How about Andrew Jackson he was also impeeched? He must have a very favorable rating.

Actually, it was Andrew Johnson. And he, like Clinton, survived it and finished his term in office.

Actually, it was Andrew Johnson. And he, like Clinton, survived it and finished his term in office.

 

Sorry westsider but if was Andrew Jackson easy to confuse but Johnson was never impeeched.

 

Was Clinton also cleared of the Jennifer Flowers incident? I know that won doesn't count because he just lied about moral issues.

 

Clinton obviously is the best politician of our time. If you or I made a mockery of the judicial system the way he did we would be turning big rocks into little rocks. In his case people still love him and defend him ignoring the facts that he is an adulter, perjurer, and is only the second president in the history of our country to be impeeched.

Sorry westsider but if was Andrew Jackson easy to confuse but Johnson was never impeeched.

You're wrong. Do a google search for "Andrew Johnson" and impeached.

 

Or check this out ... Let's get this impeachment story correct

Was Clinton also cleared of the Jennifer Flowers incident? I know that won doesn't count because he just lied about moral issues.

Cleared of what? Was there a crime committed there?

Clinton obviously is the best politician of our time. If you or I made a mockery of the judicial system the way he did we would be turning big rocks into little rocks. In his case people still love him and defend him ignoring the facts that he is an adulter, perjurer, and is only the second president in the history of our country to be impeeched.

I'm not defending Bill Clinton for what he did. He committed perjury ... no doubt about it.

 

My beef was with the anti-Clinton forces that were obsessed with destroying him and impeached him for lying about a sexual tryst, something that had little or nothing do with his ability to perform his job.

 

And ... let's be honest. Clinton has a point about the Republicans' attitude toward the action he tried to take against bin Laden. They accused him of trying to detract attention from Monicagate ... the "Wag the Dog" strategy.

 

In reality, true to the accusation, he was distracted ... because the anti-Clinton forces were bent on pursuing their agenda.

You're wrong. Do a google search for "Andrew Johnson" and impeached.

 

Or check this out ... Let's get this impeachment story correct

Cleared of what? Was there a crime committed there?

I'm not defending Bill Clinton for what he did. He committed perjury ... no doubt about it.

 

My beef was with the anti-Clinton forces that were obsessed with destroying him and impeached him for lying about a sexual tryst, something that had little or nothing do with his ability to perform his job.

And ... let's be honest. Clinton has a point about the Republicans' attitude toward the action he tried to take against bin Laden. They accused him of trying to detract attention from Monicagate ... the "Wag the Dog" strategy.

 

In reality, true to the accusation, he was distracted ... because the anti-Clinton forces were bent on pursuing their agenda.

So where do you draw the line? That's a poor argument IMO. The guys at Enron were still performing their job just fine too, they made a "moral miscue". Perhaps we should have just overlooked that as well.

Much of the trouble with interviews such as these being done by Clinton is that we will never get the truth one way or the other. We have all learned thatwhen a politician speaks, the truth is notnecessarily being stated. Most likely, the words are either a lie or a spin job to make the speaker look good.

 

So, what do we do to get the "truth"? We listen to all the"experts". The only problem is that the "experts" all have their own agenda and, thus, spin the story to meet their goals.

 

Therefore, we never get an honest report of what actually happened. For those who disagree, name one politician/reporter/"expert"/ commentator who is unbiased and who reports without subjectivity. There are none.

37% does not constitute the BULK of the American people.

No, just the bulk of Americans that are responsible enough to enact their civic duty.

You're wrong. Do a google search for "Andrew Johnson" and impeached.

 

 

See I told you it was easily confused. :lol: :lol:

You're wrong. Do a google search for "Andrew Johnson" and impeached.

 

.

 

 

You are correct Westsider and Andrew Johnson was only 1 vote away from being convicted and thrown out of office by the Radicals of his own party.

 

I would quickly add that Nixon would have been impeached and no doubt convicted had he not resigned from the office. :thumb:

No, just the bulk of Americans that are responsible enough to enact their civic duty.

I do my civic duty. I also consider it my civic duty to point out when leaders are taking actions that make our country less safe and are a long term detriment to my country. No one side in a political argument has a monopoly on patriotism, civic duty or love of country.

I do my civic duty. I also consider it my civic duty to point out when leaders are taking actions that make our country less safe and are a long term detriment to my country. No one side in a political argument has a monopoly on patriotism, civic duty or love of country.

I think your missing my point. The 37% that you said is far from the majority was the majority of people who enacted their civic duty, which is to vote. I never made the claim that you didn't enact your civic duty, I just stated the obvious that out of the people who did so, the 37% of the population that voted for Bush in the last election was the majority. I also disagree completely about our leaders taking action to make us less safe. What actions would have made us safer?

At the end of their terms Clinton the First and Reagan went out statistically even (68% approval) but that isn't even a valid point. By 1993, Reagan was incapable of serious campaigning, and more was known nationally about his illness. Clinton, on the other hand, would still be physically able to defeat Bush and run the country if he were legally permitted.

 

OK. Your fantasy is better than mine. Seen any flying frogs lately?

True. "W" would have never beaten W.J.Clinton. Never. Clinton would have beaten him in 2000, would beat him in 2008, would beat him in 2020.

 

And would have lost to Reagan at every turn. What's your point?

The fact of the matter is that while Clinton is a divisive figure in politics, the effect is mittigated because Clinton remains wildly popular for a major politician. Far more so than W.

 

I know that most Limbaugh listeners don't recognize this, but Bill would have won again in 2000 were it legal, and he would win today.

 

I might be wrong, but I think most people are aware of this fact.

I don't think something being illegal really matters to Bill.

YES....A THOUSAND TIMES YES!!!!!

What legacy of military decision making do you base this on?