Farewell, Sir. And Thank You.
Cap Weinberger
(August 18, 1917 - March 28, 2006)
Reagan Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger Dies
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
(Foxnews)
WASHINGTON — Caspar Weinberger, the former Secretary of Defense for Ronald Reagan, has died.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who worked under Weinberger at the Defense Department, said Tuesday he was saddened to learn of his passing.
"Cap Weinberger was an indefatigable fighter for peace through strength. He served his nation in war and peace in so many ways. For me, he will always be the leader, standing alongside President Ronald Reagan, who restored pride in the military, got the resources to make the all volunteer force the best in the world and rebuilt the American Armed Forces, helping to persuade the Soviet Union that it was time to end the Cold War," said Powell.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
(Foxnews)
WASHINGTON — Caspar Weinberger, the former Secretary of Defense for Ronald Reagan, has died.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who worked under Weinberger at the Defense Department, said Tuesday he was saddened to learn of his passing.
"Cap Weinberger was an indefatigable fighter for peace through strength. He served his nation in war and peace in so many ways. For me, he will always be the leader, standing alongside President Ronald Reagan, who restored pride in the military, got the resources to make the all volunteer force the best in the world and rebuilt the American Armed Forces, helping to persuade the Soviet Union that it was time to end the Cold War," said Powell.
posted by John | 8:40 AM
19 Comments:
I suppose this would be a bad time to point out that he was also a convicted felon who was pardoned in an undefensible action by Bush 41? ahhh but I guess it's a right of passage in the right wing hall of fame along with Oliver North (bs overturn) or G. Gordon Liddy.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
You cannot even begin to talk about the hall of fame. Perhaps a better example is the famous Clinton lying to a federal jury?
Even better, naturally, would be the infamous Mrs. Clinton hiding the Vince Foster papers under her bed. What is the point of this little amateur diatribe?
Of course, we would _never_ want to point out the documented criminal death that the Honorable Senator Kennedy caused by driving his car over a bridge. That would be a problem to the left. What is the point of this little amateur diatribe?
Oh, I have it now. Maybe the best example is the late and great LBJ who had a war that his own left-wing party opposed? He won elections by having entire cemeteries vote for him. What is the point of this little amateur diatribe?
Oh yes. Of course. This is not really about a comparison at all is it? To really compare would be to pull the log from your own eye before removing the splinter from your neighbor's eye. I guess in this case a huge refreshing glass of STFU is in order. Please enjoy, from the compliments of all those out there that have a brain and can actually use it.
Ah, Phelonius. :)
Caspar Weinberger was a great American and a good man.
But leave it to a Lefty to politicize a eulogy and get in cheap shots.
Have YOU no decency, sir?
Anonymous did point out that it was a bad time to point it out and went ahead and did it anyway.
[thoughts deleted]
I guess it wouldn't be called a "right" of passage for left wing now would it?
Yup.
wow Phelonius, I can't remember every seeing a less relevant posting in my life! Nice job.
The question is simple. Should we overlook the fact that Weinberger is a convicted felon and was involved in an action to completely circumvent the United States Constitution (as was Ollie North and G. Gordy Liddy. See Phelonius, that is what is called a sequitor...unlike your ridiculous Hilary Clinton and Ted Kennedy comments)
So, do we ignore that little part, or do we call him a "great American" because he was involved in that nonsense? The reason I ask that is that Ollie North has become famous in the right wing for actually being a criminal. So did G. Gordon Liddy. Can you explain why it seems that the right wing idolizes criminals like that?
Phelonius, that posting is very comical. I know this will probably be against all you believe in, but I thought maybe we should stick to facts.
LBJ won in 1964 in a massive landslide with 61% of the vote. Yet you think it was all dead people!?? Please! I suppose you have some evidence to support that ridiculous comment right?
How about Hillary Clinton hiding the Vince Foster files under her bed. After millions of dollars were spent on that investigation, you are going to show me where she was proven to have broken the law right? Or do you just have to yell out a ridiculous smear and than have your other bloggers jump on board with in order for it to become a "fact" in your mind?
