William Jefferson Clinton: The Legacy

[MavKikiNYC]

Company Names Condoms After Clinton, Lewinsky

BEIJING (Sept. 21) - A rubber company in China has begun marketing condoms under the brand names Clinton and Lewinsky, apparently seeking to exploit the White House affair that led to the impeachment of America's 42nd president.

Spokesman Liu Wenhua of the Guangzhou Rubber Group said the company was handing out 100,000 free Clinton and Lewinsky condoms as part of a promotion to raise consumer awareness of its new products.

He said that after the promotion ends, the Clinton condoms will go on sale in southern China for 29.8 Yuan ($3.72) for a box of 12, while the Lewinsky model will be priced at 18.8 Yuan ($2.35) for the same quantity.

"The Clinton condom will be the top of our line,'' he said. "The Lewinsky condom is not quite as good.''

Liu said the company had chosen to use the Clinton name because consumers viewed the former president as a responsible person, who would want to stress safe sex as an effective way to prevent the spread of the HIV virus.

"The names we chose are symbols of people who are responsible and dedicated to their jobs,'' he said. "I believe Bill Clinton cannot be unhappy about this because he's a very generous man.''

Liu said the company did not believe using the Clinton and Lewinsky names constituted a violation of copyright or other laws.

"We have received full approval from the local Industrial and Commercial Bureau to start production,'' he said.

Clinton has campaigned aggressively for heightened AIDS awareness in China, where the disease is spreading rapidly.

In impeachment proceedings conducted by the U.S. Senate in 1999, he was acquitted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The charges stemmed from denials he made about a sexual relationship he maintained with Lewinsky, a former White House intern.

[MavKikiNYC]

When you think of syphllis, think of Clinton.

[capitalcity]

This is nothing new. Teddy Roosevelt never went anywhere without packing some rough riders.

[LRB]

Well Clinton screwed the US for 8 years as President, looks like he's getting his chance to screw China as well.

[Hitman]

How did Clinton screw the US during his presidency?

I am so sick of partisan politics. Clinton was a great president and a brilliant man.

Some rinky dink company in China names a condom after him. Who cares?

Some company could name a coke sniffing gel, or a dwi breathtlyzer, or a doll that if you pull a string says "There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq", for W. Bush.

[Drbio]

A great president? Thanks for the laugh.

[LRB]

How did Clinton screw the US during his presidency?

Well for one he committed perjury and got away with it because of partisan politics. When the chief law enforcement officer of our country lies under oath in a federal court, which is a felony, and gets away with it with no punishment from the law because of party politics, I consider that pretty much a screwing. This alone would eliminate Clinton from consideration as a great president. But there really wasn't anything great that Clinton did. The only real crisis he faced were of his own making. He left use with no lasting legacy of any significant positive value from anything that he did as President.

[dalmations202]

How did Clinton screw the US during his presidency?

One word --- CHINA and be careful with what you don't know.

[Mavdog]

I don't evaluate the "greatness" of a President by their personal conduct but rather by what they acheived in their position as a President. When you look at the results of Clinton's terms in office, there are unequaled economic acheivements in number of jobs created, budget surpluses and general economic expansion that stand out. There were also foreign policy acheivements in the mideast and europe.

There were failures as well, but on the whole much more positive than negative.

[Mavdog]

Using that same criteria, Ronald Reagan (who also lied to the American public) "failed as a leader and will rightfully be known for same", right?

[LRB]

Reagan was never impeached.

[Mavdog]

Reagan did lie to the public, and his administration did have people convicted of violating the law.

[kg_veteran]

Under oath?

[Drbio]

No. Mavdog works very very hard to provide inaccurate analogies. And did you all notice the sache over from Reagan to people in his administration? He's getting very good at the misdirect. That one was almost seamless.

[Mavdog]

A fine example of relativism.

Clinton was brought before the House for impeachment, based on a statement in a deposition about a sexual harrassment claim that had nothing to do with the claim.

Reagan was never brought before the house for impeachment, yet he was found to have knowingly violated laws prohibiting a) the sale of armaments to the contras and b) providing armaments to terrorists, actions that produced guilty verdicts for members of his administration proving his and other's guilt.

and there are those who condemn Clinton yet fail to do the same for Reagan, calling this "inaccurate analogies"?

ridiculous. at the very least be consistent, not to mention honest.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - I'll bite. What did Reagan lie about? Also, since when was Reagan found to have knowingly violated the law? I don't recall any of that.

[Drbio]

Mavdog asking for others to be consistent????


BWAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA HAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Mavdog - I'll bite. What did Reagan lie about? Also, since when was Reagan found to have knowingly violated the law? I don't recall any of that.

in the fall of 86 Reagan publically stated he knew nothing about the dealings of North, Weinberger and Poindexter in selling arms that were to go to Israel to go instead to Iran, with the money they got from the arms sales going to the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment. That statement by Reagan was not true, later testimony proved that he knew about the plan.

Recall that North destroyed all the records that would have proved Reagan's guilt. and both North and Poindexter were found guilty of Obstruction of Justice for their acts of destroying these records (pardoned by Bush in 92...)

[LRB]

Recall that North destroyed all the records that would have proved Reagan's guilt

They could just as easily have proven his innocence. The fact is we don't know exactly what was or was not in those documents. It's pure and unadulterated conjecture on your part to say that they would have proven Reagan guilty. To the best of my recollection Reagan claimed not to have been aware of the actions of North and company until after the fact. But it doesn't suprise me the way you're making statements that he did with your long history of misquotes and taking things out of context in order to twist them to your point. You also have a equally long history of claiming something and providing no links to where it was said. In short Mavdog you have proven to be a most unreliable source who can't be trusted without verification.

However we do know for a fact that Clinton commited a felony, pejury. It doesn't matter whether you think the question was relevant or not, the judge thought it was or it would not have been allowed. Clinton lied under oath, thereby committing a felony.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

in the fall of 86 Reagan publically stated he knew nothing about the dealings of North, Weinberger and Poindexter in selling arms that were to go to Israel to go instead to Iran, with the money they got from the arms sales going to the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment. That statement by Reagan was not true, later testimony proved that he knew about the plan.

Recall that North destroyed all the records that would have proved Reagan's guilt. and both North and Poindexter were found guilty of Obstruction of Justice for their acts of destroying these records (pardoned by Bush in 92...)

Doc is right. You're trying to attribute things that people in Reagan's administration did to him. I've never seen proof that Reagan was lying. As LRB stated, I think Reagan wasn't aware of what happened until after the fact.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

They could just as easily have proven his innocence.

and that is why they were destroyed in a criminal act. North knowingly violated the law to stop the records falling into the hands of those trying to prove Reagan's innocence....yeah, that could have happened.

in your dreams that is.

if the records were able to prove Reagan's innocence, give a good rational reason why those working for Reagan choose to destroy them. answer: they wouldn't. the ONLY motivation to destroying the records, putting those who destroyed the records in harms way of being prosecuted (which they were), was to shield Reagan.

[kg_veteran]

You have no way of knowing for whom North was trying to cover up. It could have been himself. Your speculation does not equal fact.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Doc is right. You're trying to attribute things that people in Reagan's administration did to him. I've never seen proof that Reagan was lying. As LRB stated, I think Reagan wasn't aware of what happened until after the fact.

really? so the subordinates to Reagan (in your view) acted independently of him? bullcrap.

A December 1985 memo, uncovered later and signed by Reagan, outlined the whole affair and actually used the phrase "arms for hostages".

the pedestals that these "heros" are placed upon typically have foundation problems....

[LRB]

if the records were able to prove Reagan's innocence, give a good rational reason why those working for Reagan choose to destroy them. answer: they wouldn't. the ONLY motivation to destroying the records, putting those who destroyed the records in harms way of being prosecuted (which they were), was to shield Reagan.

A good reason would have been to save their own hides. To save that their only motivation for destroying the records was to protect Reagan is ridiculous. There's no good reason to believe that the records North destroyed for instance, would not have been far more incriminating for North than for Reagan. Sure North was convicted of obstructing justice, but it's very possible that the could have been convicted of much more serious crimes if he hadn't destroyed those papers. Self interest, which includes self protection, is one of the most likely of reasons humans do things. To whole discount the possibility of North and company obstructing for self protection is not reasonable. Could they have been protecting Reagan? It's possible, but far from certain. We'll probably never have enough facts to know for sure.

[kg_veteran]

I think Reagan was aware that they were selling arms to Iran. I'm not so sure he knew that the proceeds were being diverted. The Tower Commission didn't ever find that Reagan had knowledge, even though they did say he should have had better control of the NSC staff.

[Drbio]

Man the butt kicking is reaching epoch proportions again. In this week alone he's been scorched on politics, academic budgets, academic tenure processes, asbestos law....on and on.....you'd think one would know when to stay on the canvas.

Your speculation does not equal fact.

All he has in his bag is speculation. Since when has he ever been able to repeat or comprehend a fact?