern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. With all due respect
Senator Lieberman had no legitmate reason to comment on the President of the United States in matters which are neither political nor legal. He was giving his same old moralistic tirade from his position as Senator which is completely inappropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Yes he has every right
He's a Senator and has a right to his viewpoint. Would you have felt the same way if Clinton had an (R) next to his name?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. Silly me here I always thought that his job was to
make policy for the good of the citizens of Conneticut and those of the United States.

How was his intereptration of the morality of the matter relevant to the charges of impeachment? As clearly laid out, the grounds for impeachment were utterly ridiculous and served to weaken the use of impeachment as a constitutional tool. Did not the facts of the matter weigh heavily on Senator Lieberman's mind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. He voted no on the impeachment
But what Clinton did was wrong. I don't see why you have a problem with anyone saying that unless you think what he did was perfectly acceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightTheMatch Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Personally? I could have cared less.
About the affair - doesn't bother me in the least, two willing adults and all that. Lying about it? Well, that seemed to cause a never-ending barrel of trouble, he should have just done the whole "admit and repent" thing right off the bat.

Seriously, look at all the world leaders who have had affairs, and look at the european view of the "scandal" -- the whole time, they had no idea why it was a scandal in the first place, because their views on the morality of such acts are different.

Affairs and/or additional sex partners inside a marriage are certainly none of our business, unless we're directly affected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Well
I would agree if the affair was with two people holding parallell positions or not working in the same office. But Clinton was Monica's superior and he knew better than to mess with an intern. I see it as exploitation.

But I also think Monica should have known better and that she was a willing participant. She was only in her 20s at the time and didn't know better to some extent.

Still I do fault Clinton for having an improper relationship with Monica.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightTheMatch Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. She didn't know better?
Really now, I think she knew better. From many of the accounts I have seen, she and her mother basically did anything they could in order to get close to power and influence... and I'd say she got pretty close!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
21. So it would have been ok if Clinton was knockin'boots with
Queen Elizabeth II?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightTheMatch Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Probably.
I just have to say, throughout the entire mess, my only opinion was that Clinton should have told the truth about the affair in the beginning.

As for the actual affair itself, I seriously couldn't care less. It's almost expected to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paschall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #11
37. From all the accounts I've read
...Monica made the first move when she exposed her thong to Bill. Besides, I don't believe she was directly under Bill's authority. And I'm not sure anything that might have arisen between them could have had any bearing on her internship (position, salary, termination) as it was set up. So I don't think the case shows Bill exploited her as his "employee." This was not on-the-job sexual harrassment.

"She was only in her 20s at the time and didn't know better to some extent." Really? Could you please tell us where you got that information? Regardless, that defense obviously wouldn't stand up in court. She was an adult. Period. Retarded adult judgement is not an accepted argument for granting her mitigating circumstances. Shrub's "youthful indiscretions" apparently continued into his late 30s - early 40s. How far do you wanna stretch this post-adolescent immaturity theory? Or do we follow the law?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LightTheMatch Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. What if it wasn't?
Well, what if it wasn't adultery? What if Hillary and Bill had an open relationship? What if they actually do, but they knew that the American public wouldn't be able to understand that?

This is all moral relativism here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #17
35. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #17
36. That really is the crucial issue, isn't it?
The moralists, generally evoking religion, will tell us what the only acceptable forms of relationships and physical intimacy will be. Should you not subscribe to their definition for what is good, you deserve to be destroyed for not living up to their ethics.

The relationship may have been known, and there's nothing wrong with that if it's agreed to: two people may have different appetites, yet still may want to be together. It's nobody's business to tell them they can't do it or that there is only one acceptable version of marriage.

As for Monica, she was the aggressor; many people find powerful older people to be very arousing, and this has been well chronicled about her and her mother.

The implications from the wording were always that it was some version orf serial rape. Many rightists can't believe that some women get VERY TURNED ON by performing oral sex. Some women get off more on that than virtually any other thing. Many rightists can't believe she'd do this unless forced. Many of them are just insanely jealous of Bill for getting it without having to pay for it. Many many many.

As for the lying, those of us who came of age in the 70s and 80s can tell you that it was often easier to get fellated than to "go the whole way", and many women would do so and consider that they hadn't quite "had sex". Not defining sex in his deposition, they left him an out. Legally, he did nothing wrong. Obviously, though, to wag his finger at the people--while not under oath--that he didn't have a sexual relationship is deliberate deception, and not a great sign of character. This, the cover-up, was the only "bad" part of all this.

Grand Jury testimony's secrecy was violated to leak information to the Jones defense, now THAT'S a crime.

