Gingrich - Hyprcrit?

[Dr. Shane]

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich Acknowledges Having Affair During Clinton Impeachment

Quote:

"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.

"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials."

The issue, as I always saw it, wasn't adultery but perjury and obstruction of justice. If a President or any politician wants to mess around on their own time it is a personal matter. I won't even condemn a politician for lying to the press about such a thing. However when they lie under oath and try to get others to lie under oath, that cannot be accepted if the rule of law is to be respected.

I have to take my hat off to Gingrich for agreeing to sit down with Dr. Dobson and answer such questions. I doubt it was an unexpected question but even if it was, he could have dodged it.

[lazarus]

Doesn't this confession leave the way open for a religious right endorsement for Pres? They're still looking for a true conservative candidate. Newt maybe our man!

[lazarus]

Hypocrite? No doubt.

[Dottie]

That's not news; it was public knowledge at the time.

It seems that of those planning to run for Republican nominee, only one has been married only once, and that for over 30 years--the Mormon, Mitt Romney!

[Neil D]

Interesting...common knowledge...Newt Gingrich having an affair?

Well, the rocky mountains must filter out that phlotsom and jetsom and prevent it from coming into the west...

Of course, all you easterners knew about the elder Bush having his affair during the White House years....right?

[Dr. Shane]

I heard rumors about both Gingrich and Bush the elder but rumors often times are not trustworthy. I was unaware that either were documented as fact. Until now, of course, since Gingrich has openly admitted his affair.

[Halfstep Denise]

Did I just log into The National Enquirer's website?

What skeletons would we find in your lives, if we chose to look?

I don't want to know, by the way!

Halfstep Denise

[Neil D]

Apparently, it was well known among the press corp....And what I have posted here from Wikipedia is the tip of the iceberg...

Jennifer Fitzgerald

Jennifer Fitzgerald

Jennifer Fitzgerald is a retired U.S. diplomat who allegedly had a long-term affair with President George H.W. Bush from the time he was United States ambassador to China which continued while he was Vice President and then President. She worked for Bush "in a variety of a positions" (as the Washington Post later put it[1]) for much of this time, and her influence on Bush has in turn reportedly led to friction between her and others working for him.[2] She has never spoken about this allegation, and Bush has denied it, but only on one occasion.

The rumored affair, and Fitzgerald's full name, were often well-known to members of the media who had covered Bush and his career but never discussed in public. Veteran New York Times reporter R.W. Apple said her name was "known everywhere, and it is not used".[1]

They were first publicly reported by LA Weekly in 1988. But they did not come to the attention of the public as a whole until the next presidential campaign in 1992, after Bush's opponent, Bill Clinton, had had to deal with disclosures of his own indiscretions. That August, Spy magazine made her the centerpiece of a story suggesting she was but one of many Bush paramours,[1] and then other stories forced the media to address the issue. As a result Bush was personally confronted about it by NBC and CNN, and a front page story in the Washington Post. Bush did not give a direct answer to the question of an affair on these occasions. In a White House press conference he called the allegations "a lie".

[Dr. Shane]

I suspect that over the years there have been many rumors in the press corps that have not been proven true. It sounds like there is more evidence to believe something happened between Bill Clinton and Paula Jones than between Bush the elder and Jennifer Fritzgerald. Odds are something happened in both cases but both remain rumors.

[Bravus]

Meh, I just wish we could forget it already. We all know that the Clinton story was not really about either sex or lying, but about politics.

[Dr. Shane]

If the Bush the elder story is true, and was a long term affair (that took place over years from the time he was an ambassador to China) but never came to light until 1992 when he ran against Clinton, that sounds more like politics than sex too.

In fact, it tends to shed a whole new light on the Monica scandal, doesn't it? The old adage, "what comes around goes around" seems to apply. However Clinton did solicit perjury, obstruct justice and abused his authority by using the Secret Service to cover for his sexual escapades. Let's remove sex from the story and say he did the same things (solicit perjury, obstruct justice, abuse power) in order to conduct real estate deals with someone in secret. That is really what got him in trouble.

[Neil D]

Meh, I just wish we could forget it already. We all know that the Clinton story was not really about either sex or lying, but about politics.

Absolutely true...and all this stuff regarding Clinton can be attributed to "Clinton hate" which the repulicans PR machine has definately exploited. Too bad ...as he was trying to enact policies that benefited the common man...and not the few...

[there buster]

The judge who found Clinton guilty of perjury had been his student, and had been appointed by him.

His perjury was not about anything political. It was about the central issue in a lawsuit for sexual harassment filed against him. HIs perjury was not about whether he forgot something he said to or learned from a reporter, but was about his own personal conduct in relation to a crime.

As the nation's highest law enforcement officer, he subverted the law.

The lawsuit had nothing to do with politics. Clinton wanted to make it about politics to avoid questions about his conduct.

[Bravus]

A bit like Libby's perjury, then?

[Woody]

A bit like Libby's perjury, then?

Libby is not " nation's highest law enforcement officer "

[Neil D]

Libby is not " nation's highest law enforcement officer "

True...but now it leaves the Vice President open to a lot of critism since Libby is being tauted as taking one for the VP.

I am inclined to agree with the sentiment that if a public official intentionally outs a CIA agent, that official should be shot for treason...

