Bill Clinton's Advice to Obama

[Prokne]

The gun culture has several elements. Some folks want to keep their guns for safety, some are worried about government, some are collectors. Either way, the AR15 is the classical "american gun" at this point. In fact, a gunmaker (Ruger) was in favor of the AWB because he didn't think it would affect his "mini-14 ranch rifle" and people "didn't need more than a 5 round magazine in a rifle", he wanted to aim laws at the AR15 and AK47 that were his competition and were beating his product on the market...

I agree that the culture has different elements but the basic characteristic is that you can own a gun, but not a specific type of gun. Depending on which state you live in you can obtain a license from ATF to own a machine gun(any full auto weapon) but there are a lot of restrictions, time, and money that go with it. There have only been 2 incidents involving legally owned automatic weapons since the machine gun regulation was passed and one was by a police officer using a law enforcement weapon. If similar restrictions were put on guns defined as assault weapons it would be harder to obtain them but if you are a normal person that wants to use them responsibly you can still get one. The NRA is supposedly for responsible gun ownership but has worked very hard against laws that would make obtaining guns by criminals and people who shouldnt have them where the only consequence to the responsible gun owner is: he has to wait a few days before he can use it the first time.

I wouldnt consider the AR15 a classic American gun. It looks similar to an M16 but is basically a semiauto knockoff. The classic American guns are the Kentucky longrifle, Colt Navy revolver/Colt .45 revolver, Henry repeating rifle, M1911, M1 Garand, M16. These are the guns everyone imagines when they see a colonial frontiersman, cowboy, WW2 GI, US Soldier Vietnam-present.

[KingHorse]

I imagine he's trying to stretch the idea to mean that if you're unfaithful to your wife and lie to a country full of strangers who shouldn't have any significance or say on your personal, romantic or sex life somehow means you're unfaithful to your country and their wishes. /shrug

...told ya Tinykong would say something silly like that. ^_^

Actually, while Tiny may have said that, he is simply parroting what the government themselves set as standards of behavior for security clearance. So while you may consider it silly, Clinton broke the rules of an organization that he was the head of, something he was supposed to be the chief defender of. Dismiss it as silly all you like, but lies and infidelity show lack of strength of moral character, enough so to disqualify you from some government jobs, including the presidency. Clinton didn't do anything other presidents haven't done, he just had two things happen at once that were unusual: he got caught, and he did so while there was some considerable power held by the opposing party.

[Xenofreak]

I agree that the culture has different elements but the basic characteristic is that you can own a gun, but not a specific type of gun. Depending on which state you live in you can obtain a license from ATF to own a machine gun(any full auto weapon) but there are a lot of restrictions, time, and money that go with it. There have only been 2 incidents involving legally owned automatic weapons since the machine gun regulation was passed and one was by a police officer using a law enforcement weapon. If similar restrictions were put on guns defined as assault weapons it would be harder to obtain them but if you are a normal person that wants to use them responsibly you can still get one. The NRA is supposedly for responsible gun ownership but has worked very hard against laws that would make obtaining guns by criminals and people who shouldnt have them where the only consequence to the responsible gun owner is: he has to wait a few days before he can use it the first time.

I wouldnt consider the AR15 a classic American gun. It looks similar to an M16 but is basically a semiauto knockoff. The classic American guns are the Kentucky longrifle, Colt Navy revolver/Colt .45 revolver, Henry repeating rifle, M1911, M1 Garand, M16. These are the guns everyone imagines when they see a colonial frontiersman, cowboy, WW2 GI, US Soldier Vietnam-present.

Agreed. But it's a two fold problem. On the one hand the more reasonable on the gun owner's side need to quiet those like the NRA that are against any regulation at all and on the other those on the gun control side need to focus on the "control" part and quiet down those going on about the "ban". It, like many other things in politics, ends up with the two extremes yelling at each other preventing any reasonable action getting done.

