Thread: What Would The Republicans Have Done To Clinton If...

He had say...

Started a war that had bogged our military down in the heart of the middle east for 4 years, had greatly degraded our military, lasted years longer than predicted, cost far more than predicted and turned out to be based on what he simply dismissed as "bad bad intelligence".

Had members of his administration that outted a covert CIA agent working on WMD counter proliferation.

Had failed to effectively respond at the Federal level to a major natural disaster that flooded 90% of a major American city.

Had conducted his own warantless wiretapping program by presidential order that was ruled to violated the first and forth ammendments as well as the FISA statute and Title III after doing so was already determined to be illegal by the Justice Department..

Had an FBI that had conducted thousands of illegal wiretaps that violated even the expanded powers of the Patriot Act.

Had an Attorney General who was embroiled in a scandal over possible obstruction of justice relating to the firing of US Attorneyts that had already caused three high level Justice department resignations in just two months.

Had stored as many as five million Congressionally supoened e-mails on DNC servers in violation of the Presidential Records Act mysteriously disappear also in violation of the Presidential Records Act.

And of course gotten a BJ from an intern...

You forgot to add "Had his WH counsel go to the sick bed of his Attorney General and try to strong arm him into signing off on the illegal wire tap program that the acting Attorney General and 2nd in command had refused to sign off on or approve because the program was not defensible (ie was illegal)."

Originally Posted by Vortex

You forgot to add "Had his WH counsel go to the sick bed of his Attorney General and try to strong arm him into signing off on the illegal wire tap program that the acting Attorney General and 2nd in command had refused to sign off on or approve because the program was not defensible (ie was illegal)."

That's covered under the fourth item on the list. But, may as well make the scenario details clear for the sake of discussion.

Impeached him?

Rallied by the thousands in the streets to demand his resignation?

Surrounded the White House with pitchforks to hang him high?

Patted him on back for his fine work and called all attempts to make him change that behavior violations of the "separation of powers"?

Originally Posted by Distressed American

Impeached him?

Rallied by the thousands in the streets to demand his resignation?

Surrounded the White House with pitchforks to hang him high?

Patted him on back for his fine work and called all attempts to make him change that behavior violations of the "separation of powers"?

I thought I heard a conservative responding to this thread... But, it was just the crickets.


Speckled Bush Cricket



Speckled Bush Cricket
Juvenile

I don't think the conservatives in the 1990s could have hated Clinton any more than they already did. But remember, there were a lot of moderates in the 1990s and Clinton was wildly popular. I absolutely think that Republicans would have tried to impeach Clinton on anything they could have thought of. It is quite obvious that the liberals learned the power of mindless arrogance and pathetic bickering from the conservatives in the 1990s, and in that sense, the conservatives are getting what they deserve. So, while its now the Democrats that look pathetic, I suppose the Republicans don't have any high ground to stand upon.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

I don't think the conservatives in the 1990s could have hated Clinton any more than they already did. But remember, there were a lot of moderates in the 1990s and Clinton was wildly popular. I absolutely think that Republicans would have tried to impeach Clinton on anything they could have thought of. It is quite obvious that the liberals learned the power of mindless arrogance and pathetic bickering from the conservatives in the 1990s, and in that sense, the conservatives are getting what they deserve. So, while its now the Democrats that look pathetic, I suppose the Republicans don't have any high ground to stand upon.

Good way to not answer the question presented.

What the hell are you rambling about "the Democrats that look pathetic", please provide further explanation.

Originally Posted by Vortex

Good way to not answer the question presented.

What the hell are you rambling about "the Democrats that look pathetic", please provide further explanation.

The Democrats have been just as pathetic during the Bush Administration as the Republicans were under Clinton. The Democrats have been running on a "we hate Bush" platform for the last six years and, now that a majority of Americans hate Bush, its working! All this whining and bickering over how evil and terrible President Bush is, while hysterical, is ridiculous. President Bush has made a ton of mistakes, but so did President Clinton. But the mistakes Bush is making that is causing him to lose favor with conservatives are all things that the Democrats support. Massive funding for Education and Medicare. Extremely liberal on illegal immigration. Massive spending increases in nearly every area of government. The only areas where Democrats really have room to complain about Bush is on Iraq, gay marriage, and the environment (but democrats aren't doing jack on gay marriage and the environment, so they don't have any ground to stand on there). However, because Democrats can no longer think, being too tied up in their hatred and hysteria, they forget that the majority of Democrats supported the Iraq war for the same reasons as a majority of Republicans. Now, you can say that Bush lied, but there isn't any proof of this. All that can be said with any degree of confidence is that Bush didn't wait long enough to make a more informed opinion on Iraq.

Ron Paul is right, our government simply doesn't understand how irrational and violent middle eastern politics really are. The idea that we can go over to the Middle East and share our ideal of liberty and wealth and pluralism is impossible. We can't. There is too much corruption and too much hatred in the Middle East and we can't solve that by shooting our guns and tanks, and lobbing missiles and bombs at the bad guys.

But I look at the Democrats now and I see the same idiotic hatred and hysteria that I saw in the Republicans in the 1990s. If it wasn't for the fact that Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton found ways to work together, while trying to destroy each other politically, we would have been as bad off then as we are now. To me, Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton are the greatest politicians of our time. They led their parties and tried to win political victories left and right, but behind closed doors, they worked together to make America better.

I dislike Bush. But the incessant rage coming from the left is a product of hysteria, not reason. There are plenty of Democrats that feel the same way I do. But they are the minority.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

The Democrats have been just as pathetic during the Bush Administration as the Republicans were under Clinton. The Democrats have been running on a "we hate Bush" platform for the last six years and, now that a majority of Americans hate Bush, its working! All this whining and bickering over how evil and terrible President Bush is, while hysterical, is ridiculous. President Bush has made a ton of mistakes, but so did President Clinton. But the mistakes Bush is making that is causing him to lose favor with conservatives are all things that the Democrats support. Massive funding for Education and Medicare. Extremely liberal on illegal immigration. Massive spending increases in nearly every area of government. The only areas where Democrats really have room to complain about Bush is on Iraq, gay marriage, and the environment (but democrats aren't doing jack on gay marriage and the environment, so they don't have any ground to stand on there). However, because Democrats can no longer think, being too tied up in their hatred and hysteria, they forget that the majority of Democrats supported the Iraq war for the same reasons as a majority of Republicans. Now, you can say that Bush lied, but there isn't any proof of this. All that can be said with any degree of confidence is that Bush didn't wait long enough to make a more informed opinion on Iraq.

Ron Paul is right, our government simply doesn't understand how irrational and violent middle eastern politics really are. The idea that we can go over to the Middle East and share our ideal of liberty and wealth and pluralism is impossible. We can't. There is too much corruption and too much hatred in the Middle East and we can't solve that by shooting our guns and tanks, and lobbing missiles and bombs at the bad guys.

But I look at the Democrats now and I see the same idiotic hatred and hysteria that I saw in the Republicans in the 1990s. If it wasn't for the fact that Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton found ways to work together, while trying to destroy each other politically, we would have been as bad off then as we are now. To me, Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton are the greatest politicians of our time. They led their parties and tried to win political victories left and right, but behind closed doors, they worked together to make America better.

I dislike Bush. But the incessant rage coming from the left is a product of hysteria, not reason. There are plenty of Democrats that feel the same way I do. But they are the minority.

I see tow rants about how bad the left is. I still do not see an answe to the question posed. Maybe I missed it. Tell me again, how would Republicans have reacted to all of that?