My point to indy is this thread about Bush and that’s not the topic. The article was about President Clinton. Also, people who continually want to beat the drum that Bush is failure and Iraq is a complete failure are not being productive. Fine say what you believe but my goodness at some point don’t these people who continually post negative things about Bush feel like a broken clock? The folks that believe that Bush was the “worst president evah” have made their feelings known. You’ve written in blog several times now and it will be there years and years to come. It’s been recorded. Can we move on now?

terryannonline on June 2, 2008 at 11:29 AM

So you are proposing censoring ue to some kind of historical record on a blog?

But through it all, it has been easy enough to retain an enduring admiration—even affection—for a president whose sins against decorum and the dignity of his office seemed venial in contrast to the systemic indifference, incompetence, corruption, and constitutional predations of his successor’s administration. That is, easy enough until now.

Geez, BDS in full flower.

Whatever the future holds for Hillary Clinton, her husband is not fading away. He will remain a presence, a force to be reckoned with, as long as he draws breath.

If Hillary:
1) Loses the super delegate battle and the nomination,
2) Realizes that Bill hurt her more than he helped her (for example in South Carolina), and
3) Concludes that she might have won the nomination if it hadn’t been for his “help”

Then:
Hillary might help ensure that Bill takes his last breath before she tries to run again.

Yes, Obama is a daring opponent who thinks he is hot shit and has benefited from the same enthusiasm, energy, and fresh-faced appeal that a fella named Bill Clinton once elicited (but he has suffered from some of the same skepticism, too).

I’ve said for some time Obama is Bill Clinton without the women.

Then he looked into her eyes and sang, “Try a Little Tenderness,” a song that goes: “She may be weary, women do get weary, wearing the same shabby dress.”

I would have thought Clinton was more of a Def Leppard sort of guy.

I understand.

But you aren’t going to get some here to agree. They’re like the Republican dominated Congress who gave Bush a pass and yes-ed him repeatedly at every juncture over the last 8 years.

AprilOrit on June 2, 2008 at 10:56 AM

My only point is that we are beating aI understand.

But you aren’t going to get some here to agree. They’re like the Republican dominated Congress who gave Bush a pass and yes-ed him repeatedly at every juncture over the last 8 years.

AprilOrit on June 2, 2008 at 10:56 AM

My point to indy is this thread about Bush and that’s not the topic. The article was about President Clinton. Also, people who continually want to beat the drum that Bush is failure and Iraq is a complete failure are not being productive. Fine say what you believe but my goodness at some point don’t these people who continually post negative things about Bush feel like a broken clock? The folks that believe that Bush was the “worst president evah” have made their feelings known. You’ve written in blog several times now and it will be there years and years to come. It’s been recorded. Can we move on now?

AprilOrit on June 2, 2008 at 1:37 AM
Bush bears responsibility whether he was influenced to make a decision or not.

It was HIS decision at the end of the day.

He NEVER apologized for his failures in Iraq.

Indy Conservative on June 2, 2008 at 1:44 AM

I understand.

But you aren’t going to get some here to agree. They’re like the Republican dominated Congress who gave Bush a pass and yes-ed him repeatedly at every juncture over the last 8 years.

At various times on this blog, you’ve written that:

everyone in America is an idiot;

Bush is responsible for all the civilian and military deaths in Iraq;

American soldiers are losers;

America sucks so bad that people from 3rd world countries don’t want to come here;

there will be no progress in Iraq in your lifetime;

al-Qaeda is as strong as ever.

I’m completely flummoxed at how anyone could think you’re a liberal.

misterpeasea on June 2, 2008 at 9:44 AM

We are all entitled to our opinions you included. Just because one deviates from another’s personal opinion hardly proves Liberalism.

I never thought I would see the SS Blog Police patrolling here, they are usually on foot patrol over at Kos or DU.

I mean if Bush isn’t responsible for all of those lives than who is?

So, yes, let us stipulate: Ken Starr was a prurient, partisan zealot.

I’m sure that was submitted arguendo, but I agree with the commenters who wrote that this wasn’t really fair to Starr. Starr’s scope was initially quite narrow, but Reno kept adding and adding and adding to it, making him appear to be pursuing a relentless and far-reaching quest to nail Bubba. What was he supposed to do, refuse the charge to undertake the other investigative authority?

Indy Conservative on June 2, 2008 at 8:35 AM

No problem. :)
Just to yank yer chain tho I’ll quote one of the bad guys from C.S. Lewis’ That Hideous Strength: “If [IndyConservative] wishes us not to hear his views, I suggest his end might be better attained by silence.”

By the way, if you have the intention to call me “liberal,” don’t bother, just ignore my message. I’m not writing it for you anyway.

Indy Conservative on June 2, 2008 at 1:20 AM

At various times on this blog, you’ve written that:

everyone in America is an idiot;

Bush is responsible for all the civilian and military deaths in Iraq;

American soldiers are losers;

America sucks so bad that people from 3rd world countries don’t want to come here;

there will be no progress in Iraq in your lifetime;

al-Qaeda is as strong as ever.

I’m completely flummoxed at how anyone could think you’re a liberal.

If every honest American who share the same conservative values as I do would vote for himself or herself, this country will change to the direction we want, not to the lesser of two evils.

Indy Conservative on June 2, 2008 at 1:57 AM

I find that statement more idiotic than the one about Indy Conservative seeing Dennis Kucinich naked.

Indy Conservative

Did you get lost on the planet Ronulan again?

Buy Danish on June 2, 2008 at 8:49 AM

No, but I did find “Gravel.”

Indy Conservative

Did you get lost on the planet Ronulan again?

inviolet on June 2, 2008 at 7:41 AM

Thank you for ignoring my message.

I’ll keep you in my mind for next time.

I promise, it will not be addressed to you.

Indy Conservative on June 2, 2008 at 2:12 AM

Dude

……. ?

Kini on June 2, 2008 at 2:43 AM

Exactly. That was my thought too.

If you have a weak heart, you really, really don’t wanna see Dennis Kucinich naked, it’s scary.

Believe me.

So, yes, let us stipulate: Ken Starr was a prurient, partisan zealot.

It really is amazing, the zeal with which the left steals and corrupts history and the truth. Liberalism must be a mental illness otherwise we would have to accept that nearly half this country is evil.

By the way, if you have the intention to call me “liberal,” don’t bother, just ignore my message. I’m not writing it for you anyway.

Indy Conservative on June 2, 2008 at 1:20 AM

Well…your post is a bit confusing. First, it did sound like a liberal, you have to admit. And…I thought posts are written for everyone on the thread to read. But…

[then] don’t bother, just ignore my message.

Well, OK, if you insist… :)

Quisp on June 2, 2008 at 6:21 AM

Why would Dee-Dee Meyer’s husband write it? Feels like the Scott McClellan thing.

The “Comeback Kid” has transformed to the Fade-away Fool.
Bill Clinton has lost his luster with the MSM and Liberals. The “First Black President” is experiencing a scathing tell-all article written by Dee Dee Myers’ h…

Ken Starr was a prurient, partisan zealot

No, Clinton used the power of his office to crush those who would expose him and Starr investigated those acts as well as everything else that was inappropriate behavior for an employee. Which the president is.

A tawdry, anonymous quote-filled attack piece, published in this month’s Vanity Fair magazine regarding former President Bill Clinton repeats many past attacks on him, ignores much prior positive coverage, includes numerous errors, and ultimately breaks no new ground. It is, in short, journalism of personal destruction at its worst.