That is funny! What asshat is responsible for such a massive cock up?
The Russians were vanquished?
I think not.
Praise Allah that NATO never had to fight the Warsaw Pact. We would have lost the conventional war, that's for damned sure.[quote=“TheGingerMan”]…The Russians were vanquished?
I think not.
[/quote]
Nor do I. But we are talking about American perception here. 
[quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“TheGingerMan”]…The Russians were vanquished?
I think not.
[/quote]
Nor do I. But we are talking about American perception here. [/quote]
Ah. That’s another matter entirely. Win at all costs, and if not, then pretend.
[quote=“TheGingerMan”]…The Russians were vanquished?
I think not.[/quote]
Well, that perception would most likely be limited to Americans of the Democratic Party… They’re the ones who want to decrease defense spending! The Republicans generally still see enemies out there!
Widely debunked conspiracy theories?
Juanita Broaddrick being interviewed by Dateline NBC in 1999.
Christopher Hitchens, among others, believed her version of events and to my knowledge Clinton himself has never denied her accusations:
[quote]It’s often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That’s not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter ‘Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?’ in the paperback version of my book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton ‘rapid response’ team.)[/quote]-- Christopher Hitchens, 2008
The one time Bill Clinton did publicly deny accusations of predatory sexual behavior against him – that he had sex with a 19-year-old White House intern – he later recanted, admitting that he’d lied. In fact he’s done everything possible to avoid ever facing any of his many accusers in public:
Paula Jones debunked? He paid her $850,000 to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit rather than face her in court:
[quote] The record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the President responded to plaintiff’s questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process. The President acknowledged as much in his public admission that he ‘‘misled people’’ because, among other things, the questions posed to him ‘‘were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit, which has since been dismissed.’’ Although there are a number of aspects of the President’s conduct in this case that might be characterized as contemptuous, the court addresses at this time only those matters which no reasonable person would seriously dispute were in violation of this court’s discovery orders and which do not require a hearing, namely the President’s sworn statements concerning whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had ever been alone together and whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. . . .
It is difficult to construe the President’s sworn statements in this civil lawsuit concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky as anything other than a willful refusal to obey this court’s discovery orders. Given the President’s admission that he was misleading with regard to the questions being posed to him and the clarity with which his falsehoods are revealed by the record, there is no need to engage in an extended analysis of the President’s sworn statements in this lawsuit. Simply put, the President’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false, notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term ‘‘sexual relations.’’[/quote]-- Federal judge Susan Webber Wright upon fining Bill Clinton $90,000 for contempt of court in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit and recommending proceedings against him to the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee of Professional Conduct
Democrats really need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask how they ever elevated such a man into the status of icon for their party and what it stands for.
[quote]Democrats really need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask how they ever elevated such a man into the status of icon for their party and what it stands for.[/quote] :bravo:
[/quote]
Maybe it was showing that he single handedly took down 4 Russian warships. 
[quote=“Winston Smith”]
Democrats really need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask how they ever elevated such a man into the status of icon for their party and what it stands for.[/quote]
huh? democrats elevating the man? then why are the republicans mentioning how great a president Clinton was during and after the RNC? no one ever said the man is a saint, he is just a great politician with great vision and execution of where and how the country needs to go to remain a strong world leader. at the same time his vision involves being fiscally sane, people educated, and keeping the energy clean. since we elected him to be the “president” not the pope, i don’t give a frak about his personal life, as long as it is legal. if he indeed raped other women, then he should spend time at the big house.
even after they tried to impeach Clinton, his approval rating was 65% when he left the office. 65%! highest end-of-term approval rating of any President since Dwight D. Eisenhower. That is the approval of his policies and his leadership. So what if at the same time over 55% of the people don’t think he told the whole truth or isn’t totally trust worthy during his scandal trials. I rather have this, than a absolute saint who has no clue how to run a country be the president.
I’ll see your “huh?” and raise you a ‘duh’.
[quote=“Chris”]Plus, it’s more effective to have a beloved elder statesman underscore Obama’s accomplishments than for Obama himself to do it. “He accomplished this; he accomplished that” has more weight than “I accomplished this; I accomplished that.” The former is an endorsement; the latter is more like bragging.
I still find it telling how the Dems had Clinton feature prominently in their convention, while the Repubs didn’t even invite Bush, and barely even mentioned him.[/quote]
“Telling” indeed.