Clinton question

Why was it okay for William Jefferson Clinton to get blow jobs in the
Oval office, but not okay for soldiers to have sex in Iraq?

Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast

I doubt it. Wasn't WJC impeached for this, inter alia? Then again, there
is sex, as opposed to cruel, ujn-American animalistic interrogation behavior
worthy of censure but not worthy of defense.

"Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast" wrote in message
s.com...
Why was it okay for William Jefferson Clinton to get blow jobs in the
Oval office, but not okay for soldiers to have sex in Iraq?

Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast

On Thu, 13 May 2004 19:24:00 -0400, "Lawrence Dillard"
wrote:

I doubt it. Wasn't WJC impeached for this, inter alia? Then again, there
is sex, as opposed to cruel, ujn-American animalistic interrogation behavior
worthy of censure but not worthy of defense.

"Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast" wrote in message
ws.com...
Why was it okay for William Jefferson Clinton to get blow jobs in the
Oval office, but not okay for soldiers to have sex in Iraq?

Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast
---
Don't think he was impeached for the blow jobs, just the lying. As
for Un-American behavior, I guess I've never understood why you can
kill people, but not put women's undergarments on them. Maybe we
would have just been better off accidently leaving them somewhere near
a B-52 strike.....like right under one.

Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast

"Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast" wrote in message
s.com...
On Thu, 13 May 2004 19:24:00 -0400, "Lawrence Dillard"
wrote:
SNIP
---
Don't think he was impeached for the blow jobs, just the lying. As
for Un-American behavior, I guess I've never understood why you can
kill people, but not put women's undergarments on them. Maybe we
would have just been better off accidently leaving them somewhere near
a B-52 strike.....like right under one.

Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast

Good point. However, war is alegedly simply politics carried on with an iron
fist. And place yourself in the other guy's shoes: would you like to have
such interrogation techniques applied to you? These "interrogations" make
the US armed forces, which presumably had been operating from the
high-ground, morally speaking, look crude and cruel, even to those of us who
routinely support their efforts.

Remember also the context: why in God's name did US armed forces take over
Sadam's Torture Central and use it for interrogations?

Also gives the dissidents there a rallying cry, and allows for flank attack
by our so-called "friends and allies".

Useless killing serves no real purpose, so exposing detainees to military
strikes seems too much.

From what I've read, the great majority of detainees are victims of a
dragnet detention, and will not know anything useful to intelligence
interrogators in the first place; makes the abuses look like mini-revenge
for not having been worth the time and effort devoted to detaining and
questioning the victims. Real intel which can be acted on seems to come
from a relatively few detainees. Others with information will liklely
stonewall at least until their info is too stale to be of immediate use.

But truly, the interrogations took place; and the photographs got taken
**and** they found their way, in due course, into the world press. The
cruelty and excesses surprise me; the revelation of the wrongdoing, however,
does not.

"Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast" wrote in message
s.com...
Why was it okay for William Jefferson Clinton to get blow jobs in the
Oval office, but not okay for soldiers to have sex in Iraq?

Well, it wasn't "okay" that the scumbag got bj's in the oval office.

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast" wrote in message
s.com...
Why was it okay for William Jefferson Clinton to get blow jobs in the
Oval office, but not okay for soldiers to have sex in Iraq?

Well, it wasn't "okay" that the scumbag got bj's in the oval office.

Depends on how you define "okay". (^-^)))

George Z.

Ian MacLure wrote:

snip

What was sanctionable however was lying about it in Court. You are
not allowed to lie in Court. You may invoke your right not to
incriminate yourself or you may tell the truth, lying is not an
option under any definition of "is" even ( and I want to make this
perfectly clear ) if its only about sex.

Even if they _do_ say 'Jehovah'? ;-)

Guy

Ian MacLure wrote:

"George Z. Bush" wrote in
:

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast" wrote in message
s.com...
Why was it okay for William Jefferson Clinton to get blow jobs in the
Oval office, but not okay for soldiers to have sex in Iraq?

Well, it wasn't "okay" that the scumbag got bj's in the oval office.

Depends on how you define "okay". (^-^)))

Hmm, I'm not sure geting his rod polished in the Oval Office was
illegal per se. However, were he a corporate executive, and were
Msssss Lewdwinski a subordinate, the words "Sexual Harrassment" and
allied terms would certainly have been bandied about.
What was sanctionable however was lying about it in Court. You are
not allowed to lie in Court. You may invoke your right not to
incriminate yourself or you may tell the truth, lying is not an
option under any definition of "is" even ( and I want to make this
perfectly clear ) if its only about sex.

IBM

I really think that it wasn't the bj that mattered a damn, it
was getting caught at it...Christ, he was a smart guy, in a very
high position, surely to god he could have arranged not to get
caught?...looks pretty damned arrogant to me. The old "I can get
away with anything" ploy.
--

-Gord.

Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast ) wrote:
: Why was it okay for William Jefferson Clinton to get blow jobs in the
: Oval office, but not okay for soldiers to have sex in Iraq?

Who says it's not OK for soldiers to have sex in Iraq?
Or are you talking about guards raping prisoners?
Two words: consenting adults.