[Prokne]

This just brought up an interesting thought: most of these mass shootings are conducted by people with little to not skill with firearms. A fully automatic weapon in the hands of an untrained nutball is still dangerous, but likely less dangerous than a semi-auto. The issue is that you have to exhibit quite a bit of control over your firearm to be effective with an automatic, and control is hardly the stock in trade of the crazies.

Anyone seen any statistics on mass shootings of innocent people (not gangVgang) using fully auto weapons? Even back when they were legal to purchase relatively easily? I can't seem to find them. I may be full of shit, don't know.

I think the only problem with submachine guns and automatic rifles before the ban was criminals using them. Mobsters doing drivebyes and rival gang massacres and bank robbers like Bonny and Clyde and Machine Gun Kelly using them against cops. They were severely restricted just for this reason. There were probably a few people who accidentally killed themselves with them or shot some trespasser on their farm/ranch/property but not a lot compared to criminal killings.

It would be interesting if they banned all low calibre weapons like less than .30 cal. A person would either have to be practiced or trained with the weapon or would likely only hit the first person aimed at and everyone else would just be random. Probably wouldnt work though because there would be that one crazy person that learned to shoot before snapping.

---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 10:48 PM ----------

Agreed. But it's a two fold problem. On the one hand the more reasonable on the gun owner's side need to quiet those like the NRA that are against any regulation at all and on the other those on the gun control side need to focus on the "control" part and quiet down those going on about the "ban". It, like many other things in politics, ends up with the two extremes yelling at each other preventing any reasonable action getting done.

Banning is a type of control but it is pretty severe. Unfortunately that part of the conversation blocks out the reasonable parts of the conversation so you get nothing. Making laws that reinforce responsible gun ownership should be easy but politicians often go one clause to far. What should be passed easily are:

Comprehensive background checks for all gun purchases
Nationwide law enforcement database (to prevent someone from moving to another state to obtain an illegal weapon)
Gun ownership licensing (test on basic gun use laws, gun storage, gun handling, stuff anyones parents should have taught them before handing them a gun)
Firearms inventory laws (seriously gun shops dont even have to inventory their product, they should have to and the ATF should have a database on all the guns legally brought into the US containing just what the gun is, its serial number, and who sold it)
Gun storage laws that severely punish loss of firearms due to inadequate security of someones own property
Laws that require reporting of stolen or lost weapons

None of these things would have any impact on people who own guns and use them responsibly past a little bit of time to take a test or wait to buy a new gun and a little bit of money to purchase a license and a gun safe if they dont already have one. There also isnt anything that violates anyones privacy. Background checks and law enforcement databases only include information on criminal activities which is that persons fault anyway and public record and firearms inventory wouldnt even need to include the owners name as the purpose is just that ATF knows how many guns there are and can track sales/theft to criminals.

The only thing is these laws wont prevent mass killings by previously law abiding people that snap but IMO no gun law will prevent crazy people from killing other people. They will just look for a different way to do it. They would help prevent some of the 100k+ gun killings every year though so a small tradeoff for not doing enough to prevent about 100 gun deaths from mass killings(<.1% of total gun homicides).

[Svifnymr]

I agree that the culture has different elements but the basic characteristic is that you can own a gun, but not a specific type of gun. Depending on which state you live in you can obtain a license from ATF to own a machine gun(any full auto weapon) but there are a lot of restrictions, time, and money that go with it. There have only been 2 incidents involving legally owned automatic weapons since the machine gun regulation was passed and one was by a police officer using a law enforcement weapon. If similar restrictions were put on guns defined as assault weapons it would be harder to obtain them but if you are a normal person that wants to use them responsibly you can still get one. The NRA is supposedly for responsible gun ownership but has worked very hard against laws that would make obtaining guns by criminals and people who shouldnt have them where the only consequence to the responsible gun owner is: he has to wait a few days before he can use it the first time.

