It's Bush's Fault, But of course

[Nords]

So do you believe, it would be a fair question to ask 'W' about his sex life in his next press conference? Or any President for that matter.

Screw that (so to speak), I'd rather ask Neil Bush about HIS sex life...

 

[xavion]

He chose to send hundreds of thousands of National Guard troops to Iraq without considering the effect of internal response for emergencies. 

Okay, you state that Bush has sent 'hundreds of thousands' of National Guard troops to Iraq.  Hundreds of thousands could be anywhere from 200,000 to 900,000. 

There are approximately 170,000 US military personnel in or close to Iraq.  If Bush sent 'hundreds of thousands'... lets say, 300,000 National Guard troops to Iraq, that must mean that there are negative 130,000 active duty and reserve troops in or near Iraq.  Wow.

The actual number of national guard troops in Iraq is less than 'hundreds of thousands.'  Please try to limit your wild exaggerations in the future.  Thank You.      

 

[73ss454]

Moghopper,

You state that he should have admitted it. My thing is that he should have never been asked.

Stuff like this is just not our business.

 

[sgeeeee]

Okay, you state that Bush has sent 'hundreds of thousands' of National Guard troops to Iraq.  Hundreds of thousands could be anywhere from 200,000 to 900,000. 

There are approximately 170,000 US military personnel in or close to Iraq.  If Bush sent 'hundreds of thousands'... lets say, 300,000 National Guard troops to Iraq, that must mean that there are negative 130,000 active duty and reserve troops in or near Iraq.  Wow.

The actual number of national guard troops in Iraq is less than 'hundreds of thousands.'  Please try to limit your wild exaggerations in the future.  Thank You.      

Hey, if you started with an assumption that hundreds of thousands meant 900,000, the negative number you come up with would be even larger. Why stop at 300,000?

I thought I recalled Rumsfeld throwing the number 150,000 around not too long ago -- which is consistent with my original statement. But let's not quibble. Assume I meant to say tens of thousands of National Guard if it makes you feel better. I don't see how that changes the situation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/30/AR2005083002162.html

 

[P.S.]

Okay, you state that Bush has sent 'hundreds of thousands' of National Guard troops to Iraq.  Hundreds of thousands could be anywhere from 200,000 to 900,000. 

There are approximately 170,000 US military personnel in or close to Iraq.  If Bush sent 'hundreds of thousands'... lets say, 300,000 National Guard troops to Iraq, that must mean that there are negative 130,000 active duty and reserve troops in or near Iraq.  Wow.

The actual number of national guard troops in Iraq is less than 'hundreds of thousands.'  Please try to limit your wild exaggerations in the future.  Thank You.      

Hundreds of thousands sounds right... remember that troops rotate....no person, no matter how poor and un-influential, or desperate for a chance to improve his lot in life...deserves to spend 3-4 years risking his life to fight one administration's war.

Xavion: how long would you want to live with the constant threat of death or loss of limb, unreliable sanitary conditions, sleeping in a car seat, tasteless or poor tasting food, away from your family?

 

[moghopper]

Moghopper,

You state that he should have admitted it. My thing is that he should have never been asked.

Stuff like this is just not our business.

Maybe not. But as a public figure, it would be naive of him or of us to figure that it wouldn't get out. Also the law is pretty clear that public figures do not have the same "right to privacy" as the rest of us.

 

[justin]

Really? - Do you really think that this is anyone's business besides Hillary's? You are very strange indeed if you think a President or even a citizen should be inflicted with this line of questioning?

Maybe your cramped up style of ethics and political leanings does not really understand the concept of Freedom? You can find plenty of countries in the Middle East that are as uptight about sex and freedom as you seem to be.

What part of Freedom don't you understand?

When you're the president, things like cheating on your wife with your intern sometimes get noticed by the press. You do support the freedom of the press, don't you (including fox news!)? Or are you like those uptight Middle Eastern countries you know so much about?

I don't think in an ideal world Bill Clinton's personal transgressions with Ms. Lewinsky should have been made public. Let's deal with reality though. It became public knowledge. My proposal that Clinton should have made a short but sweet public statement would have served to address the already public issue. Undoubtedly, he would continue to be pestered with questions about the affair. He can then say, "I've already commented on that issue, thank you". Instead he interpreted the meaning of "is" and lied under oath. I guess I'm looking at the situation with the benefit of hindsight. Slick Willy probably thought he wouldn't get caught and that he could pretend nothing happened. The dividing line between a public affair and a private affair is when he lied under oath.

 

[moghopper]

I don't think in an ideal world Bill Clinton's personal transgressions with Ms. Lewinsky should have been made public. Let's deal with reality though.

Being CEO and having sex with an employee isn't wise, in general. Just ask Harry Stonecipher.

(I don't think Harry should have been let go by Boeing either)

 

[justin]

BTW- In some of your Middle Eastern countries Adultry is illegal. It's not here. That is the part of 'Freedom' that you don't get.

In many of your US states adultery is illegal. Criminal conversation and/or alienation of affection (adultery) are actionable torts (civil suits) in about 20% of the US states.

Clinton's sex acts w/ Ms. Lewinsky are also illegal in a number of states (I'd imagine it isn't in D.C. though, given their lax moral standards).

I personally have no problem with the sex acts in question Just pointing out the state of the law.

 

[moghopper]

Clinton's sex acts w/ Ms. Lewinsky are also illegal in a number of states (I'd imagine it isn't in D.C. though, given their lax moral standards).

Actually illegal, or is it considered a breach of (marriage) contract?

 

[Nords]

I don't think in an ideal world Bill Clinton's personal transgressions with Ms. Lewinsky should have been made public.

I think disclosure depends on whose money paid to clean the Oval Office furniture & carpet after this particular transgression-- the taxpayers, the Democratic party... or the Republican party.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Actually illegal, or is it considered a breach of (marriage) contract? 

If it is a "breach" any good defense attorney could contain the damage
during oral argument.

JG

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Being CEO and having sex with an employee isn't wise, in general.  Just ask Harry Stonecipher.

(I don't think Harry should have been let go by Boeing either)

Have you seen Harry? He was probably happy a woman would get within a
block of him, much less take her clothes off

JG

 

[justin]

Actually illegal, or is it considered a breach of (marriage) contract?

Illegal. I meant the act of sodomy itself is illegal in a number of states. Adultery is too though. How much it is prosecuted - probably not much.

 

[HFWR]

If it is a "breach" any good defense attorney could contain the damage
during oral argument.

JG

The oral argument...

 

[HFWR]

So do you believe, it would be a fair question to ask 'W' about his sex life in his next press conference? Or any President for that matter.

B-O-R-I-N-G!!!

 

[Mr._johngalt]

The oral argument... 

Glad someone caught that. I was starting to think my talents
(quite vast) were unappreciated.

Once in a while I leave off the smiley face. Just a test folks

JG

 

[Cut-Throat]

Glad someone caught that.  I was starting to think my talents
(quite vast) were unappreciated. 

Once in a while I leave off the smiley face.  Just a test folks 

JG

I caught it, but I already heard it on Letterman about 7 years ago!

 

[bosco]

I have to disagree to an extent.

I believe if you're going to run for public office, and become a public figure, anything in your past is fair game - whether that is screwing your secretary, your intern, driving drunk, or being a cokehead.

maybe so, but do you think that $80 million in government funds should be used to put you under oath and investigate your BJ? If so, let's get a few more Kenneth Stars and get them to investigate drunk driving and being a cokehead. How come my tax dollars don't get used equally against the right?