Quote:
Originally posted by MuadDib
First, he did issue a public aplogy about his sexual misconduct. By apologizing he is admitting he did it and he has never denied the charges. Second, some of the women have come forward and the difference between 3 names and 6 is further irrelevance as there are names and their is guilt. The only question is rather he does this sort of thing a lot or a frickin' lot. Also, the lack of names do not mean the 3 are lying nor is it even related to truth telling. Third, don't tell me that "most" republicans didn't care about the sexual impropriety. The mud slinging started long before Clinton's official testimony and if you really believe that lying to the public is what made them hate Clinton then how can they support Bush who's lies cost lives!
|
Obviously you did not listen to his "apology". He basically said that he may have done some things that at the time was "acceptable" in the name of "fun" and are now thought of in a different light. That's far from admitting sexual misconduct.
Mudslinging goes on all the time, no shit. The real outrage was the blatant lies under oath and the constant appearance of improprieties.
As far as Bush's lies costing lives that's your opinion. Whether Iraq had wmds ready for use or not, Bush would have gotten support for going into Iraq.
You prefer to think everything with Clinton was about sex and some deep hatred of him. I find it interesting that on one hand you say, "yeah he lied about having sex with an intern, no big deal" and on the other you call Arnold a deviant. Hypocrisy? Yeah it seems to be everywhere.