Machineguns were regulated in 34, banned from importation in 68 and banned from manufacture in 86. Though yeah, the amount of legally purchased machineguns used in crimes is so tiny you probably couldn't find that number. They still saw fit to further restrict them. Nowadays machineguns are very expensive since they can't be made anymore.

Doing the same with "assault weapons" just demonstrates a lack of understanding of what they actually ARE and ignores their actual low-rate of use in crimes, but that's really a subject for the other thread. As I said there though, the NFA Branch currently has 7 examiners and takes over 6 months to do a simple paper transfer on an item, if you wanted to assign more items to the division arbitrarily, you'd need to reform the entire branch's practices to streamline processes.

I wouldnt consider the AR15 a classic American gun. It looks similar to an M16 but is basically a semiauto knockoff. The classic American guns are the Kentucky longrifle, Colt Navy revolver/Colt .45 revolver, Henry repeating rifle, M1911, M1 Garand, M16. These are the guns everyone imagines when they see a colonial frontiersman, cowboy, WW2 GI, US Soldier Vietnam-present.

You list the M16, but you can't OWN one for less than $10,000 due to the laws I mentioned. What can you own? An AR15 that looks nearly identical, but lacks the auto function. The most popular model of AR15 is the M4 version that looks like the military M4. It has a step down barrel for a grenade launcher that hardly anyone will ever get. It has the shorter barrel (16" since 14.5" like military requires an NFA stamp as a short barreled rifle) that means it'll actually be less effective than the 20" standard AR15. People own it because it is as close in looks as they can get to the military gun.

Aside from the folks looking for the military style though, you also have folks that have multiples of the AR15 due to all the variations of it. I've owned a few different ones through the years, though I don't generally have multiples at once. They are fun guns to shoot, accurate, and lots of variations to give you something new to play with. If they made a 45 that locked the bolt open, I'd have one, but as is when the current sillyness passes, hopefully I can get a Colt 9mm.

---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 05:55 PM ----------

Agreed. But it's a two fold problem. On the one hand the more reasonable on the gun owner's side need to quiet those like the NRA that are against any regulation at all and on the other those on the gun control side need to focus on the "control" part and quiet down those going on about the "ban". It, like many other things in politics, ends up with the two extremes yelling at each other preventing any reasonable action getting done.

The big change in the NRA is sort of due to that mentality though. Back in the day, the NRA supported different gun control measures. The reward was MORE gun control measures. If the NRA agreed with the expanding of background checks to all private sales, it wouldn't mean the end of new legislature. There'd still be calls for a new gun ban or magazine ban or whatever next, and they'd still be saying the NRA won't compromise...

So really, there's no benefit to them to compromise when it just means gun-control types will want something else next year anyway.

[Prokne]

Doing the same with "assault weapons" just demonstrates a lack of understanding of what they actually ARE and ignores their actual low-rate of use in crimes, but that's really a subject for the other thread. As I said there though, the NFA Branch currently has 7 examiners and takes over 6 months to do a simple paper transfer on an item, if you wanted to assign more items to the division arbitrarily, you'd need to reform the entire branch's practices to streamline processes.

It wouldnt be the same system just similar. There doesnt need to be the same level of scrutiny toward semi auto weapons as there is on fully auto weapons. So it would be cheaper and take less time to get one. Making it a little harder to get a gun is much better than not being able to get one at all. For any kind of gun control to work though the government has to fix the ATF and actually let it do its job and also get more employees. It will even create jobs.

[Svifnymr]

It wouldnt be the same system just similar. There doesnt need to be the same level of scrutiny toward semi auto weapons as there is on fully auto weapons. So it would be cheaper and take less time to get one. Making it a little harder to get a gun is much better than not being able to get one at all. For any kind of gun control to work though the government has to fix the ATF and actually let it do its job and also get more employees. It will even create jobs.

