Deinonychus antirrhopus

Wow. Clinton was off by a couple months on something, and nobody died. Bush lied about WMDs, and people are getting their heads chopped off. Bring back Clinton, please!

There's so many things wrong with that last, Dan, but it's too devoid of factual content to merit a polite response.

No kidding. I guess what Dan is saying is that it is just peachy to lie so long as nobody dies.

Have I got that right Dan?

I had a long exchange with Andrew of "Byte Back" at Ricky West's on this.

Suffice to say, if lying and deaths are the issue, I am eternally waiting for Dems and Lefties to condemn FDR's lying about the use of troops and open violations of the law in the period prior to Pearl Harbor.

I've met a few (Cassidy at Ricky's being one), who actually DO come out and say FDR was wrong to do so. It begs the question if it would have been better for FDR not to support Great Britain during those dark days, but at least they're consistent.

Most, however, wind up w/ more than a little tortuous chains of "logic".

Clinton "lied" (by the left's new definition), people died in Kosovo... Clinton lied (by any definition), people died in Rwanda, etc.

LBJ lied, people died.
JFK lied, people died.

Damn, that does work sometimes.

Dennis Miller said it best when describing Clinton's epitaph:

"Here, yet again, lies Bill Clinton"

Slartibartfast, your response was probably best - I took a quick shot, and I'll agree it was pretty lame. You can't really draw moral equivalencies between lies, and, sure, Clinton lied in a deposition. It was bad, it caused all kinds of trouble, and I'm disappointed in him. I think we're all in agreement on that point.

I guess the deeper thought (if one can be found) that prompted my original post is more along the lines of "why are you playing 'Gotcha' over the trivia of exactly when what happened?" It seems a little obsessive the way you on the right get yourselves all shook up if Clinton mispeaks about a hummer.

Slartibartfast, your response was probably best - I took a quick shot, and I'll agree it was pretty lame. You can't really draw moral equivalencies between lies, and, sure, Clinton lied in a deposition. It was bad, it caused all kinds of trouble, and I'm disappointed in him. I think we're all in agreement on that point.

I guess the deeper thought (if one can be found) that prompted my original post is more along the lines of "why are you playing 'Gotcha' over the trivia of exactly when what happened?" It seems a little obsessive the way you on the right get yourselves all shook up if Clinton mispeaks about a hummer.

Do try to be consistent. The first paragraph contradicts the second.

I just thought it was interesting how a known liar has basically outed himself.

What's inconsistent?
First paragraph: He lied, and shouldn't have. Second paragraph: Who cares about the tiny details now? Message: The right is obsessed.

The first paragraph says it was bad. The second says it is trivia. So which is it, trivia or bad...or bad trivia?

Bad trivia. Bad old trivia.

Really, Dan? So, if Monica, in her memoirs, wrote that, in fact, she had never done Bill in the Oval Office at all, but only elsewhere in the White House, you don't think it would make one whit of difference?

BTW, boffing an intern, iirc, is actually a legally different problem than boffing an employee. You sure it wouldn't matter, if it were, say, a divorce proceeding, and whether there was infidelity or not would determine child custody?

On such small things are larger issues decided, you know.

Again if it is bad trivia why are you disappointed?

You seem confused.

Not confused in the slightest, Steve. The affair was a dumb mistake, which undercut his standing and damaged his abilities to lead. Very bad, and not trivial.

But, now, in 2003, the issue of whether it started in late 1995 or early 1996 is bad old trivia. Who cares anymore, other than a few right-wingers that are obviously fascinated by the matter.

But, now, in 2003, the issue of whether it started in late 1995 or early 1996 is bad old trivia. Who cares anymore, other than a few right-wingers that are obviously fascinated by the matter.

Were you running around the Lefty blogs writing posting similar comments about the Lefty-Whacko's knotted panties over Reagan? I mean talk about bad old trivia. That stuff is 15 years old!

The thing that actually caught my eye is not that it is bad old trivia, but that Clinton has just outed himself for the liar many said he was. Does it matter much? No not much, just something for the history books now.

Oh and Dan if you think I'm Right Wing you have just proven true the old adage that to a Liberal all non-Liberals are Right Wing.

Steve, As our pseudo-president would say, "You're either with us or against us." ;-) I won't claim to have read enough of your postings to come to a clear understanding of your political philosophy, in all its nuances.

I guess I just don't find the issue of whether his relationship with Lewinsky started in late 1995 or early 1996 much of a smoking gun.

Did you see him on Larry King last night? Good God, it was wonderful to see a president who could marshal facts in a discussion, and speak in paragraphs, and make sense!

