Who's to say they didn't? I long suspected the entire thing was a setup from one side of the house or the other; the GOP to bring him down, or the Dems, to distract from domestic security and foreign policy errors in the Clinton administration.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:35 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm surprised the Russians didn't ply the White House with Monicas. > > On 3 Dec, 00:58, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You know people for as long as I can remember have called me strange, > > > and for as long as I can remember my normal response as been 'No I'm > > > quite normal, it is you lot that are strange'. I say this jokingly, I > > > have always regarded it in a joking manor, for I know that not all > > > people want to think deeply (and some not even shollowly) about things > > > and not all people 'get' where I'm copming from. > > > > > Increasingly though I really do think people are strange. Like this > > > little gem from Don. > > > > > 'Sure she deserves derision for contributing to the soiling of the > > > American Presidency' > > > > > She deserves derision for saying yes to the most powefull man on the > > > planet when he wanted sexual favours of her? > > > > > Well bugger me, what a strange attitude to have. > > > > I thought I was being chivalrous by not calling her what she was. A > > whore. She was flashing her g-string in the corridors and e-mailed > > her friends about "putting on her Presidential knee-pads" before she > > even met the guy. I've long since recognized I live in this world > > with folks that have different opinions on what is right and what is > > wrong. Hell, I even refrain from judgement as much as possible > > especially when I don't know the full facts. The recent T. Woods > > episode comes to mind. But what we're talking about is well > > researched and documented. The girl was a skank. Maybe she's grown > > up now and handles herself better. I hope so for her sake. It's in > > all our natures to be selfish but banging the teenaged chippy intern > > in the Oval Office antechamber seems a bit extreme. Why not get a > > hotel and a real call girl? His lack of discretion was appalling and > > proves what little respect he has for the Office and, for that matter, > > his wife. Shameful all the way 'round I'd say. > > > > Your attitude is, however, not uncommon. I see it as more evidence > > that our western culture is going down the crapper. Of course these > > things happen all the time in business but in the past it was > > considered a shameful weakness when you got busted. Now it's cool to > > be the Dawg. Makes me ill. > > > > -Don > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1 Dec, 22:17, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I'm biased? Well yeah. Duh. It might be worth your while to reread > > >> your post here when you're feeling a bit calmer. A little bit of the > > >> pot calling the kettle black I think. I disagree on Monica's motives. > > >> Women are collectors just as much as men are. It's part of the > > >> groupie mentality. A cum stained dress is one hell of an autograph. > > >> Clearly it was a memento. You are missing the point when you blame > > >> the girl. Sure she deserves derision for contributing to the soiling > > >> of the American Presidency but that hardly removes guilt from Clinton. > > >> She initially lied herself about the affair. She only came clean > > >> when the FBI told her Clinton was meeting privately with Ms. Mondale > > >> and keeping her waiting at a security check point. Jealousy had her > > >> wagging her tongue; not political motivation. I bet Arch can back me > > >> up on this one. The wife or girl friend will lie themselves into > > >> prison for their man until they think he's cheating on them. Then > > >> it's pay back time. Let's use Occam's Razor here and keep the > > >> emotions in check; shall we? > > > > >> For the record I'm glad he wasn't removed from office. Except for > > >> being a sorry excuse for a man he was a pretty good president. He had > > >> a MUCH better grasp on economics then the current resident of 1600 > > >> Pennsylvania Ave. From your earlier post you seem to agree with > > >> former president Nixon. "If the president does it; it's not illegal." > > >> I still think perjury is a very serious offense. I'm sorry you > > >> apparently disagree. At least if that president is a Democrat. > > >> Something tells me you wouldn't be so forgiving if that president was > > >> a Republican. > > > > >> Don't forget I'm an individual. In your off the rails diatribe you > > >> seem to be lumping me in with every conservative you've ever had cause > > >> to hate. I have no enmity towards you personally and I hope you hold > > >> none towards me. It's your reasoning I have issues with. I have been > > >> ashamed about many things over the years but not about speaking truth > > >> to power. Nor am I ashamed of publicly expressing my support for > > >> keeping as much of my money as I can. How, when or even IF I use my > > >> money to help others should be up to me and no one else. Democracy > > >> seems to be turning into some kind of nightmare 'mob rules' scenario > > >> where the productive people with useful skills work for all the > > >> deadbeats. This kind of society is doomed to fail. > > > > >> Sorry I went off the reservation myself there a tad. The purity > > >> police will be displeased. > > > > >> -Don > > > > >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Justintruth <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > Your so totally biased in your viewpoint Don. > > > > >> > You know that an extraordinary amount of money was spent trying to > > >> > "get Clinton". The special prosecutor remember? Whitewater? etc etc > > >> > etc etc. Years of attempted distortions and abuse of the legal > system. > > >> > Finally they "got him" in one of the oldest traps in the books - its > > >> > called a honeypot - they trapped him with a woman. > > > > >> > Now you can tell this is true by reflecting on one point and one > point > > >> > alone. What woman do you know, who after getting a cum stain on her > > >> > dress during a blow job, will, instead of rapidly getting it > cleaned, > > >> > preserve the stain? What possibly would make her do that? There is > > >> > only one possible explanation. She wanted evidence. That was what > she > > >> > was there for. This was an operation conducted by Linda Trip running > > >> > her operative Monica. > > > > >> > Now Clinton was trying to evade this massive trap and cornered tried > > >> > to evade with semantics under oath... so now you "got him" ... > > >> > suddenly you don't care about sex because you don't need it.... you > > >> > got him on perjury... or so you thought....you masked your shame in > > >> > your audacity... you went for impeachment... it was a "high crime > > >> > or..." Right? > > > > >> > I am not distorting here. This is the truth. A blind man could see > it. > > > > >> > And you accuse *him* of distortion? Talk about taking a splinter out > > >> > of someone else's eye when you have a log in your own! > > > > >> > What you are saying is just such a complete distortion. You want to > > >> > see a liar or a bullshitter, guy? Just look in the mirror. The real > > >> > problem is the destruction of peoples lives that you have cost and > the > > >> > weakening of the ideals we require to remain free. This stuff has > had > > >> > consequences. Line the innocent dead up and drive by them in a car > on > > >> > a highway and you will take hours to pass them. Many of them > children. > > >> > But the worse has been the contamination of our ideals and the > > >> > prostitution of bravery. You should be ashamed of yourself and what > > >> > your "distortions" have caused. > > > > >> > ... and still it goes on.... > > > > >> > On Nov 30, 3:20 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> That was pretty cool. Not sure if you're implying Rummy is lying > here > > >> >> 'cause if that's your point I'm totally missing it. I remember the > > >> >> Glass Box. We had one at the local Jo Jo's which became a Denny's > > >> >> about ten years ago. It was fun to watch the kids try for the > stuffed > > >> >> monkey banging the cymbals together. The image is a good analogy > for > > >> >> the global warmist's efforts to keep alive their failing 'science.' > > >> >> Keep chasing that monkey or dragon or whatever if you want to I > say. > > >> >> It is wise to remember hope is a fragile thing. > > > > >> >> I think i just went Gabbyly enigmatic there. > > > > >> >> -Don > > > > >> >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:53 PM, ornamentalmind > > > > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > The Poetry of D.H. Rumsfeld > > >> >> > Recent works by the secretary of defense. > > > > >> >> > By Hart SeelyPosted Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 1:03 PM ET > > > > >> >> > Rumsfeld's free-speaking verseSecretary of Defense Donald > Rumsfeld is > > >> >> > an accomplished man. Not only is he guiding the war in Iraq, he > has > > >> >> > been a pilot, a congressman, an ambassador, a businessman, and a > civil > > >> >> > servant. But few Americans know that he is also a poet. > > > > >> >> > Until now, the secretary's poetry has found only a small and > skeptical > > >> >> > audience: the Pentagon press corps. Every day, Rumsfeld regales > > >> >> > reporters with his jazzy, impromptu riffs. Few of them seem to > > >> >> > appreciate it. > > > > >> >> > But we should all be listening. Rumsfeld's poetry is paradoxical: > It > > >> >> > uses playful language to address the most somber subjects: war, > > >> >> > terrorism, mortality. Much of it is about indirection and > evasion: He > > >> >> > never faces his subjects head on but weaves away, letting > inversions > > >> >> > and repetitions confuse and beguile. His work, with its > dedication to > > >> >> > the fractured rhythms of the plainspoken vernacular, is > reminiscent of > > >> >> > William Carlos Williams'. Some readers may find that Rumsfeld's > gift > > >> >> > for offhand, quotidian pronouncements is as entrancing as Frank > > >> >> > O'Hara's. > > > > >> >> > And so Slate has compiled a collection of Rumsfeld's poems, > bringing > > >> >> > them to a wider public for the first time. The poems that follow > are > > >> >> > the exact words of the defense secretary, as taken from the > official > > >> >> > transcripts on the Defense Department Web site. > > > > >> >> > The Unknown > > > > >> >> > As we know, > > >> >> > There are known knowns. > > >> >> > There are things we know we know. > > >> >> > We also know > > >> >> > There are known unknowns. > > >> >> > That is to say > > >> >> > We know there are some things > > >> >> > We do not know. > > >> >> > But there are also unknown unknowns, > > >> >> > The ones we > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
