🚀 go-pugleaf

There seems to be a consensus that if Clinton admits to lying, he would have
satisfied the GOP's bloodthirst.

But this is at best a gamble. And then they might just really come at him at
like gangbusters.

Clinton seems to be beyond the point of no return. Like a little kid caught
red-handed. Or Basil Fawlty. Like Reagan at Bitburg,
(Remember Lenny Bruce's bit on adultery; "Whatever happens, deny it! Even if
they have pictures, deny it!")

In any event, after the bombing, I am ready to throw him to the lions
anyway.

D.


rocket@ccnet.com wrote in message <757rng$nvr$1@news.ncal.verio.com>...
>
>cfortunato@aol.com wrote in message <7560j1$bt9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>In article <3675AFAC.3128@serious.com>,
>>  balky@serious.com. wrote:
>>> cfortunato@aol.com wrote:
>>> >
>>What makes you think they won't impeach Gore?  They've already shown that
>>they don't need real charges.  Three out of the four charges against
>Clinton
>>they have no actual evidence for, and they're charging him with them,
>anyway.
>> If Gore gets in, how long do you think it will before they impeach him
>over
>>campaign financing - even if they have no real evidence for it?  They
don't
>>need real charges, and they don't need public consent. So how is that
>>different from a dictatorship?
>>
>>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>>http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>You obviously believe President Clinton, and I would presume you are a
>supporter.
>
>Please tell me, as I am a bit confused, the reason he will not just come
out
>with the truth?
>
>For such a sharp political mind, he has missed the point; this is a
>political proceeding, not a legal one.  As such, I'm sure he would have
been
>off the hook as he has so many times before if he simply would have come
out
>and admitted his "unacceptable" behavior.
>
>