[Nightstalker]

You are correct that his enemies have a right to speak out. However I was responding to the article that suggested that Clinton should not speak out. Once somebody is attacked either in print or the electronic media they have a right to respond. If someone criticized you I think you would have a right to respond. If someone attacks Bush he has a right to respond. However, the author of the article is damning Clinton for responding to the various diatribes against him. Frankly I think the country has far better things to do than dwell on the sins of Clinton. His eight years are over. All of this was debated ad nauseum during the impeachment debate and he was found guilty of getting blow jobs beyond a reasonable doubt. My point is that it is time to move on to other things. I would prefer that both Clinton and his critics change the subject.

[mewzilla]

I'll tell you what. You give three thousand people their lives back, restore those obliterated buildings, four planes, and God knows how many more lives that were affected by this....You or Bubba manage all that, and I'll let it drop.

Fair enough?

[pray4liberty]

Frankly I think the country has far better things to do than dwell on the sins of Clinton. His eight years are over.

Well you may think so, and I think so too, but apparently, Bill doesn't.

[mrsmith]

The Liberal argument that a Liberal president doesn't have to obey the Supreme Court is my personal favorite.
Thanks for invoking it again, so few Liberals are stupid enough to use it anymore!

Supreme Court:"Like every other citizen who properly invokes that jurisdiction, respondent has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims. "
CLINTON v. JONES

Exactly three years before Clinton's image meeting the US House of Representatives impeached your pathetic sexual hero for his acts against the Constitutional foundation of our government.

Those of us who aren't Liberals are glad that the House of Representatives have set a warning before any President who, the next time the Supreme Court says "respondent has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims", might similarly act to defy the Judiciary.

[Kowdawg]

All of this was debated ad nauseum during the impeachment debate and he was found guilty of getting blow jobs beyond a reasonable doubt. My point is that it is time to move on to other things.

Absolutely. Clinton advised us long ago to move on for the good of the country. Afterall, the whole BJ episode, impeachment, and every other Clinton indiscrection was fabricated by the vast right-wing conspiracy.

He should defend himself against those of us who have no life beyond dwelling on Clinton. Maybe Bill, Hill, Al, and Jesse should embark on a national campaign to remind America about what a great president he was. I can't think of a better way to kickoff the 2002 congressional races. Maybe they could host a musical event for the NYC police and fireman.

[YankeeReb]

You are correct that his enemies have a right to speak out. However I was responding to the article that suggested that Clinton should not speak out. Once somebody is attacked either in print or the electronic media they have a right to respond. If someone criticized you I think you would have a right to respond. If someone attacks Bush he has a right to respond. However, the author of the article is damning Clinton for responding to the various diatribes against him. Frankly I think the country has far better things to do than dwell on the sins of Clinton. His eight years are over. All of this was debated ad nauseum during the impeachment debate and he was found guilty of getting blow jobs beyond a reasonable doubt. My point is that it is time to move on to other things. I would prefer that both Clinton and his critics change the subject.

And since he attacked the history of this country in his speech to Georgetown, people have the right to set the record straight in him. He was found guilty of more than getting "blowjobs", the man was found guilty pf perjury , he was fined for contempt of court, and he was barred from practicing before the supreme court. If the republicans weren't such spineless cowards, and if the democrats put the country ahead of their party he would have been out.

[BeAChooser]

Frankly I think the country has far better things to do than dwell on the sins of Clinton.

Sins ... perhaps. CRIMES? No way. Those we should investigate and prosecute.

His eight years are over.

THANK GOD but what worries me is the next time the democRATS get the Whitehouse and all those OATH BREAKING, COMPLICIT democRATS that remain in Congress. THAT is why we need to investigate and prosecute ... so that democRAT AND Republican leaders know that the laws apply to them TOO.

All of this was debated ad nauseum during the impeachment debate and he was found guilty of getting blow jobs beyond a reasonable doubt.

SPIN SPIN SPIN. He was guilty of committing CRIMES. And MANY of his most heinous CRIMES were never investigated or discussed. And certainly the mainstream press didn't tell the public about them. Do you know that the mainstream press never even mentioned that Sid Blumenthal was caught LYING UNDER OATH in an impeachment about LYING UNDER OATH? THAT'S how biased the press was and THAT'S how UNINFORMED the people were KEPT.

My point is that it is time to move on to other things.

Sure. How about the exhumation and autopsy of Ron Brown's body?

I would prefer that both Clinton and his critics change the subject.

I'm sure you and all the other "move-oner's" would like that. Well dream on.