"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"VZ/res0zhra" wrote

People have totally misinterpreted what he was saying here. He was
actually speaking about HRC as he was addressing that comment to Ms. L.
A little cryptic, but hey, I would have been, too! When you're in deep
doodoo it don't matter whose doodoo you're standing in.

Notice the OT added in the subject line. It should have been included in
this tread from the beginning. Now back to the thread.

And that is exactly the kind of attitude that is the root of many of our
problems, today.

Avoid unpleasant consequences, at all costs. Cover your ass. Look out
for number one.

The _honorable_ thing to do would have been tell the truth. The whole
truth. Nothing but the truth.

That _is_ part of the instructions, part of what we swear to, before
giving testimony or evidence in a court of law, isn't it?

That one famous (infamous?) quote does not hold to the spirit of the law.
Far from it.

That one line is why I condemn Clinton. I dislike his behavior. I
dislike many things he did, and approved of, but this one line clearly
shows what kind of man he is. A man without honor. A man that is willing
to evade the truth, rather than face the consequences. A man that did not
deserve to be in the high office he was in, representing the people of
this land, representing the ideals that many have fought and died for.

He may have had the law on his side, but he sure did not have honor on his
side.

He lost any respect I had ever had for him, instantly. He deserved far
worse than what ever happened to him.

Please. I seriously doubt you had any respect for Clinton in the first
place, so why pretend as much and then profess to remove such respect? Do
you call that being "honorable"? Clinton mislead a court about a meritless
civil case that was funded by his political enemies to begin with. So your
definition of "honor" is to voluntarily give legal foder in a case that
never should have seen the light of a courtroom to begin with? His biggest
mistake was trying to mislead the public in the same manner, but in the end
it was a private matter if he wanted to get an extra-marital hummer in the
first place. Most Americans didn't really give a crap about it anyway as he
had higher approval ratings than President Reagan ever did as the
impeachment proceedings were going on in congress. Those that pretended to
be offended by it never liked him in the first place, just like you.
Several members of congress who led the charge against Clinton were cheating
on their own wives at the time or later called Libby's actual perjury
(during a federal criminal investigation no less) a "technicality". In the
end the entire matter was a blight on American politics, and neither side
ever took the high road.

Furthermore, since when have we had an "honorable" President? Nixon? He
was a tax cheat, dishonest to the core, and completely corrupt. Reagan? He
never came clean once on Iran-Contra and even Goldwater never believed him
on the matter. He also presided over one of the most corrupt
administrations in history and when asked about it by the press pretended to
be oblivious to it all. H.W. Bush? He was just as dirty on Iran-Contra and
he pardoned all those who sandbagged the investigation to protect himself.
He also pardoned a known terrorist for no other reason than to further the
political career of his son. Bush the 2nd? No explanation needed there.
So in more than 30 years the most "honorable" Presidents we've had are Ford
and Carter, and both were mediocre Presidents at best.