I suppose we could talk about Ted Kennedy if you would like to discuss Laura Bush killing a classmate when she was 17 (car accident) and no tests were performed to see if she was drunk. Hmmmm, see, no proof either way so I'll skip it.
So now we are down to Bill Clinton lying about a blowjob (which is exactly what he did), and Casper Weinberger covering up a conspiracy to circumvent the legislative branch and therefore the Constitution in order to trade weapons for hostages and then give money (outlawed by Congress) to the Contras and their wonderful death squads.
Ok...I suppose in your "amateur diatribe" you can make an argument with yourself if those two cases are the same.
"Please enjoy, from the compliments of all those out there that have a brain and can actually use it."
I appreciate the thought Phelonius and I can assure you I will when somebody with a brain who can use it will actually do fascinating things like use facts and real comparisons instead of red herrings.
Dear anonymous,
Oh dear. I forgot that the whole point is that politicians on the right are all evil and politicians on the left are all as pure as the driven snow. My bad.
The entirety of Caspar Weinberger's career is all summed up by his involvement with the Iran-Contra scandal, eh? He did nothing else in his long and successful career?
To think that people would look at Caspar and see the many things that he did for our country is 'undefensible' I suppose.
Anonymous belittled:
"So now we are down to Bill Clinton lying about a blowjob (which is exactly what he did), and Casper Weinberger covering up a conspiracy to circumvent the legislative branch and therefore the Constitution..."
Bill Clinton was subjected to a law which he signed (to much fanfare by feminists).
Bill Clinton--while under oath-- lied to a federal grand jury when asked questions allowed by that law (which he signed).
That's perjury.
He was impeached by the legislative branch, as allowed by the Constitution.
And Bill "Ladies' Man" Clinton is a rapist.
You too are amazing. So now Bill Clinton is a rapist? How much money was spent on those investigations? What was the outcome? I guess I could call W. a cocaine addicted drunk with all the proof you are using. But as I keep pointing out, this blog apparently has no use for "facts". Phelonious isn't getting it either. I purposefully picked out gentlemen that were CONVICTED of felonies related to secret government projects that were traitorous at least. Phelonious somehow takes that to me I only think right-wing politicians are "evil". I guess you are projected your onesided bias onto me since I don't feel that way at all.
Republicus comes back once again ignoring the relationship between Weinberger, North, and Liddy, and instead does what all good righties do when they are getting toasted. Blame it on a Clinton.
You ask if Weinberger should be judged only by his felony conviction and attempt to cover-up the greatest threat to the Constitution in my lifetime?
Yes, and Benedict Arnold will never be remembered for capturing Ticonderoga.
I think this thread is uncovering something I find interesting. Do you two gentlemen believe that Weinberger should have been pardoned? Also, do you believe what he did (Ollie North as well) was "patriotic" and they should not have been punished?
BTW, John, could you please post more on this "law that Clinton signed" and explain why that is relevant at all? I've never heard this but it sounds like something right of Drudge.
John,
I have to side with anonymous here (big surprise!) I just don't understand the right wings obsession with Clinton's sex life. While I don't think belittling Weinberger the day he died is noble; I don't think the man is any more a hero than, as anonymous pointed out, North or Liddy.
If a Clinton official was involved with trading weapons to Iran you'd be screaming treason; like y'all do with the North Korea nuke program.
Anonymous said,
"I purposefully picked out gentlemen that were CONVICTED of felonies related to secret government projects that were traitorous at least."
I think he needs to get his facts in order. Weinberger was never actually convicted. He was pardoned before he was ever brought to trial.
Whether that was right that he was pardoned or not is beside the point. We cannot say whether he would have been convicted or not.
So pick on someone who was ACTUALLY convicted.
An interesting side note:
When then President-Elect Bill Clinton was asked for his comments on the Pardon of Casper Weinberger he said, "However, [he was concerned] by any action which sends a signal that, if you work for the government, you're above the law, or that not telling the truth to Congress under oath is somehow less serious than not telling the truth to some other body under oath."
How interesting!
Anonymous naively asked:
"You too (sic) are amazing. So now Bill Clinton is a rapist?"
