Hi Arthur et al, Every President lies all the time, using national security as the excuse. It was about sex as that is a topic that the accusers felt would be understood by the public, especially their religious supporters. And the press loved it as they do with anything with sexual overtones. Just check out your supermarket checkout counter to see what Americans (and others?) are reading.
The current Administrations appear to be imprisoning citizens without access to Constitutionally proscribed access to legal council. I would consider this much more of an impeachable offense than lieing about an affair. Don't you? Dennis Paull Half Moon Bay, CA At 10:15 AM 9/3/2002 Tuesday , you wrote: >Clinton lied under oath. For the chief law enforcement officer of the >nation this sets a bad example. You can't run a nation on a wink and a nod. > > >It was not about sex. > >arthur > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 12:49 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; William B Ward >Subject: Re: An Uncertain Presidency An Uncertain Time (was an Uncertain >Britain) > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "William B Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 1:55 PM >Subject: Re: An Uncertain Presidency An Uncertain Time (was an Uncertain >Britain) > > >> Lawry, >> >> You can't treat a crook honorably. Gore's mistake was that he failed to >> distance himself early and sincerely from Clinton. >> >> Bill Ward > > >Nonsense, if any one of us had fifty million dollars spent on entrapment we >would all fail. I usually agree with you but your statement makes no sense >to me whatever having lived there and worked in the White House. I've >worked in every situation other than a metal factory and there is not a >single soul that would escape such scrutiny. I would venture that IF >there is one, he or she is devoid of initiative and would consider >imagination a mortal curse. > >What you got Clinton for would have been laughed off in the past as >civilized and gentlemanly and Ken Starr would have been considered the >religious lying fanatic that he is. Read his church dogma and then ask >yourself how he could send his beloved children to an Ivy League school >believing that horse doo doo. Princeton would be like sending them to >live in the wealthiest red light district in the city. Was he supposed to >convert them or was he just self-serving and hypocritical? Remember MDs >used to masterbate women as relief for hysteria. That is the mentality >that is created from the mind of a Ken Starr. > >Opera makes you look at lots of different cultural alternatives. The >Italians are more civilized on this. They give the concubines of their >leaders businesses and help them make a living for the rest of their lives. >Only this nutty puritanical Judeo-Christian culture makes sex a sin and >lying about it a felony and then elects an alcoholic who lies about his >drugs and women, serves alcohol in the White House when his religion forbids >it and makes him a hero of the alleged religious right wing. No wonder we >are going into another ritual of human sacrifice in Iraq. Raising the >speed limit ten miles an hour and murdering the young and retarded in prison >didn't provide enough respite for all of those new babies born as a result >of making abortion a sin. Well it is all a sin in that nutty system. >But crook? No Nixon was a crook, Clinton was a human being with the crazy >guilts of his religion but the intelligence to continue to be a half way >decent President in spite of them. I usually agree with you but you got me >on this one. > >Ray Evans Harrell > >