The main oddity with the NFA law is the "chief law enforcement officer sign off" that means you have to go to your sheriff to have him sign the forms saying he doesn't know of any reason why you can't do it. In most jurisdictions they're not required to sign, so some just don't sign for anyone that's not a friend.

Otherwise, $5 or $200 stamp-fee, fingerprints background check. That's it. The fee is just an arbitrary amount and the background check doesn't do anything that the NICS doesn't already do, really. They do ask on the form "what purpose are you purchasing this for", but don't care what you put there. (I put "hearing protection" for a silencer, most put "for all lawful purposes", but I've seen a form that said "for possible zombie invasion" as a joke and it was approved)

The NFA branch is an outdated concept that just takes too long doing anything. The NICS system is more efficient and is used for all gun purchases already.

[Prokne]

The main oddity with the NFA law is the "chief law enforcement officer sign off" that means you have to go to your sheriff to have him sign the forms saying he doesn't know of any reason why you can't do it. In most jurisdictions they're not required to sign, so some just don't sign for anyone that's not a friend.

Otherwise, $5 or $200 stamp-fee, fingerprints background check. That's it. The fee is just an arbitrary amount and the background check doesn't do anything that the NICS doesn't already do, really. They do ask on the form "what purpose are you purchasing this for", but don't care what you put there. (I put "hearing protection" for a silencer, most put "for all lawful purposes", but I've seen a form that said "for possible zombie invasion" as a joke and it was approved)

The NFA branch is an outdated concept that just takes too long doing anything. The NICS system is more efficient and is used for all gun purchases already.

Overhauling and interconnecting systems would make both processes better then. It would be more efficient using the same system for all gun purchases. The local sheriff thing is probably because the local law enforcement has more information on you and can make a more informed decision on your character than a government suit from another state. I can see how it can cause problems though if there are no good rules for the sheriff to follow that tells him when and if he should approve someone. Other wise you could get like you said, hookups for friends, or if Sheriff Joe doesnt like you, he wont allow you to get approved.

[Svifnymr]

Overhauling and interconnecting systems would make both processes better then. It would be more efficient using the same system for all gun purchases. The local sheriff thing is probably because the local law enforcement has more information on you and can make a more informed decision on your character than a government suit from another state. I can see how it can cause problems though if there are no good rules for the sheriff to follow that tells him when and if he should approve someone. Other wise you could get like you said, hookups for friends, or if Sheriff Joe doesnt like you, he wont allow you to get approved.

The local sheriff thing is because the law was drafted in 1934.

You didn't run background checks or run fingerprints through a computer in 1934.

So, that's sort of my point, if AW's are registered through the NFA law, and we change the NFA law to update it and get rid of the anachronisms, you have a background check and a registration. So why bother involving the NFA system at all in the process?

Incidentally, the law was passed in 1934 because they wanted to take it away from normal people while still allowing the "elite" to do what they wanted. $200 in 1934 was an ungodly amount of money. Today the effect is reduced, but it does hurt resale value of some of the cheaper items. Sure, $200 as part of a $10,000 machine gun transaction is negligible, but when a 22 silencer is $300 new +$200, there is no resale value to it. (If you sell it for $200+$200, you've lost $300. If a dealer bought it from you for nothing, it'd still cost $200 to transfer it in.)

Anyway, I think you understand my position and I yours, so I don't want to sidetrack the thread more than already.

[Prokne]

Anyway, I think you understand my position and I yours, so I don't want to sidetrack the thread more than already.

I agree.

Whats interesting is the the NRA supported the NFA since it was an organization for responsible gun ownership and marksmanship. There isnt a whole lot of marksmanship with automatic weapons(more rate of fire than accuracy) and they were mostly known to be used by criminals in civilian use.

I wonder if Bill Clinton has some advice on dealing with the NRA since he did pass the first assault weapons ban. My opinion is that they are probably more obstinate now and it is a waste of time to consider the NRAs opinion on any gun control measure since we already know what it is.