Republicus believes he raped Juanita Broadrick when he was Attorney General of Arkansas.
Her bitten, bleeding lip is his calling card.
"How much money was spent on those investigations?"
Millions of dollars.
"What was the outcome?"
The 2nd Impeachment of a POTUS, the loss of his law license, the destruction of the reputations and lives of many American citizens (except, of course, his and hers), and the election of George W. Bush.
"I guess I could call W. a cocaine addicted drunk with all the proof you are using."
"My brother has a nose like a vacuum cleaner." Roger Clinton
"But as I keep pointing out, this blog apparently has no use for 'facts.'"
Ah yes. The "facts."
"Phelonious isn't getting it either."
Phelonius iz Da Man.
"I purposefully picked out gentlemen that were CONVICTED of felonies related to secret government projects that were traitorous at least."
"CONVICTED."
Is that a "fact"?
And it's funny how lefties like yourself (presumably) not only like to claim control of "The Facts," but like to characterize right wing Americans who found creative ways to FIGHT THE SOVIETS as "traitors."
Similarly, you scream bloody murder whem this generation of right-wingers try to find ways to battle ISLAMIC TERRORISM.
Meanwhile, you get self-righteous about attacking the Republican Commander-in-Chief during war--whether the Cold one or the current conflict--and undoubtedly giving aid and comfort to the enemy in the process (just like Vietnam).
Anne Coulter was right. You guys always side with America's enemies.
She wrote a book about it.
It's called *Treason.*
"Phelonious somehow takes that to me (mean) I only think right-wing politicians are 'evil'. I guess you are projected your onesided bias onto me since I don't feel that way at all."
The projection is yours, *messieur.* You just called Cap Weinberger and Ollie North traitors and took offense at any suggestion that Bill Clinton was anything other than one swell guy and a great president (and, of course, a patriot!).
"Republicus comes back once again ignoring the relationship between Weinberger, North, and Liddy, and instead does what all good righties do when they are getting toasted. Blame it on a Clinton."
STAY CONSISTENT.
Clinton was the worst of the bunch, by far. You compromise your credibility by your own double-standard.
Blame it all on Bush: The recession (after the "irrational exuberance" of the last years of the Clinton Era), 9/11 (after eight years of Clinton Era appeasement), Iraq (after Clinton attacked it on the same grounds as Bush and even signing on to the policy regime change)...
That's why Republicus sees fit to reference Clinton: to reveal your own shameless double-standard WHILE you accuse Republicus of having one!
"You ask if Weinberger should be judged only by his felony conviction and attempt to cover-up the greatest threat to the Constitution in my lifetime?"
Iran-Contra?
Surely you jest.
The Constitution was shredded by the Clinton Administration.
So the well-argued accusations--and the self-evidence of them--of perjury, obstruction of justice, and subordination of perjury do "Not rise to the level of Impeachment?"
They are neither a "High Crime" NOR a "misdemeanor?"
They not only shredded the constitution to preserve the power of that sorry excuse for a man (e.g. he is a demonstrably conceited, self-glorifying, self-indulgent, lying buffoon who raped at least one woman, etc.), but also shredded the dictionary in the endeavor.
"Yes, and Benedict Arnold will never be remembered for capturing Ticonderoga."
He's remembered for selling out to the enemy we were at war worth.
Of course, the Dubai Ports World deal was politicised--by fear-mongering lefties like Hillary and her toads--to imply that it was the Bush administration who was "selling out to the enemy we are at war with."
Meanwhile, Bill FLIES OVER TO THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES TO CONSOLE AND CONSULT THEM POLITICALLY--for a hefty fee...
...though probably not as hefty as the "donation" they gave for his palatial Temple to Himself (i.e. "The Clinton Library").
But Republicus digresses. Anyway, as for Benedict Arnold, Peter Brady's deathbed repentance as the traitor in the school play allows for some redemption.
"I think this thread is uncovering something I find interesting. Do you two gentlemen believe that Weinberger should have been pardoned?"
The President did. And it's his prerogative. As ordained by the Constitution.
