Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

He knew what the nature of the question was, and semantics and technicalities or not, he gave an intentionally misleading answer.

All of this stuff about "the definition of sex" is bullshit. It's called oral sex for a reason. Can this be any less blindingly obvious? Clinton intentionally meant to mislead the court with his testimony, regardless of the definition of sex. In the same way a three year-old will steal a brownie before dinner and lie to his parents with the chocolate still on his teeth and hands, Clinton lied to the court. You can't split hairs, you can't "bend the truth," Clinton lied under oath.

Fellatio is defined as "oral stimulation of the penis." That's essentially 'oral sex,' except reproduction, at least to the best of my knowledge, won't take place.

At 5/2/06 04:44 PM, fli wrote: he lied...
But the question remains:

"Who gives a fuck?"
It is, after all, not a governmental affair, but a personal family one.

No, it was a legal question. He was being sued for sexual harassment. To subvert Paula Jones' legal right to bring him to trial, he committed perjury. Stop trying to pretend it's ok just because it's about sex.

Next question:
"Why is nobody conducting investigations in a few of Bush's scandalous affaris that effects this nation and the world... including the pretext's of the Iraqi War?"

Why is no one investigating Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Edwards, etc, who all made the same contention? Mainly because there is no evidence that he lied, and with the release of the Iraqi papers, it seems that most of his contentions were absolutely correct. Fascinating. Why AREN'T we investigating that guy who took us into a war with what seems to be mostly correct intel? I'm confused on that one as well.

At 5/2/06 05:07 PM, fli wrote: Oh yes Rooster--

Blowjob > War...

Yes Fli Perjury +Other Felonies> War for Our Safety that removed a murderous dictator and freed millions of people from an oppressive reign

Once again,
You've proven yourself infallible.

Once again, you prove yourself a partisan hack.

The Republicans can do no good....The Democrats can do no wrong.
Give me a break.

At 5/2/06 05:09 PM, Dranigus wrote: They didn't ask Bill Clinton if he had sex with an intern, they asked if he had sexual intercourse with her. And he said no.

Yea, that public clip of him saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." "What does the word 'is' mean?" "Ms. Lewinski and I, we never did anything together." Yea, none of those ever happened.

It's not a matter of interpretation or definition. It's a fact that he didn't have sexual intercourse with her, he had blowjob from her. That's a difference. I wish people would understand that and besides just because if the President had lied, doesn't mean he was a bad president.

It wasn't just lying. It was perjury. People need to understand that committing several felonies isn't ok "just because you were trying to cover up a blowjob".

I mean take the worst president of all time, Grant. Now that was a horrible drunk president. And he didn't lie at all, he just drank trillions and trillions of gallons of alcohol throughout his entire 2 terms.

Gee, because loving the sauce makes you a bad President? JFK was a horrible adulterer, and a drunk, and he seems to be regarded pretty well.

And just because he did something with a woman that was sexual, doesn't mean he was a bad president either.

No, it was all the stuff he did AFTER that. Bill Bennett, Republican said it about Clinton this way. "Does having an affair make you a bad President, or even a bad person? No. But when that person commits crimes to cover it up, it's no longer OK." (paraphrase)

I don't understand why people have to be so stupid. Shouldn't we be more concern about the policy the president is taking us into than the crap that involves his personal life?

Tell me why we shouldn't be concerned with the President committing felonies?

Oh yes Moral--

He lied.
Had he said that he walked his dog when he didn't... well, not even its frivilolity will deter justice to happen because it's a lie. Not even several thousands and thousands of dollars to fund an investigation will prevent the truth: That was Bill's cum stain on Monica's blue dress.

You are so stuck in partisian bickering that even the most absord of things seem... A-O.K.

"Well, Liberal this... And Liberals... that...." Yes, yes-- we've heard it before.

I don't know.
I just think that if something as big as, perhaps, this war, and if there were scandals sorrounding it like, let's just say, the possibility of faulty pre-war pretexts and unscrupulous evidences, then perhaps we should not overlook it but investigate it to make sure that whatever president has been truthful to us?

But bah-- Liberal politics.

We have bigger things to do such as overlooking national and world affairs in favor of petty Maury Povich material.

Fli, you know how Republicans operate. They use a wedge issue, or bring up something that everyone knows about but is really irrelevant.

At 5/2/06 05:37 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Yes Fli Perjury +Other Felonies> War for Our Safety that removed a murderous dictator and freed millions of people from an oppressive reign

Yes

Consentual adulterous affair > the lives of our friends and family in the armed forces depending on the validity of our government's evidences for war.