[Reeve]

I agree.

Whats interesting is the the NRA supported the NFA since it was an organization for responsible gun ownership and marksmanship. There isnt a whole lot of marksmanship with automatic weapons(more rate of fire than accuracy) and they were mostly known to be used by criminals in civilian use.

I wonder if Bill Clinton has some advice on dealing with the NRA since he did pass the first assault weapons ban. My opinion is that they are probably more obstinate now and it is a waste of time to consider the NRAs opinion on any gun control measure since we already know what it is.

The "gun culture" folks have felt like they were under all out assault for a few years now, and events like Sandy Hook just make them more defensive, understandably so. I don't think there's anything you can say to them right now that would likely change anything. Even if Obama were to come out and say that he was going to repeal the NFA and make all weapons available at corner drug stores, people would think he was up to some kind of plot to get rid of guns altogether.

[Svifnymr]

I wonder if Bill Clinton has some advice on dealing with the NRA since he did pass the first assault weapons ban. My opinion is that they are probably more obstinate now and it is a waste of time to consider the NRAs opinion on any gun control measure since we already know what it is.

The benefit the NRA has is "single issue voters". There are folks that will only vote based on abortion policy, or only vote on gun rights, or only vote on whatever. (or at least, that is their central issue) Like anything else in US politics, it's more about getting the guys that agree with you to show up, rather than persuading the voters (the ones already showing up) to agree with you.

So, while folks talk about the NRA's lobbying power, and act like they have a lot of money (they have plenty, but compared to most others in US politics?), it's like the AARP. When it's important, they get their people to vote and they vote Guns. They grade folks by their records on guns, Obama even mentioned "don't be afraid of your grade" in a recent speech, though the odds of me finding which it was are slim. Contrary to what some folks seem to think, they don't push party lines, only gun-issues. Which, I mean, it makes sense since that's what the organization is all about, right?

So yeah, Clinton got the AWB passed in 94, and in 96 a lot of congressmen lost their job. A lot of democrats may hate the NRA, but they got people to vote and vote based on guns.

As I say though, the NRA has nothing to gain by "negotiating" with gun-control folks. Every time they have, it's just led to more control-fights down the line. They've endorsed mixed bills before (that overall were pro-gun but had some anti-gun stuff in them) and the reward was folks trying to pass more right after, so what's the incentive? If you come to them and say "we want to pass 1) AWB 2) mag ban 3) background checks on private sales 4) mandatory gun safes 5) gun registration" and they say "well, lets just do 3 and 4 as compromise", then later on, when there's another tragedy or someone else wants to make a point, they introduce 1&2&5 again, and the NRA says no and is labeled as uncompromising.

[Grummgug]

Clinton's experience was he came right out the gate in 1993, a freshly minted president, with republicans completely out of power, and attempted to pass socialized health care. The attempt failed miserably. After that, he basically threw up his hands and gave up. He stopped trying to push much of an agenda. The GOP was swept into power in congress. The liberal media of course gave 100% of the credit for the booming economy to Clinton and 0% to the republican congress, which looks even more like partisan hackery in light of recent political events, where the economy is sluggish and stalling today and the media tries to slap ALL of the blame on the republican house.

No-one can really explain what Clinton did to cause the economic boom. The truth is, outside of a small hiccup in 1990, the economy boomed for nearly 20 years starting with Reagan's reforms. Clinton was just along for the ride. He didn't cause the boom then, and has no answers for our problems now.

And then of course, the economy CRASHED in 2000, under Bill Clinton. But the media refuses to report it. When it crashes under Bush at the end of his term, the media goes crazy with blaming Bush. But blame Clinton for the 2000 crash? They act like there was no 2000 crash.

I try to have rational conversations about Bill Clinton with some liberals, but it usually ends when I bring up the economic crash under Clinton in 2000. They act like they were in some other universe where that did not occur. The fact is an inconvenient truth that does not fit with their chosen world view.

