Wolfowitz blames media for resignation

[highnote]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070528/ap_on_bi_ge/world_bank_wolfowitz

He certainly shouldn't blame himself, should he? :D

[Secretariat]

The guy only needs to look in the mirror for answers.

[ljb]

Why didn't he use the typical neocon response and blame Clinton ? :lol:
Gonzo's next, maybe he will blame Clinton. :lol:

[bigmack]

Before this he actually tried blaming his gal pal. Be a man Wolfie, you done wrong.

[wonatthewire1]

<<Be a man Wolfie, you done wrong.>>

Oh, I don't know about that, everything would have been fine if someone minded their own business.

:jump:

[Tom]

What did he do wrong?
He hireds a very qualified person, albiet his girlfrined.

Remember Billy-Bob-Roy-Joe Clinton let his dumber-than-dirt wife and floozy put together a laugher of a health care plan ato taxpayer expense.

The EB was upset with Woolfie becasue he was cracking down on the, - and they didn like it. Dirty little deals should not see the light of day - Woolfie was opening the shades.

[hcap]

No need to apologize for wolfie. Everything screwed up by our boys in or outa office has a PRECEDENT SOMEWHERE in history.

Remember Hitler? Chamberlain? George W Churchil???
No need be ashamed! Certainly not for misinterpreting history! :rolleyes:

Wear it proudly tommy.....


http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/250/fb1022.gif

[highnote]

<<Be a man Wolfie, you done wrong.>>

Oh, I don't know about that, everything would have been fine if someone minded their own business.

:jump:


LOL Sounds like the same thing could have applied to Clinton. :D

[Tom]

Diff was, when Billy-Bob-Joe-Roy was in the Oval Office, it was our business.
When he chose to outright lie, it was our business.

[ljb]

Well we can just be thankful that the philandering sob Gingrich went after him. Or perhaps we should give credit to the lying Hyde guy.

[highnote]

Diff was, when Billy-Bob-Joe-Roy was in the Oval Office, it was our business.
When he chose to outright lie, it was our business.

The White House was Clinton's home. What happens behind closed doors between 2 consenting adults is nobody's business.

He should have never been put in that business by the media.

Notice I blame the media. :D


Lie? What lie? :liar:

[highnote]

He should have never been put in that business by the media.


That should have read... "He should have never been put in that position by the media."

Maybe Wolfe has a point. :D

PS

Ironic that "Seka's Fantasies 11" x 17" Reproduction Poster " is in the banner ad below my post. :ThmbUp:

[Gibbon]

To err is human.

To shift the blame shows true management potential.







_____________________________
Barry Meadow ~
The Internet has vastly expanded the number of players who claim to be winners....On the typical handicapping message board, almost nobody admits they're consistent losers.

[highnote]

To err is human.

To shift the blame shows true management potential.


Clinton and Wolfe rose to their level of incompetence judging by their use of the "Peter Principle". :lol:




_____________________________
Barry Meadow ~
The Internet has vastly expanded the number of players who claim to be winners....On the typical handicapping message board, almost nobody admits they're consistent losers.[/QUOTE]

[PaceAdvantage]

Ironic that "Seka's Fantasies 11" x 17" Reproduction Poster " is in the banner ad below my post. :ThmbUp:

You know, I've been catching that out of the corner of my eye, but when I click the BACK button, it's always replaced with another Amazon ad....thanks for clearing that up for me! :lol:

[Lefty]

The White House was Clinton's home. What happens behind closed doors between 2 consenting adults is nobody's business.

He should have never been put in that business by the media.

Notice I blame the media. :D


Lie? What lie? :liar:
The Oval Office was not his home. What happens in the oval office is the people's business. And he was not impeached for that; sleazy as it was. He was impeached for lying to a judge.

[highnote]

The Oval Office was not his home. What happens in the oval office is the people's business. And he was not impeached for that; sleazy as it was. He was impeached for lying to a judge.

I disagree. It's a home office. But we'll probably never agree on that. So I have a more important question.

I can never remember, what was the lie he told the judge?