Bravo.

At 5/2/06 05:41 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Fli, you know how Republicans operate. They use a wedge issue, or bring up something that everyone knows about but is really irrelevant.

You know--
I don't know how Republicans operate.

I think that we should try our best to remove ourselves from this type of thinking... and concentrate on the issue. (Unlike som people here.. ahem... No names mention... just pay attention.)

Otherwise,
Everything boils down to "Republicans this... Liberals that..."

At 5/2/06 05:40 PM, fli wrote: You are so stuck in partisian bickering that even the most absord of things seem... A-O.K.

fli, take a good look at your own arguments. You're essentially arguing that a man who uses his power to commit adultery and then cover it up should be allowed to retain his position without any consequence.

"Well, Liberal this... And Liberals... that...." Yes, yes-- we've heard it before.

Now you're making up things. If you had bothered to respond to my actual words and include them in quotes, you would be looking very foolish at this time to everyone.

I don't know.
I just think that if something as big as, perhaps, this war, and if there were scandals sorrounding it like, let's just say, the possibility of faulty pre-war pretexts and unscrupulous evidences, then perhaps we should not overlook it but investigate it to make sure that whatever president has been truthful to us?

There has been investigation upon investigation of the pre-war intelligence, Bush's claims, etc. Some of them have concluded that Bush was mistaken, none of them with any credibility have come to the unmistakable conclusion that Bush forged documents, lied purposefully, etc. And last time I checked, poor judgment alone is not enough to impeach a President.

You're living in a fantasy world.

Yes in all practically they did catch clinton in a lie. As it had been defined during the paula jones trial, "sexual relation" was defined as "physical contact with the intent to arouse or gratify (source) which would naturally consider acts like fellatio and cunnilingus.

The question becomes why was this testomony even extracted during the paula jones trial? As in, how relavant are consentual sexual encounters relavant to a sexual harassment case? I know clinton protested furiously about how that testomony was taken for political reasons only and really had no relavance in the actual case.

So my question to the board is it, or should it be common practice to investigate all aspects of a person's sex life during a sexual harassment trail.

At 5/2/06 05:40 PM, fli wrote: Oh yes Moral--

He lied.
Had he said that he walked his dog when he didn't... well, not even its frivilolity will deter justice to happen because it's a lie. Not even several thousands and thousands of dollars to fund an investigation will prevent the truth: That was Bill's cum stain on Monica's blue dress.

Felonies are frivilous? Gotcha.

You are so stuck in partisian bickering that even the most absord of things seem... A-O.K.

You're kidding here. Your very argument is that a man who lies under oath is ok, but a man who accidently oversells the danger of a rogue nation is impeachable. I'm sorry, but at this point, if Bush was a liberal, I have no problem believing you'd be rooting him on.

"Well, Liberal this... And Liberals... that...." Yes, yes-- we've heard it before.

Uh huh, write off crimes of a liberal because he's a liberal. Nothing partisan there.

I don't know.
I just think that if something as big as, perhaps, this war, and if there were scandals sorrounding it like, let's just say, the possibility of faulty pre-war pretexts and unscrupulous evidences, then perhaps we should not overlook it but investigate it to make sure that whatever president has been truthful to us?

.......9/11 Commission? Ridiculous. Yea, it was so untruthful that all but 3 Democrats who criticized the President on 9/11 in the Senate voted to continue the war. That shows just how much nonsense you're peddling here.

But bah-- Liberal politics.

Bah bah, liberal apologetics. If Bush did a quarter if the crap Clinton did, I'd support his immediate removal and criminal trial.

We have bigger things to do such as overlooking national and world affairs in favor of petty Maury Povich material.

Felonies, abuse of power, and perjury are petty. Gotcha.

At 5/2/06 05:43 PM, fli wrote: Consentual adulterous affair > the lives of our friends and family in the armed forces depending on the validity of our government's evidences for war.

Bravo.

YES, Felonies and abuses of power>Legal war

You're not an idiot. And I'm not buying this crap that you somehow don't understand the consequences of the actions. No one's buying that you don't understand that perjury is wrong. And I'm sorry, but your out and out right BULLSHIT that someone dying automatically makes the war wrong is idiotic and is nothing BUT partisanship. Way to go, Chuckles. I'm sick of Clinton apologists who pretend that it's no big deal, then point out that Bush made us go into an "illegal" war and that somehow him presenting us with "faulty information" (which seems increasingly unlikely) automatically means he lied to us. And I'm sick of them then turning around and pretending that it's not the same stuff that Bush Sr. and Clinton had been feeding us for a decade, and it was true...until Bush Jr. took power, and that somehow their precious liberal leaders were just mistaken, but Bush LIED. Bullshit. All Around. You know it.

At 5/2/06 05:53 PM, jmaster306 wrote: The question becomes why was this testomony even extracted during the paula jones trial? As in, how relavant are consentual sexual encounters relavant to a sexual harassment case? I know clinton protested furiously about how that testomony was taken for political reasons only and really had no relavance in the actual case.

So my question to the board is it, or should it be common practice to investigate all aspects of a person's sex life during a sexual harassment trail.

You're kidding right? What does a person's history of using his office and abusing his powerto procur sexual favors have to do with a case of....using his office and abusing his power to procure sexual favors? How can you honestly say that with a straight face? Do you really not see how a pattern of sexual harassment helps strengthen a sexual harassment case? Change sexual harassment with anything else, and you will hopefully see the evident absurdity of your position.

At 5/2/06 10:59 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: I don't recall catholic priests offering "depends on your definition of sex"

Usually when you bust a nut all over a chicks dress, you've had sex.

Should be simple enough.

He said he didn't have sexual relations..

Meaning a good old hand job would qualify.

However he didn't get impeached for cheating on his wife (although that didn't help) but that he lied under oath.

Simply put, when Clinton lied, no one died. A little drycleaning was needed, but nothing terrible happened.

Wolven, you seem to accuse alot of people of saying liberals do no wrong republicans are always bad, yet you are saying the same thing but in reverse.

Okay Clinton did this
Perjury in a sexual harrassment case
Gave faulty engineering plans for nukes to Iran
dropepd the ball on Rwanda and Somalia

He didnt do this
Pass secrets to the Chinese. It seems there was a spy since mid-1980's (correct me if Im wrong, that means it occured under Bush Sr watch). It wasnt discovered until 1997. This is a far cry from President Clinton passing the secrets himself.

President Bush Jr did this
Mislead the American public and international community with partial, old or intentionally skewed evidence of Iraq's WMD programs
Authorized wiretaps on American citizens without a warrant
Dropped the ball on the Sudan
Authorized or atleast knew about the use of CIA blacksites
Sanctioned torture

Wolven you said you would all for Bush's impeechment if he did 1/4 of what Clinton did. I would say Bush has equaled if not exceeded Clinton. But it seems Republicans can do no wrong and Democrats are always evil. I mean what Bush did was clearly just to protect American people, while Clinton only protected himself with perjury and wanted to desperatly help the Iranians by giving them faulty plans.

Oh and your statement of felonies>leagl war is incorrect. Bush's war is illegal under international law. To be a legal war it would have to be sanctioned by the UN or be in defense of hostile actions towarxs the US. Iraq never attacked, nor was ever in a position to attack the US, and the UN definatly never sanctioned the war.

Please explain why you think this was a legal war?

It wasn't a legal war (Just to expand on what JoS said) because:

1. It wasn't sanctioned by the Security Council
2. There was no imminent danger to the US or to US interests and/or allies.
3. No evidence existed that Iraq was harboring terrorists (though it WAS paying money to the families of Palestinian terrorists/suicide bombers)
4. Hussein was a dictator, but the inspectors did not present conclusive evidence of his possession of WMDs (i.e. NBC weapons)

Etc.

At 5/2/06 05:53 PM, jmaster306 wrote: So my question to the board is it, or should it be common practice to investigate all aspects of a person's sex life during a sexual harassment trail.

When both women are under his immediate sphere of influence, and one is claiming sexual harrassment, I think it's extremely relevant he be truthful in regards to his other affairs with secretaries and whatnot.

If Monica didn't fear for her job, do you think she would've kept the evidence?

Anyone else ever ask themselves that?

Ever?

At 5/2/06 07:59 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Simply put, when Clinton lied, no one died. A little drycleaning was needed, but nothing terrible happened.

When the Enron execs lied about their company stability and artificially inflated their stock prices, no one died either.

At 5/2/06 08:09 PM, JoS wrote: Oh and your statement of felonies>leagl war is incorrect. Bush's war is illegal under international law.

JoS, are you high or are you choosing to ignore the real reason why the UN didn't sanction the war? I'll give you a hint: the phrase starts with "Food" ends with "Scandal" and has "for Oil" in the middle. Give up yet?

To be a legal war it would have to be sanctioned by the UN or be in defense of hostile actions towarxs the US. Iraq never attacked, nor was ever in a position to attack the US, and the UN definatly never sanctioned the war.

Iraq did commit hostile against the US. Iraqi forces not only fired at American airplanes, but shot at British and UN ones as well. Shooting at these aircraft was in clear violation of the Cease Fire Treaty Saddam agreed to after the Gulf War. Not only did Saddam perpetrate aggressive acts, but violated 17 UN resolutions by building up his military again. I guess the US is the only manly nation around to smack the crap out of little, dissident dictators.

Please explain why you think this was a legal war?

Someone had to enforce the rules, and when someone gives the UN the one-fingered salute to their regulations the US has to play the muscle. We had to carry on the War on Terror somewhere else; Saddam and his punk sons were just unlucky enough to get the Wanko Ticket in the Asshole Lottery.

Lol, Dennis material.

At 5/2/06 09:28 PM, GunCrave wrote: JoS, are you high or are you choosing to ignore the real reason why the UN didn't sanction the war? I'll give you a hint: the phrase starts with "Food" ends with "Scandal" and has "for Oil" in the middle. Give up yet?

Although this isnt about the war in Iraq I will quickly adress this and then thats the end of the talk about this here. Ol for food alledgedly envolved people within the UN, but as far as I know it didnt envolve say Russia, or France. Yes other countries are able to veto shit in the SC. Go whine about it. Cant expect you are the only ones who get to do so.

At 5/2/06 10:11 PM, JoS wrote: Oil for food alledgedly envolved people within the UN, but as far as I know it didnt envolve say Russia, or France.

When news first came out about the scandal, the Prime Minister of France and his son were both on the list of people receiving major kickbacks. However, I believe Russia only had some small-fries receiving kickbacks.

Is it coincidence that France was the only country in the UN who completely refused to support a US attack on Saddam's regime? Personal kickbacks > Justice + World Safety.

At 5/2/06 08:07 PM, JoS wrote: Wolven, you seem to accuse alot of people of saying liberals do no wrong republicans are always bad, yet you are saying the same thing but in reverse.

We've been over this JoS. I have done plenty of complaining about Republicans, and Bush in particular. I've criticized the way he handled the war in Iraq, his weak border security policy, etc. And I've said that if Bush Sr. had done his job and taken Saddam out that we wouldn't be in this situation today. And you've also seen me DEFEND Clinton. So don't give me this "You never bash Republicans BS"

He didnt do this
Pass secrets to the Chinese. It seems there was a spy since mid-1980's (correct me if Im wrong, that means it occured under Bush Sr watch). It wasnt discovered until 1997. This is a far cry from President Clinton passing the secrets himself.

President Bush Jr did this
Mislead the American public and international community with partial, old or intentionally skewed evidence of Iraq's WMD programs

Well then JoS, tell me how it is that Bush Sr. told the truth, Clinton told the truth and Bush Jr. lied. It's crap and you know it. If the evidence was faulty I have no reason to believe that he didn't buy into it. And really, neither do you. And when you start condemning Hillary Clinton, Kerry, etc, then I'll but that nonsense that you actually believe the war was waged on false pretenses. Oh, and to shoot your assertion down FURTHER, if even the Democrats in the Senate believed half the crap that they spew about the war on Iraq, why did they reauthorize it in a second vote (minus the three of course).

Authorized wiretaps on American citizens without a warrant

Yea. And he kept Congress informed. Both Republicans and Democrats. No one seemed to think anything was wrong until it went public. Blame all the 8 he kept informed as well, including the Democrats, or get off of it.

Dropped the ball on the Sudan

Oh yes. Yes he did. Though I've got the funny feeling that if he actually intervened half the people who bitched that he was doing nothing would complain he was even more of a war mongerer. He can't win.

Authorized or atleast knew about the use of CIA blacksites

And?

Sanctioned torture

Hmm, that bill he signed into law banning torture. Never happened huh? All those investigations into it, all the convictions. Never happened? Please.

Wolven you said you would all for Bush's impeechment if he did 1/4 of what Clinton did. I would say Bush has equaled if not exceeded Clinton. But it seems Republicans can do no wrong and Democrats are always evil. I mean what Bush did was clearly just to protect American people, while Clinton only protected himself with perjury and wanted to desperatly help the Iranians by giving them faulty plans.