So you have the pardoning of Cap Weinberger, on the one hand, who served in the U.S. military, and was Secretary of Defense of our nation during the high-stakes game of the Cold War--which we won.
And you call him a "traitor."
On ther other hand, mum on Bill Clinton's pardoning of billionire-tax-evading fugitive Marc Rich (among many other assorted scoundrels like drug dealers).
And your Clinton-loving crowd complain that taxes are "too low!" and the "rich don't pay their fair share!" and "Republicans pander to the rich!"
"And Cap Weinberger shouldn't have been pardoned!"
But HARK:
"Phelonious somehow takes that to me (mean) I only think right-wing politicians are 'evil'. I guess you are projected your onesided bias onto me since I don't feel that way at all."
For shame, Anomymous. For shame.
"Also, do you believe what he did (Ollie North as well) was "patriotic" and they should not have been punished?"
Absolutely. Those men are good and decent Americans.
"BTW, John, could you please post more on this "law that Clinton signed" and explain why that is relevant at all? I've never heard this but it sounds like something right of Drudge."
Clinton lied under oath (perjury--which, if nort a "High Crime" is most certainly a "Misdemeanor," don't you think?) in response to questions that could only be asked of him because of a law he signed in 1994 Clinton, a crime bill containing amendments to the rules of evidence that permitted prosecutors and plaintiffs in sexual assault cases to question defendants about their sexual history in order to find possible previous offenses.
Paula Jone's lawyer's used that very law to investigate past patterns of behavior. Monica Lewinsky's name came up. Clinton panicked, and lied.
And he was hoist by his own petard.
Anyway, he didn't "just lie about a blowjob," as is waved away by his shameless supporters.
It wasn't some "noble" lie to "protect his wife and Chelsea."
He was just trying to beat the Paula Jones sexual harrassment rap.
Sanjay said:
"I have to side with anonymous here (big surprise!) I just don't understand the right wings obsession with Clinton's sex life."
It's not an "obsession with Clinton's sex life."
"While I don't think belittling Weinberger the day he died is noble; I don't think the man is any more a hero than, as anonymous pointed out, North or Liddy."
Check out his bio, Sanjay. He was a very accomplished gentleman and instrumental in winning the Cold War.
"If a Clinton official was involved with trading weapons to Iran you'd be screaming treason; like y'all do with the North Korea nuke program."
Iran was fighting Iraq. It was Cold War realpolitik. Also, the Iranians we were dealing with were "moderates" we were trying to cultivate relationships with.
Anyway, it was all done in the thick of the Cold War and desire to undermine communism in our hemisphere (South America).
What's "treasonous" about that?
Clinton, on the other hand, opened the White House doors to Chinese agents so he could sell them a cup of coffee for his 1996 campaign extravaganzas.
The Chinese thought they deserved more than a cup of coffee and a handshake and decided that they were entitled to stealing the blueprints for the neutron bomb (among other schematics of our best weaponry) from Los Alamos--IN WHAT IS THE THIRD GREATERST BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY AFTER PEARL HARBOR AND 9/11.
FOR CAMPAIGN CASH.
He sold out.
You remember what the Chinese did to our airplane in Dubya's first term, don't you?
They GUTTED it.
They essentially did the same thing at Los Alamos.
Kelly said...
Anonymous said,
'I purposefully picked out gentlemen that were CONVICTED of felonies related to secret government projects that were traitorous at least.'
I think he needs to get his facts in order. Weinberger was never actually convicted. He was pardoned before he was ever brought to trial."
Kelly is correct.
"Whether that was right that he was pardoned or not is beside the point. We cannot say whether he would have been convicted or not."
Correct.
"So pick on someone who was ACTUALLY convicted."
Yeah. Like HALF the Clinton Administration, sheesh.
"An interesting side note:
When then President-Elect Bill Clinton was asked for his comments on the Pardon of Casper Weinberger he said, "However, [he was concerned] by any action which sends a signal that, if you work for the government, you're above the law, or that not telling the truth to Congress under oath is somehow less serious than not telling the truth to some other body under oath.'
How interesting!"