[Sorrior]

Sage advice for everyone, not just a fellow Democrat president. Though liberals do need this particular bit more, which is why I can hardly stand to listen to the political views of anyone but the most professional and objective on the left uninterrupted for more than a few minutes.

Don't try and paint one side as being more of this than the other...BOTH have a decent size of foolish individuals.

[obdigore]

Clinton's experience was he came right out the gate in 1993, a freshly minted president, with republicans completely out of power, and attempted to pass socialized health care. The attempt failed miserably. After that, he basically threw up his hands and gave up. He stopped trying to push much of an agenda. The GOP was swept into power in congress. The liberal media of course gave 100% of the credit for the booming economy to Clinton and 0% to the republican congress, which looks even more like partisan hackery in light of recent political events, where the economy is sluggish and stalling today and the media tries to slap ALL of the blame on the republican house.

No-one can really explain what Clinton did to cause the economic boom. The truth is, outside of a small hiccup in 1990, the economy boomed for nearly 20 years starting with Reagan's reforms. Clinton was just along for the ride. He didn't cause the boom then, and has no answers for our problems now.

And then of course, the economy CRASHED in 2000, under Bill Clinton. But the media refuses to report it. When it crashes under Bush at the end of his term, the media goes crazy with blaming Bush. But blame Clinton for the 2000 crash? They act like there was no 2000 crash.

I try to have rational conversations about Bill Clinton with some liberals, but it usually ends when I bring up the economic crash under Clinton in 2000. They act like they were in some other universe where that did not occur. The fact is an inconvenient truth that does not fit with their chosen world view.

Are you talking about the recession of 2002-2003? Or are you confused and talking about the dot-com bubble burst?

[Prokne]

Are you talking about the recession of 2002-2003? Or are you confused and talking about the dot-com bubble burst?

He probably talking about the dot com bubble crash in 2000 which was over the next day and doesnt even compare on any scale to the 2008 housing bubble.

[obdigore]

He probably talking about the dot com bubble crash in 2000 which was over the next day and doesnt even compare on any scale to the 2008 housing bubble.

I'm not aware of anyone who blames Bush Jr for the housing market crash of 2008. I seem to be pretty liberal (for an American) and think the blame rests upon the lawmakers (both gop and dems) who removed the regulations, clinton for signing it, the banks that traded securities they knew weren't up to par, and the ratings agencies who allowed it.

But I guess that doesn't fit Grum's 'liberals bad!' stereotype, so he is just going to ignore it.

[Prokne]

And then of course, the economy CRASHED in 2000, under Bill Clinton. But the media refuses to report it. When it crashes under Bush at the end of his term, the media goes crazy with blaming Bush. But blame Clinton for the 2000 crash? They act like there was no 2000 crash.

The crash was in 2001 and it was primarily because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Most economists agree that the dot com bubble could not have caused the economic effect that occured.

Clinton's experience was he came right out the gate in 1993, a freshly minted president, with republicans completely out of power, and attempted to pass socialized health care. The attempt failed miserably. After that, he basically threw up his hands and gave up. He stopped trying to push much of an agenda. The GOP was swept into power in congress. The liberal media of course gave 100% of the credit for the booming economy to Clinton and 0% to the republican congress, which looks even more like partisan hackery in light of recent political events, where the economy is sluggish and stalling today and the media tries to slap ALL of the blame on the republican house.

He realized he couldnt pass large comprehensive bills so he went will smaller more common sense ones. The current president keeps getting stuck with these huge "fiscal cliff" deals that get nowhere and keep kicking the can down the road. To get stuff past the Republican house he needs to do more like Clinton did. Hence the advice.

I try to have rational conversations about Bill Clinton with some liberals, but it usually ends when I bring up the economic crash under Clinton in 2000. They act like they were in some other universe where that did not occur. The fact is an inconvenient truth that does not fit with their chosen world view.