I guess I just don't find the issue of whether his relationship with Lewinsky started in late 1995 or early 1996 much of a smoking gun.

Well Dan it goes like this:

Was he lying then, or is he lying now...or is he in fact a pathological liar. I tend to lean towards the latter.

Did you see him on Larry King last night? Good God, it was wonderful to see a president who could marshal facts in a discussion, and speak in paragraphs, and make sense!

No I didn't see him. And yes it was great that time I saw him claim that "Of the people, by the people, for the people..." was in the Constitution...err wait no the Decleration of Independence. Oh, nope neither of those documents (it is actually in the Gettysburg Address...can you imagine the reaction from Left Wingers if Bush did that?).

Or that time he told the small business guy to "just raise the price of your pizzas a buck, I'd still buy them [like he'd actually pay as President]," in response to a statement that the businessman couldn't stay in business if Clinton raised taxes on businesses to pay for health care. Yeah that was a great one too.

Now, you are probably thinking, "See, see!! I was right Steve is an obssessed Clinton hater!!!" No. I'm just not going to elevate him to demi-god status. Those are two incidents (I have some more if you need them) where Clinton said things so teeth grindingly stupid that I recall them rather well.

Clinton can be a very good speaker. He really spoke like he cared. But to me the second paragraph above showed me he did not. His thinking was superficial and shallow. His claims of caring were false pretenses. The first paragraph highlights even smart guys like Clinton can make Bushisms (and given the way Bushisms--and Kerryisms for that matter, are concocted these days I'm sure I could come it with many for Clinton too).

Clinton was an idiot about economics. Sure he managed to get some good people to solve the deficit problem (with a big dose of luck there). Clinton had enough smarts in that area to not screw up the last expansion (i.e., no more tax increases). But elsewhere he was an idiot on economics. He said things that anybody who sat through econ 101 (or whatever the introductory econ course is called) should know are patently stupid.

"Clinton was an idiot about economics. Sure he managed to get some good people to solve the deficit problem (with a big dose of luck there). Clinton had enough smarts in that area to not screw up the last expansion (i.e., no more tax increases). But elsewhere he was an idiot on economics. He said things that anybody who sat through econ 101 (or whatever the introductory econ course is called) should know are patently stupid."

Really?

Steve - I'm sure you've "lied", too - my point was that late '95 vs. early '96 looks like more of a mistake than a lie, and, either way, hardly amounts to getting yourself so excited about.

Also, I'm not surprised that you could find a few quotations from Clinton you disagree with.

Dan:

This isn't a conversation we're talking about here: This is a President's memoirs. For which he was paid one of the biggest advances in history.

This is a large part of what the public will see as the President's actions and history, when time has gone by.

Don't you think that, WHICHEVER IS CORRECT, Bill CLinton has a responsibility to get his dates right (I'm not even saying that the ones in the book are right, I"m saying that he needs to get his dates right whichever the case).

This idea that he might, somehow, have just slipped up is simply wrong---imagine if Nixon had said that he actually HAD ordered the burglary, frex, what that would mean for the historical record.

And, in this case, it holds even greater significance because, if the version in the book is correct, this means that the President perjured himself. That the impeachment (which was due to PERJURY, not SEX), was, in fact, justified, i.e., he actually did lie to the American people, and not simply once.

If you want to talk about legacies, this is an important aspect of the legacy.

Steve - I'm sure you've "lied", too - my point was that late '95 vs. early '96 looks like more of a mistake than a lie, and, either way, hardly amounts to getting yourself so excited about.

Ha ha ha ha. That was funny. Are you always this credulous when it comes to those you support?

Also, I'm not surprised that you could find a few quotations from Clinton you disagree with.

Oh, it is more than a few. Those were just two off the top of my head. Overall Clinton was an okay President. He had a pretty easy time of it as nothing truly horrible happened on his watch. He inherited an expanding economy, and did the right things to keep it going, and got lucky on that score too. Other than that, he was nothing special.

And, in this case, it holds even greater significance because, if the version in the book is correct, this means that the President perjured himself. That the impeachment (which was due to PERJURY, not SEX), was, in fact, justified, i.e., he actually did lie to the American people, and not simply once.

Oh c'mon Dean. Clinton's a likable guy. Cut the guy some slack.

Steve,

You're right. And ya know, since OJ was exonerated, I'm gonna hang out w/ him as well. And since no one's ever convicted Michael Jackson, I'll just send my kids to Neverland Ranch.

'Cuz, you know, they're all just swell folks!

There you go. OJ's innocent, Michael Jackson is kid safe, and Bill Clinton simply forgot when the right date was.

Glad you're finally being reasonable Dean.

Vote Nader!