Either the conservatives deliberately asked him a wigglable question so he could wiggle himself into trouble--he's veracity challenged, that's been obvious since the beginning--or they were so fucked-up and straight-laced that they couldn't ask specific questions about fellatio, coitus, manual stimulation, and other icky things that real christians should never do for enjoyment.

It's moralizing crap, and it was innuendo to try to make it sound like dominance or rape, and it was deliberately used for advancement by Lieberman. His was part true outrage, but a major part of it was cheap grandstanding for personal gain about something that's none of his business.

Thanks for bringing it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JasonBerry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. It was a JUDGMENT issue
He had the itch in his pants and it shouldn't be looked at as "no big deal." He IS the president and KNEW if something like that were to get out that it would be a scandal. It did, it was and IT DID affect us. We had a president who should have known better having to cover-up a scandal. Is it close to the Bush cartel? Of course not. But, it was WRONG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JasonBerry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. I agree, Carlos
Edited on Sat Sep-13-03 12:11 AM by JasonBerry
To some, Clinton could do no wrong, obviously. We can appreciate the good things and abhor the bad. A married president messing around with a 21 year old intern in OUR Oval Office was stupid and wrong. To Monica, to Hillary, to the NATION.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightTheMatch Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. to the nation?
Come on now, to the nation? Please, are we all puritan still?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JasonBerry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. Yes - to the nation.....see my post #16 above. N/T
~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightTheMatch Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. Saw it...
I see your post, but I just can't agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JasonBerry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. You don't agree?
You don't agree that the scandal (which he knew it would be if discovered) didn't affect the nation? Do you honestly think Clinton was 100% focused on the affairs of the NATION as opposed to covering up his OWN affairs? To know what he could put the nation through - and do it anyway - was POOR judgment and it affected the nation! I cannot see how you cannot see this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightTheMatch Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Sure...
That's why I'm saying his error was lying about the affair for so long. His denials are what caused the problems for so long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #24
29. The scandal would have been fought on the tabloid pages...
not in the halls of Congress. Valuable time and money was wasted in the official investigation of a non-relevant matter. This is not Watergate, Iran-Contra or Teapot dome. By your logic JFK should have been investigated for his numerous affairs on the grounds that Amerika can not handle a wiff of scandal.

Is your dedication to morality more important than the deadly serious issues which faced the nation in 1998? Surely more effort could have been spent on reviewing terrorism threats. How can this even be an issue THE GREATER GOOD would have been not to pursue any action on matters such as this let alone talk of impeachment. All members of congress and certainly the Senator have the intelligence and mental facilities to come to this realization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. 40+ million dollars spent
and republicans still bash Clinton for not doing anything against terror. I agree that Clinton shouldn't have done what he did and he should have focused more on the terror threats, and other important issues facing America...

But, that 40 million cannot be in any way justied. It was the biggest waste of legal resources. For God's sake it tied up the time and resources of the FBI...meanwhile, republicans have the audicaity to say they are stronger on defense.

Clinton's BJs take a back seat to the waste of money spent on the political witch-hunt. What pisses me off more is that Louis Freeh spent more on this bullshit than on the TWA800 crash, Ok City, and probably the impending attacks on the US embassies abroad.

Frankly, people are stupid. This whole discussion reminds me of that ridiculous part of "Bowling for Columbine" where Marilyn Manson (that fucked up GOP schill) claimed that Clinton has so much influence on the youth, and Moore just went along. Unrelated, but shows how even some on the far left are going along blindly with the republican agenda to bash Clinton because he wasn't far enough left.

God, looking back I'm amazed Clinton was able to get anything done with the wackos on the far right biting at his ass. Sure, at times he gave the GOP ammo, and foolishly did let them take advantage of him. Yes I'm angry that he lied to friends and people like Al Gore and Barbara Boxer...But I still can't justify that with the trashing he got from a sensationalising press and people who had a grudge with him from day one...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. It was wrong
I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khephra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #13
34. This is why I like you
I hate most of your opinions, but from time to time you've changed them. Congrats to you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pasadenaboy Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. If he were as concerned with W
lying us into a war, as he was with Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky, I would have more respect for him.

He seems to have selective morality. Doesn't have a problem with pre-emptive war, but has a problem with sexual immorality.