Yea, again, you're full of crap. The best thing you have is that he didn't help Sudan, but Clinton didn't help Rwanda. Both AWFUL calls that cost a lot of human life. But neither are impeachable. Clinton committed crimes, and all Bush has done is impliment policy you disagree with. Torture? Got punished. Wiretapping, unethical, but no one can quite say why he didn't have the power. War in Iraq? Let's assume he did lie. If we took out every person who "lied" to us, then we'd pretty much have to fumigate Congress and start from scratch. And I know you're not suggesting that kind of response.

So stop the crap about me being a partisan. We both know it's crap. You've been debunked on this crap before yet you keep spouting it. How many times have I linked you to the Clinton speeches that say the exact same thing? If Bush lied, Clinton did too, and he bombed another country (without UN approval) for no reason. We should've removed him.

At 5/2/06 10:26 PM, Draconias wrote: Is it coincidence that France was the only country in the UN who completely refused to support a US attack on Saddam's regime? Personal kickbacks > Justice + World Safety.

Umm Germany. And France was less for oil for food and more for the fact French companies had deals worth billions in Iraqi oil fields, that were promptly cancled by the new Iraqi gov't.

At 5/2/06 11:04 AM, JoS wrote: Unless you can show me somewhere that it is written that there cannot be a relationship between co-workers in the White House (regardless of marriage) there is no basis for a pay cut or any kind of action against him. Calling him a slimey bastard just goes to show your aprtisan hackery. You acknowledge since there is no set in stone definition of sex that he technically did not lie, which means he did not commit any crime.

Since when are people alowed to get their dicks sucked by their co-workers on the job. It may not be a crime but it would get me or you fired. Since he's president he doesn't have to own up to the same standard of professionalism as the rest of us.

Relax people, he stole the election, which is STILL grinding people to their breaking point.

Eventually they'll have to smell their own shit before they can play in the pool again.

At 5/2/06 08:09 PM, JoS wrote: Oh and your statement of felonies>leagl war is incorrect. Bush's war is illegal under international law. To be a legal war it would have to be sanctioned by the UN or be in defense of hostile actions towarxs the US. Iraq never attacked, nor was ever in a position to attack the US, and the UN definatly never sanctioned the war.

Please explain why you think this was a legal war?

Oh, yea, the UN. The same organization that refuses to even call Darfur a genocide. The same organization that did nothing about Rwanda, or pretty much anything else. The UN is absolutely useless. The ones who refuse to enforce their own sanctions or do anything when people ignore their rules. Forget the UN. It is an overly large, ridiculously corrupt, useless organization that wouldn't exist if we stopped funding it.
One Saddam broke the terms of his surrender, we had every right to go in there and enforce the rules.

And we have plenty of operations in the middle east that Saddam could have hit, not to mention Israel our ally. So let's get this straight, we're not acting quick enough on Sudan, a nation that is absolutely no threat to us, but how dare we attack Iraq...a country that has been breaking the conditions of its surrender to us a decade ago? Or are you insanely asserting that shooting at our planes patroling the no fly zone, another condition of his surrender, was not a hostile act towards us? Or Saddam's proud and very open support of suicide bombers in Palestine? There's always Abu Nidal, who Saddam supported. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9153/
Abdul Rahman Yasin, who Saddam harbored after his attack on the WTC.

Yea, it's obvious Saddam had a huge problem supporting terrorists.
Quite frankly once they attacked us, we had no reason to even ask for the UN's approval. Yet we did. They told us no, and we said screw you and did it anyway. In case of acts of aggression against our military we need no approval.

At 5/2/06 10:11 PM, JoS wrote: Although this isnt about the war in Iraq I will quickly adress this and then thats the end of the talk about this here. Ol for food alledgedly envolved people within the UN, but as far as I know it didnt envolve say Russia, or France. Yes other countries are able to veto shit in the SC. Go whine about it. Cant expect you are the only ones who get to do so.

http://www.washingto..AR2005051201854.html

Yup, no evidence that either Russia or France were on the payroll....None at all....Nothing to see here...

"You can't be the only corrupt ones out there". Gotcha.

The documents do not prove that the Iraqis succeeded in bribing any French officials to gain their support .

Right from your article. Now back on topic. if youw ant to discuss this more revive a thread related to it or make a new one.

At 5/2/06 08:07 PM, JoS wrote: He didnt do this
Pass secrets to the Chinese. It seems there was a spy since mid-1980's (correct me if Im wrong, that means it occured under Bush Sr watch). It wasnt discovered until 1997. This is a far cry from President Clinton passing the secrets himself.

I'm sorry, I missed this the first time. So here's my rebuttal. Out of your very own article:

The firing came as Republicans in Congress stepped up their criticism of the administration's handling of the investigation, which began in 1996, and other security lapses at the federal weapons labs. Several GOP senators promised hearings on the subject in the coming months.

Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) said he was not surprised the Chinese would target a weapons lab, but that "what is ... incredibly disturbing is apparently the administration didn't take the charges seriously" when they first surfaced.

FRIGGING MCCAIN. He's a liberal for crying out loud. He usually sides with Democrats. Even he's saying Clinton didn't take the threat seriously. Come on. Wasn't it you who harped on me for "hiding" information in plain sight? That's a pretty damned big omission JoS.

Or how bout this:
Officials believe the espionage first took place in the mid-1980s.

Evidence of the theft first came from U.S. scientists monitoring Chinese nuclear tests in 1995.

An administration official familiar with national security policy says the White House first learned of the Chinese espionage in the summer of 1997, just before the much-anticipated visit by President Clinton to China.

More than a year-and-a-half later, no arrests have been made and new security measures have only recently gone into effect.

So the first time evidence surfaced for in 1995. To Clinton's credit, he didn't learn about it until 1997. And the President is far from responsible for everything that happens in the country. That's just stupid to suggest. But according to the article, he did nothing about it FOR A YEAR AND A HALF! Come on now.

And also, while he didn't do that, he did do this.

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, May 23) -- Republicans are keeping up the pressure on President Bill Clinton to explain questions about possible links between 1996 Democratic campaign contributions and decisions to share U.S. satellite technology with the Chinese government...

"We know that Chinese officials chose to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 1996 re-election of the Clinton administration. What we don't know is what they expected to gain from that investment," Goss said...

The Justice Department is investigating whether political contributions, from either the Chinese government or American business interests, influenced the administration's China policies...

Former Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung has told Justice investigators that he passed on to the Democratic Party more than $100,000 from Liu Chao Ying, an official of a Chinese aerospace company who is also an officer in the Chinese army and the daughter of a top official in the Beijing regime.

After the donation, Clinton approved a waiver that allowed Loral Space and Communications -- whose chief executive officer, Bernard Schwartz, is a leading Democratic Party donor -- to launch one of its satellites on top of a Chinese rocket.

Friday, Clinton defended the waiver, saying it "was in the national interest, and supportive of our national security."

"There was absolutely nothing done to transfer any technology inappropriately to the Chinese as a result of this decision," he said.

In Beijing, Liu issued a statement this week denying that she ever gave political donations to the Democrats through Chung. But Thompson said based on his committee's investigation, such a scenario "totally fits with everything that we know."

"[The Chinese] has lied consistently. Not only do they lie about such things as transfers of nuclear technology, they have lied to us about their involvement in our campaign," Thompson said. "I wouldn't believe anything any of them said."

Sorry, the connection is ALLEGED. But hell, that's has far more appearance of impropriety than anything that you've said about the Iraq war.

But I digress. Back to your article.
Are you honestly suggesting that somehow Bush is responsible for the espionage occuring? Are you truly that far gone? I mean even Savage (as far as I know, and he's pretty gone) wouldn't be ridiculous enough to suggest that somehow Clinton was responsible for the thefts that occured during his tenure before 1997. And Savage would blame the plague on Clinton if he could. The President isn't responsible for everything that happens in the country during his term. But hey, you know, blame all of it on Bush Sr., even the part that happened during Clinton's term. That's cool. It's ridiculous, but whatever. Bush Sr.s' fault? Hardly. Clinton's fault? Not really. But his refusal to really investigate it, that looks bad for him.

Thanks. Didn't know about that by the way.

Actually I didnt omit anything really. People were saying he was the one who sold said secrets to the Chinese, which was false. The GOP accused him of mishandling the investigation not of actually selling the Chinese the secrets which others had claimed.

The secrets were stolen from a lab by a spy who started stealing during the first Bush admin and wasnt caught untill Clinton came in. People accused him of not doing enough to stop it or investigate it, but I would hardly say thats grounds for impeechment or a legacy.

One official said the United States is "a very long way from being able to charge him, if ever," because there is very little tangible evidence to prove the suspect actually did pass information to the Chinese.

"Unless you have a paper trail," these cases are hard to prove, the official said.