And I think that Novak et al reporters should be jailed for publizing her name while the facts plain show that she was being outed. That will automatically make the press more responsible for thier actions in this....[They were told that Plame was a CIA agent, which they should not have publizied it], and it will render the gossips with zipper lips...

[Woody]

Hold the fire ... the husband of the CIA agent had outed her before Libby had.

The trial did not determine if she had been outed or not and if so my whom.

[Bravus]

/me bows out of one more round of tit-for-tat. Believe it or not my earlier statement in this thread was not meant to be party-political, though I did mention Clinton by name. I hoped we could leave Bush 41's sex life out of it, and Gingrich's. It's important, but nothing is really served by rehashing it yet again. I probably shouldn't have bought in with the Libby comment either. Playing 'whose transgression is worse' is just not that interesting a game.

[Woody]

/me bows out of one more round of tit-for-tat. Believe it or not my earlier statement in this thread was not meant to be party-political, though I did mention Clinton by name. I hoped we could leave Bush 41's sex life out of it, and Gingrich's. It's important, but nothing is really served by rehashing it yet again. I probably shouldn't have bought in with the Libby comment either. Playing 'whose transgression is worse' is just not that interesting a game.

You are so right Bravus . After all I have been known to say that ... Sin is Sin.

[Neil D]

You are so right Bravus . After all I have been known to say that ... Sin is Sin.

[said with a grin on my face] To which, we still don't know what you mean by that.... :-)

[there buster]

Quote:

A bit like Libby's perjury, then?

I thought you'd never ask.

Libby said he learned about Valerie Plame from a reporter, Tim Russert, who in his original deposition said he wasn't sure, but on the stand he became sure. Which reporter he heard it from WAS NOT MATERIAL to the underlying accusation.

This is not a crime.

The investigation was about who 'outed' Valerie Plame as a NOC.

The facts:

1)Valerie Plame had ceased to be a NOC six years previous to the revelation that she worked for the CIA. So the law did not apply to her. THERE WAS NO CRIME.

2)We know from two sources, including a confession, that the person who originally identified her was Richard Armitage. NOT a White House employee of any sort. IF THERE HAD BEEN A CRIME, ARMITAGE COMMITTED IT.

The facts in the Clinton case:

Paula JOnes accused Clinton of sexual harassment.

Clinton denied material facts about the case under oath.

The judge ruled that Clinton lied about facts material to the case.

The Libby trial was political theater. The underlying crime did not exist--the crime Harry Reid and the juror/journalist kept talking about DID NOT EXIST, nor was Libby charged with it. Yet without that crime, there was no reason for an investigation. A responsible prosecutor would have discovered that the crime he was appointed to investigate did not exist, would have reported that, and closed up shop. In any case, what Libby said about this reporter or that reporter was immaterial to the case, since there was no crime.

I expected you would be better informed.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Libby was found guilty of the most serious of the charges, obstructing an investigation into who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame after her husband accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to build its case for war.

The jury of seven women and four men also determined he lied to the FBI and committed perjury in testimony before a grand jury.

Apparently, it is during this investigation, that Libby deliberately and willfully obstructed the investigation.

The question is why?

And Libby apparently attempted to obstruct probes into that inquiry....

And as for Harry Reid complaining about the supposed crime...the real crime is the manipulation of information to the american people and deciving them about the war....

"It's about time some one in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said after the verdict was announced.

And I know that there was evidence that supposed WMD were about to be produced...but there was also evidence that it wasn't a threat. What we have is a bunch of fanatical war hawks who don't know what's it like to be in war, guarding that one button that sends your kids and mine into war, or worse, blowing up half the world. Such is the state of the conservative mindset.

[there buster]

Quote:

"It's about time some one in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said after the verdict was announced.

Which shows his ignorance. Neither Libby nor anyone in the White House was charged with any such thing. And the only one who revealed Plame's name--legally, as was pointed out--worked not for the White House but for the State Department.

Thank you for proving my point that this was political theater, not a serious trial about the facts.

Libby's supposed perjury was about whether he first heard Plame's name from Tim Russeret. something about which Russert was unsure in his deposition, but became certain about after the fact.

And now we know it was Richard Armitage who in fact made Plame's name public. The non-crime the investigation is about.

But, don't let the facts get in the way of your views.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Which shows his ignorance. Neither Libby nor anyone in the White House was charged with any such thing. And the only one who revealed Plame's name--legally, as was pointed out--worked not for the White House but for the State Department.

Oh, so the State Department works for either the Justice System or the Legislative Branch of Goverement, not the executive branch.... I suspect that the White House is representative of the Executive Branch of Goverement... But who wants to be spliting hairs here....

Quote:

Thank you for proving my point that this was political theater, not a serious trial about the facts.

The fact that someone lied to the American people regarding this war is not important to you...That you are being manipulated by the very people you elected into office to do things that benefit, not the American people, but to a very few. That they are sending your sons and daughters to die in an unjust war is not important to you...

And after all this, you would like to others take advantage of you and your family, both in the church and outside of it, and conscript them into a war that is neither just nor justifiable, ....if you want to continue the same way....then by all means, I suggest that you endorse Gingrich...because he would be doing far more than what Bush has been doing....as his interview with James Dobson has shown...

[Woody]

Quote:

The fact that someone lied to the American people regarding this war is not important to you

It has been proven over and over again that there were no lies. This is just a fabrication of the liberal extremists for political gain.