Nothing "interesting" about it, Kelly. Clinton just likes to hear himself talk.
Do you remember what he said about the Chinese in the 1992 campaign?
He played tough-guy and chided Bush 41 for not taking a harder-line against them.
Fast forward to the "coffees," and Los Alamos...
anonymous,
"Phelonious isn't getting it either. I purposefully picked out gentlemen that were CONVICTED of felonies related to secret government projects that were traitorous at least. Phelonious somehow takes that to me I only think right-wing politicians are 'evil'. I guess you are projected your onesided bias onto me since I don't feel that way at all."
Ok, then name some politicians on the left that have done something wrong and include that in your examples. I have a long list of republicans that I disagree with. Since you started with this thing about some kind of "right wing hall of fame" I felt that I would throw some lefties at you that were found in egregious wrong-doing. Then you did not provide any examples from the left that you were willing to bring up, and on top of that you defended even those points that could not be defended.
So I do not get it? I think I do. I do not have the time to go back point for point about LBJ and Hillary and Billy et al. the way that Republicus does. He can do that if he wants to, as it is his blog and he is quite good at it. If you are really politically neutral, you have a funny way of pointing that out.
What I said was that you have to pull the log from your own eye before rendering that kind of judgement on the other side. Now, if you are not just a lefty with a chip on your shoulder, prove it. If I made you angry by suggesting you be quiet, I apologize for that. That made me appear as a flaming righty with the same kind of preudice. I am big enough to admit that my rhetoric should sometimes be questioned.
Your turn.
I stand corrected that Weinberger would have most likely been convicted but was pardoned by Bush 41. Sorry guys, but the guy is a crook. I guess you didn't read my line on Benedict Arnold either. (who was considered an American hero until his little incident)
Here is Republicus's answer shortened to something resembling reasonable:
"Republicus believes he raped Juanita Broadrick"
Well there is all the proof you need! Voila!! The right wing shows us proof! Republicus believes!! No court, no pardon, millions spent,......but as long as Republicus believes, it is true. Nice proof there Republicus.
I had to read 1,000 blowhard words of red herrings and strawmen to simply go back and figure that the only sensical thing he wrote was "Republicas believes" and then go on to mock facts?
When I used irony to discuss the vapid conclusions that Republicus has come to using nothing more than "Republicus believes", he misses the irony and spits out more crap on Clinton!!!
You just don't get it Republicus! You don't discuss politics, you discuss articles from the National Enquirer!! Who cares if Bush or Clinton did coke when they were young? (as adolescent as you've made this, there is a tape out there with W. himself, not his brother, talking to a writer about why he denies his drug usage)
You will leap to non-factual conclusions while ignoring the exact same evidence on the other side. It must be a talent. You agree with a poster who claims it was "graveyards" that won LBJ the election when he had 61% of the vote! That's simply comical.
You call Bill Clinton the "worst of the bunch" and ignore the fact that the Reagan administration circumvented the U.S. Constitution.
Do you find that to be patriotic?
Ollie North was convicted and even Nancy Reagan called him a liar. But to you, he's some kind of hero.
Do you really believe that Weinberger invented the idea of outspending the Russians? How about Star Wars? Those policies were both first brought up in the early sixties and every president afterwards followed them to one extent of another. Your blindness has no barriers.
Just to make things clear. Although Bill Clinton lied about a blowjob in a case that was thrown out of court as "meritless", lying under oath should always be illegal and he should have been punished. I would have been far happier if he had been censured. Do you think that might be why W. and his cabinet refused to go under oath in the 9/11 hearings?
I'm going to end this thread with the fact that your whining is annoying. One good poster came in and corrected my oversight about the conviction. The rest of simple whining and rubbage. Look back at Republicus's last post and note the percentage that is discussing Clinton. You do realize that he's been out of office for over 5 years now right?
Anonymous said:
"I guess you didn't read my line on Benedict Arnold either. (who was considered an American hero until his little incident)."
You "guessed" wrongly.
I read that line, and I responded:
"(Arnold's) remembered for selling out to the enemy we were at war with" (I misspelled "with" as "worth" :O ).