I actually agree with you that Clinton was wrong, I just get sick of the guys who moralize about stuff like this, but don't care how many innocent people die in their unnecessary war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I am voting for Dean
but I don't think the cyber lynching and Character Assasination that Lieberman has gotten here at DU has been fair either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
candy331 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #7
28.  Lieberman minority vote
would be very nil with Afro-Amers(if he needs their vote) even though he said in the debates he marched with MLK. Afro-Amers do not trust him, still remember the Fla debaucle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shanty Oilish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
27. I'm a Lieberman basher....but
He speaks for me up there. Clinton diminished the office, etc. Sullied his own legacy. :thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
30. The problem isn't
that Lieberman spoke out in dissapointment of Clinton's behavior. It was his exagerration of the importance of it.

Lieberman speaks out against the president's behavior, and that is all fine and good, but he really doesn't understand the magnitude of the hatred which was behind the impeachment process. His repeating of the tired mantra that this hurt our kids in some great way is difficult for me to buy.

After all he claims that parents can't watch the news with their kids anymore. I guess it is fine for kids to watch news coverage when what is covered is of people being killed in other countries. News of war and violence doesn't bother parents, but talk of blow jobs does.

Lieberman falls into the same line of thinking that many conservatives do when it comes to culture. He believes that the government has a major part to play in regulating it.

The government shouldn't and it should stay out of people's private lives. He praises the president for speaking out against teen promiscuity. Why is this so great? Why should the president have anything to say regarding teen promiscuity? This is a family matter. Parents and teens should determine morality of teen promiscuity. The more important concern over teen promiscuity is that over sexually transmitted diseases, but once again moral conservatives believe that abstinence is the only way to prevent them. This is foolish and dangerous thinking. The fact is teen will have sex and only the morals passed down by PARENTS, not the government can prevent that. The fact is that in Europe, where the government does not speak about teen promiscuity, teen pregnancy is lower and STDs are lower. Instead they focus on contraceptives and open dialogue.

Anyways, that's off topic, but still it proves my point that the government is trying to get involved in people's business where it doesn't concern them. The assult on privacy is something that all Americans should be concerned avout (especially with the Patriot Act). This House of represenstatives (or as I once heard it called -- the House of Reprehensables), showed true hypocrisy regarding this matter. These were not people to judge the morality of extramarital affairs.

Lieberman's concern of the great harm Clinton's lies cause to society show his own idiotic beliefs, for Lieberman has to my knowledge, not once condemned Bush's policies in the same vein. He may vote against many of them (his record is still fairly moderate to liberal), but he doesn't speak out with the same disgust he had for blow jobs, and lies about blow jobs.

I'm sorry, the president recieving blow jobs, and lieing about them is not the same as lieing about and cooking intelligence, and then fighting a war based on that same bogus evidence, and then dismissing that as unimportant. People have died as a result of Bush's lies. Clinton's lies were undoubtadly emotionally scarring for the Clitons (and especially so for Hillary and Chelsea) but I won't believe for one second that Clinton's lapse of judgement even holds a candle to the lies Bush has made over tax cuts, the war, and basically every other part of his agenda.

This is why Lieberman is despised here. I actually am not a Lieberman basher and would vote for him in a second if for some unlikely chance he won the nomination. Still it irks me to know what kind of lies Lieberman holds in higher regard -- those concerning adultery over those concerning the deaths of hundreds of soldiers and thousands of civilians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khephra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. "The government shouldn't and it should stay out of people's private lives
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maggrwaggr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
26. yawn ........
wake me up when you have something interesting to talk about here.

Who gives a shit about any of this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
31. Well, Joe when y'all get over your self-righteousness,
I found your speech rather hypocritical. Also, what does this mean?

"And it is harmful, for it sends a message of what is acceptable behavior to the larger American family -- particularly to our children -- which is as influential as the negative messages communicated by the entertainment culture."

How is the entertainment industry responsible for Monica and Bill's peccadillos? I mean I think the entertainment industry has broken down barriers of race and homophobia, by portraying minorities and gays as people as likable and real as anyone else. Never have I ever seen a movie or TV program that indicated that a President should be having affairs with nubile, young interns and condoning it.

The entertainment industry works as hard as anyone to bring it's product to us. I mean if you ever saw a movie or a CD being made you would know how unglamorous and labor intensive it is and how disciplined the crews and actors have to be to make it all happen. Why are they always the scapegoat for your moralizing better-than-thou types? Now that I'm finished with this little rant I'll move on to the next one.

To continue, I can honestly say that I never saw a connection between the Whitewater investigation and Monica, Paula or Gennifer and this should never have gotten beyond the tabloid fodder that it was. I think Bill was stupid to do what he did, but damn look at all the other things he did? Why did this have to dominate all the news instead of the real accomplishments the man did everyday. Joe do you think you could accomplish what Bill Clinton did when he was in office even without the distractions of investigation and impeachment. I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC