I protest.

George only knows the haves and the have mores and none of them are interested in anything except wealth.

Compassion?? Right.

Must have been in there with the rape and humiliation of several women.

You are an idiot.

No, an "idiot" would be one who believes the lies that people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and the rest of the Republican attack machine spewed and continue to spew despite there being not a shred of proof for their accusations. An "idiot" would accuse the man in question of "rape and humiliation" despite there being not the slightest evidence to support those accusations.

An "idiot" would be the kind of coward who hides behind a pair of initials and a Yahoo email address while he vilifies those braver than he.

Hi. I'm not a Rush Limbaugh "Kool Aid" drinker, but even if Bill Clinton were a Republican, I would still have had red lights flashing about him.

I can still remember what it felt like to find Richard Nixon had covered for the break-in at the Watergate. I sat next to my mother as we watched him resign. I heard her call the President, whom both my parents had long admired, a "Son of a Bitch". I too, felt the sense of betrayal.

I had no strong opinion regarding Bill Clinton when he entered the White House. Today I can remember the sense of betrayal I felt when he looked America in the eye and said, "I did not have sex . . .", but most of us had figured out he was bold faced lying to us.

Everytime a Democrat is caught in a questionably illegal act, I suspect Clinton is lurking in the shadows - the latest being Sandy Berger stuffing classified documents down his pants and then "losing" them. How loudly it echoes a scenario that became so popular within the Clinton administration.

I saw how the Democrats tried to turn Clinton's trist in the Oval Office into a private affair between consenting adults. Did you know, Ronald Reagan wouldn't remove his jacket in the Oval Office out of respect? Then we have Bill Clinton showing an intern his Panatellas in that very office.

Then the spin was that Ken Starr was sex-obsessed. Oh, please! One of my friends, when I lived in California, would have dinner regularly with Ken Starr. Her husband was enrolled at Pepperdine law school, and they had all become friends. My friend described to me the character of Ken Starr, and I have no doubt whatsoever that he was a very intelligent, honest and decent man.

Do you not remember that Ken Starr was offered the position of President at Pepperdine, and he declined the role of heading up the investigation into the Clintons? It was JANET RENO who insisted on his presence - NOT the Republicans, NOT Ken Starr. Yet Clinton to this day makes Ken Starr the fall guy. In his heart, Clinton must know that he wrongly attempted to destroy a good man's reputation, in order to save himself.

I could site many other incidents that warned me that Bill Clinton was a man not to be trusted. For instance: What happened to all the FBI files that mysteriously vanished, only to reappear in the Clintons' bedroom?

When I see that smirk on Bill Clinton's face, it is so reminiscent of Eddie Haskell, from "Leave It To Beaver". I see him on Larry King, and I see him spinning on stories that I KNOW are not the way he is describing them. I'm not stupid. I know when a man is attempting to put one over on me. This guy is SLICK, and he's good at it.

I wouldn't care if Bill Clinton wrapped himself in the American flag, said five Hail Marys, and genuflected before the Ronald Reagan Library. I would have little respect for him whether he be Democrat, Republican, or some of the above.

What many of us conservative leaning people don't understand is this: When Nixon showed himself for what he was, we were as repulsed as Democrats were, and rightfully so.

It amazes me that that the Democrats are incapable of admitting the obvious about Bubba:
Bill Clinton by his behavior, but more importantly by lying under oath, certainly disgraced the office he held. He was stripped of his license to practice law, so it wasn't just DC that saw it that way). He had FBI files removed (violating seperation of powers), I suspect Hillary did the same with Rose Law Firm records, and Sandy Berger did the same with classified documents at the National Archives (sting or not - he was caught committing an illegal act regarding our national security).

Did you notice Clinton just laughed the whole thing off in a poor attempt at corroberating Berger's excuse? (paraphrase: "Heh-heh, that's just like Sandy to be so SLOPPY. His desk was always a mess."

Interesting response. A little too smug, considering the ramifications. I simply don't buy it. Once again Bill's in the shadows watching another of his boys get their hand caught in the cookie jar.

You might say Republicans don't like Bill because he was a Democrat who was accomplishing great things.

WRONG . . . WRONG . . . WRONG!

First off, he is an elected official (sort of a glorified "Hired Man"). An elected official serves the people - NOT the other way around.

I look at Clinton as a trusted employee, who performed his job better that many, but who betrayed my trust in him, and while representing my interests, dabbled in suspicious activity and brought disgrace to my good name. Even if he were my own son, I could no longer trust him to run my business.

Thanks,
David
Seattle

You had a sense of betrayal when Clinton lied about his adultery. I, on the other hand, had that sense of betrayal when he failed to follow through on his promise of healthcare reform. Yes, he lied. I think we've established that. What did he lie about? What has Bush lied about?

The recent slogan has a lot of truth: When Clinton lied, no one died.

No, Ken Starr wasn't sex-obsessed. He was (and still is) Clinton-obsessed. Ten years of investigation and the best he came up with was a trivial bit of adultery. (Oh, and it's spelled "tryst," just so you know.) Personally, I don't care what Reagan would or would not do in the Oval Office; Saint Reagan sat in that very same office and allowed those under him to lie to the American people. He propped up dictatorships that murdered thousands. He nearly ran the economy into the ground. Under Clinton, on the other hand, we took down a dictator that was effecting genocide. We stopped a couple of terrorist attacks before they happened. We actually managed to reduce the deficit a bit.

And before you claim that it was the Republican Congress that did that, note well that under a Republican Congress we now have a deficit that has far outstripped our worst nightmares.

"An elected official serves the people." Tell Bush that. It looks to me that he's awfully busy "serving" his rich cronies. The "people?" He doesn't even know who they are.

So, Bill Clinton is "not to be trusted" and yet you expect me to believe that Bush is trustworthy? When I called Clinton the better man, I meant it. With all his faults, of which there are many, he is by far a better man than Bush. I wouldn't trust Bush to run a gas station, much less the country. Seems that Clinton did so fairly well for eight years, personal failings notwithstanding.

As for Berger, at the moment he has been convicted of nothing. Accusation doesn't make it so, and the current crop of Republicans have shown themselves all too ready to throw unwarranted accusations around freely.

You won't trust Clinton to run your business, yet you're trusting Bush to run the country? This is the man who has never even run a successful business! Who has been bailed out of every one of his many failures!

I would love to find a politician that doesn't lie. They don't exist. Sure, it's despicable, but it is the reality, and if you think that Bush has any acquaintance with the truth, you're a fool or worse.

You know, this is what I find so distasteful about discussing issues with many liberals. Here I came expressing myself as straight forward as I could. I insulted nobody, and yet, you purpose to insult me by stating I am a fool (or worse) for not believing George Bush lied to this country about Iraq. Yet you site no concrete evidence that he in fact lied. Just because Michael Moore says it, doesn't make it so.

I have read your arguments, and it strikes me that you seem to give Democrats a free pass for the very things you rail against Republicans for.

Here are some examples of what I mean:

You've stated, "Under Clinton, on the other hand, we took down a dictator that was effecting genocide." (Incidently, it's a dictator WHO was effecting genocide, just so you know).

I believe that is what we just did in Iraq.

Was it a case of "Good Idea, Bad Timing"?
I suspect that Iraq was chosen because we had justification to remove him, based on his multiple violations of the Gulf War resolution, including firing on American jets. He'd attempted to assasinate an American president. There was reason to believe information regarding chemical weapons. After all, he'd used them before on his fellow Iraqis.It is highly unlikely that Saddam obediently destroyed them. He had in essence thumbed his nose at the United Nations and the United States, making both to appear impodent to international leaders, particularly in the Middle East.

Afterall, if Bush can't remove a Cheese like Saddam, how can he be taken seriously when he promises to dismantle Osama's network of terrorism?

Bush may have chosen to put America's firepower on display for the benefit of any world leaders who might decide to test our resolve. Hey, it worked on Arafat.

Regardless, the Iraqi people seem to be far more appreciative of our removal of Saddam than the Democrats or the American press give them credit for.

It's certain that the Democrats have nothing to gain by supporting anything George Bush is connected with, and have mounted a rigorous propaganda war against him. All in a day's work, until you recognize that in essence, they are undermining our Commander in Chief during a time of war - by slinging pure bandini (fertilizer) in an effort to defeat him in the November election. Tokyo Rose would be proud.

For example, I watched all of the Democratic Convention. John Edwards announced that UNLIKE GEORGE BUSH, he and John Kerry would have had a coalition of other countries assisting us in Iraq.

In fact, here is a list (as of July 17th, 2004) of the other nations assisting the United States in Iraq:

Thirty-three non-U.S. military forces are contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq.

These countries are Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Rep, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine.

Multi-National Division (South East) - MND (SE) (U.K.)

Headed by the United Kingdom. it has several national contingents under its command, including the following countries: Australia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, and Romania.

Multi-National Division (Central South) - MND (CS) (Polish)

MND (CS) is headed by the Polish and has several national contingents under its command, including the following countries: Bulgaria, Denmark, Dom Rep, El Salvador, Honduras, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, and Ukraine.

Do you think I'll live long enough to hear from the Kerry/Edwards campaign that THEY LIED to the American people?
Fat Chance!

With as many as four justices on the Supreme Court planning on retirement during the next four years, the Democrats are stopping at nothing to distort reality, and run George Bush into the ground on false charges of failure and lying to the American public. Next...

"He (Reagan) nearly ran the economy into the ground." Do you remember interest rates at over 20% under Jimmy Carter? Those rates were more than cut in half during Reagan's administration.

"Republicans have shown themselves all too ready to throw unwarranted accusations around freely."
Oh, do you mean like (Al Gore): "He BETRAYED this country! He PLAYED on our FEARS!! Look...Bill Clinton believed Hussein had WMDs, John Kerry believed he had WMDs, Tony Blair believed it, and so did many global leaders.

Isn't it reasonable to believe that either the WMDs (mostly of the chemical weapon variety) were sold to another government (or worse) during the years we gave Saddam to honor a resolution he violated over a dozen times? Isn't it equally reasonable a possibility that the above leaders were victims of the same faulty information.

Personally, I suspect the former to be closer to reality - but oh yes, I forgot...George Bush is not a Democrat - so he LIED!

Clinton had an asprin factory bombed. Did he do it on purpose? Of course not. He acted based on information that was not the most accurate, but was the best available to him at the time.

As far as blaming George Bush and the Republicans for destroying the economy, Certainly the dot com bust had a tremendous effect on the economy, as did 9/11. CNN claimed TRILLIONS of dollars were lost due to the attack on America. Both these causes dramatically accelerated a downward trend that was already evident as early as October of 2000.

I don't anticipate that you will agree with my take on these things, but that's okay. I thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts.

David
Seattle