Obviously, Anonymous, it is YOU who isn't reading--while you accuse Republicus of not reading.
I then went on to point out that Caspar & Co. did no such thing (i.e. sell out to the enemy, like Arnold did), but were finding creative ways to fight them (i.e. our enemies).
But Clinton did sell out, to the Chinese (not "enemies" per se, but...).
Then Anon complains:
"Here is Republicus's answer shortened to something resembling reasonable: 'Republicus believes he raped Juanita Broadrick.'
Well there is all the proof you need! Voila!! The right wing shows us proof! Republicus believes!! No court, no pardon, millions spent,......but as long as Republicus believes, it is true. Nice proof there Republicus."
Republicus arrived at his belief reasonably.
You, Anonymous, have been infected by Clintonism through and through.
e.g. Clinton never really "denied" any allegation or outright accusation, but would say "There is no evidence of that."
So, to the litigious liberal, the Metaphysical Question is rephrased thusly:
"If a crime occurs in a wood and leaves no evidence (or destroys it), and there is no judge there to convict it, was a crime commited?"
The answer for the Clintonite liberal is "No."
There's no "proof."
But the tree fell, Anon.
He whines:
"I had to read 1,000 blowhard words of red herrings and strawmen to simply go back and figure that the only sensical thing he wrote was "Republicas believes" and then go on to mock facts?"
What "facts," Anon.?
Do you have "proof" that Clinton did not rape Juanita Broadrick?
No. You just take him at his word and "believe" he didn't, do you not?
Republicus played the role of a jurist and went by Mrs. Broadrick's testimony and the pattern of behavior and demonstration of Clinton's character to arrive at the belief that he did indeed rape the poor woman.
He doesn't need a judge to make his judgments for him.
Neither do juries.
That being said, look what Anon. does here:
"You will leap to non-factual conclusions while ignoring the exact same evidence on the other side."
What "facts?" The ones that "prove" that Clinton did not rape Juanita Broadrick, or the ones that "prove" that Weinberger is a "traitor?"
Those aren't "facts." Those are your beliefs.
And look here:
"I stand corrected that Weinberger would have most likely been convicted but was pardoned by Bush 41. Sorry guys, but the guy is a crook."
"Is" means "Is," presumably, as he "IS," in "fact," a "crook."
The American judicial system assures: "Innocent until proven guilty." By a trial.
That is what Anon presumably rests on when he mocked Republicus' "belief" that Clinton is a rapist.
And yet:
"I stand corrected that Weinberger would have most likely been convicted but was pardoned by Bush 41."
That is his "belief." But note his prudence--or jurisprudence--on the matter by admitting--by conceding--"most likely."
But it is only for a moment. He then shakes it off and concludes: "Sorry guys, but the guy is a crook."
Now allow Republicus to slightly paraphrase Anon's own words, replacing "Republicus" with "Anon" to illustrate the double-standard:
"Here is (Anon's) answer shortened to something resembling reasonable:
"(Anon)believes (that Weinberger is a crook).
To that, Republicus must retort:
"Well there is all the proof you need! Voila!! The (left) wing shows us proof! (Anon) believes!! No court...millions spent (on Walsh),......but as long as (Anon) believes, it is true."
Yes. "Nice proof there (Anon)."
The astonishing double-standard is apparent on other issues regarding The Law:
Roe v. Wade is considered sacrosanct by virtue of it being upheld by the Supreme Court of the land.
Dubya gets "appointed" by the Supreme Court and:
"The Supreme Court is corrupt!"
Anon continues to whine:
"When I used irony to discuss the vapid conclusions that Republicus has come to using nothing more than "Republicus believes", he misses the irony and spits out more crap on Clinton!!!"
THAT is the irony, Anon.
"You just don't get it Republicus! You don't discuss politics, you discuss articles from the National Enquirer!!"
The rape of Juanita Broadrick was tabloid fiction?
Clinton selling out to the Chinese is celebrity gossip?
"Who cares if Bush or Clinton did coke when they were young? (as adolescent as you've made this, there is a tape out there with W. himself, not his brother, talking to a writer about why he denies his drug usage)."