[Tom]

He did it in the Oval Office - that is not his home, it is OUR office of the president. The pervert perverted OUR office and left a stain on the presidency that will never come out...not even with Bon Ami.

[highnote]

He did it in the Oval Office - that is not his home, it is OUR office of the president. The pervert perverted OUR office and left a stain on the presidency that will never come out...not even with Bon Ami.


What is Bon Ami?

[Lefty]

It's a cleaner.

[Lefty]

Clinton denied his sexual involvement with Lewinsky thereby denying Paula Jones HER day in court.

[Gibbon]

This just in – since there will be a vacancy at the world bank Tony Blair was reported today to be the leading candidate to become the new World Bank president. Now, by tradition the post is supposed to go to an American, but Tony Blair has promised to learn Spanish if they'll give him the job.










_________________________________
Jay Leno ~ Congratulations to Republican presidential candidate Rudolph
Giuliani. He celebrated a wedding anniversary today. He also has another one
tomorrow, and two on Monday.

[highnote]

Clinton denied his sexual involvement with Lewinsky thereby denying Paula Jones HER day in court.


Correct me if I'm wrong. (I'm sure you will. :D )

Clinton said he did not have sex with Lewinsky as defined in the Paula Jones case. Right or wrong?

My understanding was that the prosecutors asked him about having sex as it was defined in the Paula Jones case. That is, they asked him if he had the same kind of sex with Lewinsky as the kind that was defined in the Paula Jones case.

If he did not have the same kind of sex with Lewinsky as he did in the Paula Jones then he would have been lying to say otherwise -- right or wrong?

I know this is a fine legal point and is easily misunderstood. And that misunderstaning is probably why this whole thing got blown (pardon the pun) out of proportion.

What is the definition of having sex? Is pinching an airline hostess' butt having sex -- if the hostess doesn't mind? Probably not.

Is squeezing an intern's boobs having sex if she doesn't mind? Probably not.

Is cunnilingus or fellatio having sex? Depends. To me the answer is no. Close, but no cigar. :lol:

Is having sexual intercourse having sex? That's the only one I can say yes to.

I think having sex is when a man and a woman engage in penis/vaginal intercourse. I will leave it to others to define having sex given various gender combinations.

Did Clinton have intercourse with Lewinsky? From what I recall the answer is no. I think they both said that. She claimed a cigar was involved. He said not. You can believe who you want. In my book the use of a cigar does not constitute having sex. Call me old fashioned. :blush:

When I was a kid and we'd talk about sex and someone would say "I'd like to have sex with her." We knew that what they meant was that they'd like to have intercourse.

Getting to first base is not having sex.

Stealing second base is not having sex.

Sliding into third is not having sex. :cool:

A home run is having sex. Know what I mean? Know what I mean? Nudge. Nudge. Wink. Wink. :D

[Lefty]

swety, don't want to play the semantics game. He perjured himself and all the libs playing the semantics game just made themselves look like idiots.

[Lefty]

btw, he did not have sex with Paula Jones, he dropped his pants and exposed himself and asked for what he eventually got from lewinsky, but she said no.

[highnote]

btw, he did not have sex with Paula Jones, he dropped his pants and exposed himself and asked for what he eventually got from lewinsky, but she said no.


That's more than I need to know. :eek:

[highnote]

swety, don't want to play the semantics game. He perjured himself and all the libs playing the semantics game just made themselves look like idiots.

He either had sex or he didn't or something in between. No semantics. Just a definition.

The whole thing was stupid to beging with. He was stupid for getting involved with an intern. And the congress was stupid for pushing the issue.

There were more important things to do at the time -- like running a country.

[Lefty]

He had sex. Oral sex is sex, notice the word sex in the definition.
Impeaching a pres for lying to a judge is not stupid. Lots of people in jail for the very same thing.

[highnote]

He had sex. Oral sex is sex, notice the word sex in the definition.
Impeaching a pres for lying to a judge is not stupid. Lots of people in jail for the very same thing.


Was oral sex part of the Paula Jones case?

I'll give you the last word. I don't want to argue the point anymore.

I agree lying to a judge is wrong and a stupid thing to do.