Probably true, the only thing people remember the most about Clinton was that the economy was good and there were no recessions during his presidency. Reagan had them, Bush 1 had them and Bush 2 had them but none from 1991-2001. I think its safe to say that economic effects of a presidency can lag for about 2 years after a new president comes in unless there is some striking policy change early in the term. Its not really fair to blame Bush for the 2008 recession since it was really caused by 30 years of conservative fiscal policy and Bush was just the last guy holding the stick. The current presidents policies and effort early on did limit the extent of the recession though, it could have been much worse.

---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 06:48 AM ----------

I'm not aware of anyone who blames Bush Jr for the housing market crash of 2008. I seem to be pretty liberal (for an American) and think the blame rests upon the lawmakers (both gop and dems) who removed the regulations, clinton for signing it, the banks that traded securities they knew weren't up to par, and the ratings agencies who allowed it.

But I guess that doesn't fit Grum's 'liberals bad!' stereotype, so he is just going to ignore it.

People blame GW Bush for not paying attention to what was going on. He appointed people that either looked the other way because businesses were making money, or people who didnt believe the government should regulate anything so they didnt do their job. The whole thing isnt his fault but he could have prevented it from being so bad if he had gotten people to work for him that werent big business cronies.

It is a republican talking point that Obama blames Bush for everything but I havent seen him saying anything like that. The paranoid people at Fox News like to imagine him doing and saying all kinds of things so it probably came from there.

[fooliuscaesar13]

Yeah, because the government's vetting process for security clearance and revoking that clearance really is silly.... /rolleyes

---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 09:56 PM ----------


Sure, why should we hold our politicians (the President, especially) to a high moral standard. If they can't function in their job without lying, just let them lie about whatever they want.

Your thinking is part of the problem.

Oh, I do not disagree with holding our politicians to a higher moral standard, especially the President. It is your thinking that is part of the problem, however, because what you are insinuating lies outside of the boundaries of reality. Every single politician, even the President, has violated moral code. Why should Clinton be impeached and none of the rest of them?
Another problem is this: who's moral standard do we hold these politicians to? And what should be done if they violate this moral standard, seeing that a moral standard is subject to point of view and not usually bound by law?
If we are going to discuss moral code, why not hold every President accountable and have a long, drawn out and expensive tax-payer funded trial for Bush...who started a war that is *still* going on? Or does that only apply to Democrats that have extramarital affairs? Morally, he could have taken the Christian high ground and given forgiveness to his enemies, like Christ taught...but he opted to turn the middle east into his personal bombing zone instead.
So, again: Lamest political bullshit ever, because that trial and impeachment attempt was merely a political witch hunt.

[tjanson]

Oh, I do not disagree with holding our politicians to a higher moral standard, especially the President. It is your thinking that is part of the problem, however, because what you are insinuating lies outside of the boundaries of reality. Every single politician, even the President, has violated moral code. Why should Clinton be impeached and none of the rest of them?
Another problem is this: who's moral standard do we hold these politicians to? And what should be done if they violate this moral standard, seeing that a moral standard is subject to point of view and not usually bound by law?
If we are going to discuss moral code, why not hold every President accountable and have a long, drawn out and expensive tax-payer funded trial for Bush...who started a war that is *still* going on? Or does that only apply to Democrats that have extramarital affairs? Morally, he could have taken the Christian high ground and given forgiveness to his enemies, like Christ taught...but he opted to turn the middle east into his personal bombing zone instead.
So, again: Lamest political bullshit ever, because that trial and impeachment attempt was merely a political witch hunt.

I'm not really defending the end result of the US response to the 9/11 attacks, but saying that Bush 2.0 "started a war" is absolute bullshit. In fact, comparing anything about the situation to Clinton's impeachment is completely wrong. Congress supported most of what Bush was doing(pretty much unanimously), until it became politically expedient for them not to do so.