Search This Blog

Saturday, September 23, 2006

How do you know when Bill Clinton is lying?

...when his lips are moving, ha ha ha! But seriously, folks. In this latest interview on Fox News Sunday, former President Bill Clinton gets very angry and shakes his finger over the allegations that he didn't go after Osama Bin Laden. I don't know, but the last time we saw Bill so mad is when he was vehemently denying that he had "sex with that woman", the woman being Monica Lewinsky. Who he actually did have sex with. (Seven months after he wagged his finger and sternly told a national audience that he did not have sex with "that woman," the president said during another live television address that he had not been candid because he wanted to protect himself and his family from embarrassment.)

So it makes me think that Bill Clinton is so mad because the allegations are true and this is how he reacts when faced with a truth that is unkind to him in some way. Which is stupid, because the whole Lewinsky thing would have gone away if he had admitted a discretion and this interview will just cause people to look closer at the allegations against him. Which will prove to be true. Even thought Sandy Berger managed to destroy part of the evidence. Does the former President think we are all stupid? We have seen this behavior before...with Bill Clinton, the angrier he gets, the more likely he is lying through his teeth.

10 comments:

highboy said...

"How do you know when Bill Clinton is lying?"

When he opens his mouth. Its comical that he gets all mad about the assertion that he did nothing about Bin Laden. Its a fact he gave UBL 4 passes.

cranky old fart said...

"...the whole Lewinsky thing would have gone away if he had admitted a [in]discretion...

Rofl.

A $49 million witch hunt wouldn't have just "gone away". Something had to be shown for the outrageous, petty and vindictive misuse of power by the right, and this was about the last gasp for that pathetic campaign.

creeper said...

I'm pretty much with cranky on that comment. If Clinton had admitted under oath that Lewinski'd gone down on him, do you seriously believe the Republican campaign to diminish Clinton would have simply petered out amid a shower of "oh, well that's all right then, as long as you admit it" kind of platitudes? Come on, Radar, get real.

The public, on the other hand, was on Clinton's side, approving of him as president by an overwhelming majority after his impeachment. If it hadn't been for the two-term limit, Clinton would have been in office on Sept. 11, 2001.

Given your reasonably even-handed assessment of presidents in recent days, I think if that had happened you'd be ranking him fairly highly right now - but that, like so many other things, is a matter of speculation.

highboy said...

"If it hadn't been for the two-term limit, Clinton would have been in office on Sept. 11, 2001."

Actually, he wouldn't. We'd just then have had Bush Sr. in office, since Reagan would have been elected at least two more times.

loboinok said...

A $49 million witch hunt wouldn't have just "gone away". Something had to be shown for the outrageous, petty and vindictive misuse of power by the right

I believe radar was refering specifically to "perjury", whereas your $49 million figure would include: making false or misleading statements to the FBI and Congressional investigators; interfering with FBI and Justice Department investigations (including that of the death of White House counsel Vince Foster, who was deeply involved in the Whitewater fraud); obstructing justice by destroying documentary evidence that might be used against them; and willfully disobeying Congressional subpoenas. All of these allegations of wrongdoing are astonishingly similar to those specified in the articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon in 1974.

How much did "Watergate" cost the taxpayer?

creeper said...

Highboy,

yes, that's an interesting point, but due to Reagan's health problems, I think of his own accord he would have chosen not to seek a third term, never mind a fourth one. FWIW.

Be that as it may, I'm not in favor of a term limit for the presidency.

highboy said...

"I think of his own accord he would have chosen not to seek a third term, never mind a fourth one."

He might not have remembered to, true. But if he did he wins, hands down.

"Be that as it may, I'm not in favor of a term limit for the presidency."

I have mixed feelings, but the liberatarian in me agrees with you.

cranky old fart said...

Lobo,

If the $49 million investigation actually came up with:

"making false or misleading statements to the FBI and Congressional investigators; interfering with FBI and Justice Department investigations (including that of the death of White House counsel Vince Foster, who was deeply involved in the Whitewater fraud); obstructing justice by destroying documentary evidence that might be used against them; and willfully disobeying Congressional subpoenas"

I have a feeling the Republicans might have impeached him for more than a blow job!

loboinok said...

I have a feeling the Republicans might have impeached him for more than a blow job!

True! It's not like he wasn't generous.

You know as well as I, that he wasn't impeached for a BJ.

cranky old fart said...

lobo,

"True! It's not like he wasn't generous."

????

I think you failed to read my whole post.