The whole impeachment thing / Lewinsky, etc. was a huge waste of time and money. Especially considering that half the congress are boinking other people besides their spouses.

I'd love to see the Washington Madam's address book. Let's make it public and let the chips fall where they may.

If Clinton can have his sex life paraded before the world, then let's have everyone on the Madam's list paraded before the world, too.

I hate double-standards.

Like Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

[Lefty]

I told you what happened in the Jones Case. She refused him oral sex and she lost her job. That was the basis of the case.
One more time, please discern the diff between having sex and lying to a judge about it. He was convicted for the lying not the sex, hence, no double standard. The dems showed their complete disregard for the law by leaving this convicted felon in office. A convicted felon is not supposed to hold office.

[highnote]

I told you what happened in the Jones Case. She refused him oral sex and she lost her job. That was the basis of the case.
One more time, please discern the diff between having sex and lying to a judge about it. He was convicted for the lying not the sex, hence, no double standard. The dems showed their complete disregard for the law by leaving this convicted felon in office. A convicted felon is not supposed to hold office.


I wrote in the previous post lying to a judge is wrong. I understand your point.

20% of republicans and 100% of dems voted not guilty on the perjury charge. It was hardly a slam dunk. So don't go blaming only dems for disregarding the law. Repubs were also involved and voted not guilty.

Kissenger said, "Power is the greatest aphrodisiac." I am sure many presidents have had sex in the Oval Office.

Here is a nice summary of the trial... in fact, the whole page is good reading. A little slanted to the Left maybe. But as objective as I've seen. I don't think there will be a totally objective view of the trial until a few more generations have passed. Objectivity is clouded by politics.

Lessons from the Trial

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/clintontrialaccount.html

This is a trial that never should have happened. Clinton should have reached an early settlement (or defaulted) in his suit with Jones, which would have happened if he'd been honest with his own lawyers about his sexual history. The Supreme Court should have struck down the independent counsel law as a violation of separation of powers when it had a chance to do so in 1988. The Supreme Court missed a second chance to prevent impeachment when it failed to recognize, in Clinton v Jones, that civil suits against a sitting president had the serious potential to be a major distraction from the president's duties. Clinton should not have trusted Lewinsky to be discreet. Kenneth Starr should not have engaged in a sting operation against the President of the United States, and the Administration should not have engaged in an operation to trash the OIC. Finally, of course, the President should not have lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Yet, the trial did happen--and what can be learned from the experience? Several things, it turns out.

We learned that politics are very likely to determine how one views evidence in impeachment case--not a surprising lesson to be sure, but the final votes in both the House and Senate turned out to be surprisingly partisan. Moreover, the analysis of academics--people trained to look objectively at evidence--who threw themselves into the impeachment fray was, if anything, even more partisan than that of the politicians.

We learned that the Administration's decision to go on "a war footing" when allegations of the President's affair with Lewinsky first surfaced proved costly. Relentless attacks by Clinton and his aides on the Office of Independent Counsel and Linda Tripp angered Republicans, polarized debate, and made impeachment by the House inevitable. (At the same time, the aggressive approach might have made acquittal in the Senate inevitiable.)

We learned also that an impeachment trial is not necessarily a national calamity and might even have some benefits. George W. Bush has shown that the presidency was not seriously weakened by the ordeal. The public might be better off today for having had to think seriously about issues of both private and public morality during the impeachment process. The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal also contributed to a franker national discussion about sex and, by demonstrating how many skeletons exist in the closets of politicians, might--it is hoped-cause future elections to turn more on matters of substance than what one of the candidates did in bed sometime in the past.

Finally, as Richard Posner astutely observes in An Affair of State, the impeachment of William Clinton has "by the dint of its riviting detail" made it "difficult to take presidents seriously." The destruction of the mystique of the presidency is for "those who think that authority depends upon mystery" a consequence to be lamented. But Posner disagrees: "My guess is that they are wrong, that Americans haves reached a level of political sophistication at which they can take in stride the knowledge that the nation's political and intellectual leaders are their peers, and not their paragons. The nation does not depend upon the superior virtue of one man."