The problem is that Willie would have been breaking precedent. Ronnie, Tricky Dick, LBJ, JFK, FDR, etc have all been accused of these things. If they had all "resigned quietly" we would have been led by a series of VP's.

Well it all depends on what your definition of "is" is. Doesn't it?

[seacapt]

The problem is that Willie would have been breaking precedent. Ronnie, Tricky Dick, LBJ, JFK, FDR, etc have all been accused of these things. If they had all "resigned quietly" we would have been led by a series of VP's.

the fore mentioned presidents may have been accused of improprieties but the only one you mentioned who was proven to be involved with / aware of criminal actions did resign .

[flippedgazelle]

the fore mentioned presidents may have been accused of improprieties but the only one you mentioned who was proven to be involved with / aware of criminal actions did resign .

Of course, there's a difference between "proof" and "truth", isn't there?

Actually, the aforementioned Presidents were accused of lying under oath, not simply improprieties. And Millhouse resigned in order to avoid going to jail.

[seacapt]

Goosh's point has been left unanswered - I wonder why?
As long as human beings are leaders of anything, there will be mistakes, big and small.
Only being a president means everything you do, have done, and will ever do will be heavily scrutinised.

Good Morning.
Can't speak for anyone else but I didn't answer Goosh's point because I was putting my daughter to bed and watching the World Series.
You are correct in that people make mistakes but mistakes don't equate to premeditated criminal actions.
If Willy loaded up on viagra and spent a weekend in Bankok that would have been a big mistake but not a criminal action. Stating under oath "I never had sex with that woman" was a criminal action.
Not having enough self control to turn down the advances of a chubby college girl speaks volumes about Willy but because she was over the age of legal consent it was not criminal , his lies during the investigation were.
Now I'll reply to Goosh.

[seacapt]

and i will ask you again, show me someone that would create a bench mark, so that your statements would become meaningful.

the way i see it, Clinton is no better or worse than anyone else in the grand scheme of things. He did some good things, he did some bad things, just like every other president in every other country...

Your insistance that Clintons actions were acceptable cotinues to prove my point.

To answer your question directly , Gerald Ford , Jimmy Carter , Ronald Regan and George Bush Sr. all set a higher standard of virtue and could have been considered bench marks for a standard above Clinton.

The President of the United States , a suposedly mature adult diddled a little (well maybe not little but young) girl in the White House. That was wrong! He could have taken resonsibillity , admitted his error in judgement and accepted the consequences like a man. He didn't he lied repeatedly and under oath , that was criminal. His word means nothing. He is among the lowest form of human being.
If you truely believe Clinton's actions were acceptable , I hope for your sake that you never have a daughter.

[Wheatfield]

The President of the United States , a suposedly mature adult diddled a little (well maybe not little but young) girl in the White House. That was wrong! He could have taken resonsibillity , admitted his error in judgement and accepted the consequences like a man. He didn't he lied repeatedly and under oath , that was criminal. His word means nothing. He is among the lowest form of human being.

And the next president lied repeatedly to his constituents in order to engage in a war of aggression that has cost several hundred thousand lives and squandered several trillions of dollars that could have been put to better use, and also opened up a Gulag in a country that it's illegal for Americans to go to.
When did Cuba become GWB, the military and the CIA's BFF?
Does this put him lower or higher on the lowest form of human being scale?
It's odd that no one down there sees all that as criminal.

[flippedgazelle]

To answer your question directly , Gerald Ford , Jimmy Carter , Ronald Regan and George Bush Sr. all set a higher standard of virtue and could have been considered bench marks for a standard above Clinton.

I don't think Reagan, who invaded a small country because he didn't like their form of gov't and gave weapons to an embargoed country, and supported Latin American revolutionary commandoes who committed a long list of atrocities against civilians, occupies a higher moral ground than Clinton.

GHWB was a better president than many give him credit for. I think, in time, history will bear this out. And I agree, he appeared to be a moral man (for a politician).

[Blue]

Goosh's point has been left unanswered - I wonder why?
As long as human beings are leaders of anything, there will be mistakes, big and small.
Only being a president means everything you do, have done, and will ever do will be heavily scrutinised.

Slick could have refused to answer the question as inappropriate.

[Blue]

. . .

GHWB was a better president than many give him credit for. I think, in time, history will bear this out. And I agree, he appeared to be a moral man (for a politician).

Except he lied like an S.O.B. when he was sworn in as head of the C.I.A. under Gerry Ford. He said he had no prior connections with the C.I.A. when in fact he had official and unofficial ties going back to 1958. Furthermore, it was likely him more involved in the Iran-Contra stuff than anyone realized at the time. Plus he was a founding member of The Plumbers and was involved with Air America. Hell, one of the characters in the movie was based on him.

Edit: I voted for him once and against him once.