Volkhart Baumgaertner wrote:
>
>
> Apart from that, most of Europe did not understand how a people could
> actually try to empeach a president who
Impeach. He's only the 2nd president to have been dishonored that way.
Nixon would have been as well, but there existed at that time honest
politicians in his own party (The recently deceased Elliot Richardson
for one) who refused to further support Nixon's lies and coverups.
Unfortunately, no such Democrat exists today.
> - at least this is how it looks from
> over here - in many ways did more for his country than most of his recent
> predecessors, leading it out of a deep depression
Huh? Did I miss something? Was Clinton elected in 1932 or 1992? The 80s
were such a successful decade, it was described as the 'age of Greed' by
the biased media. People making so much money because of the greedy
republicans. Money money money they said. Hmmm ... the 90s have been
even more so, but now it's great! And it's due to the great Clinton!
> into flourishing
> prosperity, just because he lied about his private affairs when asked
> questions violating his private sphere, questions that had nothing to do
> with his job, questions that nobody had a right to ask him.
Do you understand the word 'blackmail'? Do you see how that could be
used in a situation like this to compromise a president? In fact, it
very may could have, just we don't know about it.
>
> Certainly it is wrong to lie, but Clinton's lies were somehow in
> self-defense to protect his privacy and therefore, IMHO, more justified than
> all the other lies just about all politicians tell us on a daily basis.
Another moral relativist. It's OK to do this real bad thing if these
conditions are met. 1st step to anarchy in my book.
George
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|