Republicus doesn't care. He was talking about rape. YOU--gratuitously--inserted the dig on Bush's use, and Republicus then reminded you of Clinton's.
YOU BROUGHT IT UP to counter the rape belief.
But surely you are not equating substance abuse with rape, are you?
"You will leap to non-factual conclusions while ignoring the exact same evidence on the other side."
That's precisely what you were doing when you snidely brought up the cocaine allegation on Bush--while IGNORING THE "EXACT SAME EVIDENCE" (i.e. hearsay) regarding Clinton's own abuse of the exact same substance in an attempt to counteract Clinton's "youthful indiscretion" of rape!
And this is EXACTLY what Phelonius was referring to.
"It must be a talent."
It ain't hypocrisy.
"You agree with a poster who claims it was 'graveyards' that won LBJ the election when he had 61% of the vote! That's simply comical."
Republicus is not as knowledgeable about the LBJ election as Phelonius is. But he will attest to this: Joe Kennedy Sr. rigged the election for JFK by fixing the votes in Chicago. Nixon knew it, but he had too much modesty to fight it.
"You call Bill Clinton the 'worst of the bunch' and ignore the fact that the Reagan administration circumvented the U.S. Constitution."
Bill Clinton was Impeached.
Ronald Reagan has been lionized.
"Do you find that to be patriotic?
Ollie North was convicted and even Nancy Reagan called him a liar."
They were Cold War warriors.
"But to you, he's some kind of hero."
Republicus called him a good and decent American.
Why is Clinton some kind of a hero to you?
He is a bad, indecent man.
He's a liar and a rapist who pretended he was someone he wasn't.
"Do you really believe that Weinberger invented the idea of outspending the Russians?"
Republicus doesn't know who to "credit" for the idea, but Weinberger obviously subscribed to it.
"How about Star Wars?"
That was General Daniel Graham.
"Those policies were both first brought up in the early sixties and every president afterwards followed them to one extent of another."
Yes. But when Reagan, Bush, and Bush pursue it, it's ridiculed as "Star Wars" and even "recklessness."
But when Clinton allows a phase of testing to be carried out during his watch...
Shhhh! SILENCE.
"Your blindness has no barriers."
That's oxymoronic. Blindness is a barrier.
"Just to make things clear. Although Bill Clinton lied about a blowjob in a case that was thrown out of court as "meritless"..."
It was thrown out of court as "meritless" because of the effectiveness of the perjury.
After the Impeachment, the very same judge who "threw out the case" yanked his law license.
"...lying under oath should always be illegal and he should have been punished."
Yes.
"I would have been far happier if he had been censured."
So would have Clinton. Look how well he and his spinners have done belittling the Impeachment.
A censure would have been a footnote by now. And he knew it.
"Do you think that might be why W. and his cabinet refused to go under oath in the 9/11 hearings?"
Remotely possible. But if your implication is to be believed, kudos to the gentlemen for choosing to remain silent rather than telling a lie.
Clinton chose the latter.
Under oath.
"I'm going to end this thread with the fact that your whining is annoying."
Oh, boo-hoo, Anonymous.
"One good poster came in and corrected my oversight about the conviction."
Which you brushed off by saying that Caspar's guilt was a foregone conclusion, anyway, contradicting yourself on what constitutes "guilt" (i.e. a conviction in a court of law).
"The rest of simple whining and rubbage."
"Rubbage" is an obscure variation of "rubbish."
But that's okay. It's legit.
"Look back at Republicus's last post and note the percentage that is discussing Clinton."
The theme of the arguments were the double-standard WHICH YOU accused "right-wingers" of having.
Phelonius pointed out the hypocrisy, and Republicus elaborated.
And proved the hypocrisy ten-fold.
And to the last, you exempt Bill "Just-A-Blowjob" Clinton while calling Cap Weinberger a "traitor."
"You do realize that he's been out of office for over 5 years now right?"
Someone should tell him that.
correction: "Subordination of perjury" (way above) is actually "suborning of perjury."
Post a Comment
<< Home