Gingrich, Sanford, and Ensign were never convicted of criminal activity in relation to their affairs

What was missed in this entire saga was the historical perspective.

Kosovo was inhabited by Serbians until the Ottoman invasion. During the Ottoman occupation of the Balkans, Albanians bowed to the will of the Turks and became Muslims. After this they were treated in a much better manner than the Serbs who refused to convert and kept their orthodox christian identity. Some of the most important religious sites of the Serb's orthodoxy resided in Kosovo. As the Turks destroyed these sites they replaced them with mosques. The Albanians began filtering into the area and began pushing the Serbs out. After the first world war the ottoman empire disintegrated, but the Serbs were not in a position to fight for the land. They had effectively been run out of the entire area by an invasion of the austro hungarian army at the beginning of the war. Tito's Yugoslavia kept things mostly peaceful until his death and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The wars in Bosnia were a direct result of hostilities than ran so deep and still festered from the Muslim invasion hundreds of years earlier.

This is by no means reason enough to wreak the kind of havoc the Serbs unleashed on the muslims of bosnia and croatia, but this region has seen its fair share of massacres and wars. It was just the status quo to them, but to the rest of the world it was genocide.

On a side note. I saw someone posted about the opium production in Afghanistan. Ironically, since the NATO bombing campaign, Kosovo has become a pipeline for illict opium being shipped from afghanistan to europe and north america.

I know all of this because I was stationed in Macedonia during Operation Noble Anvil. I have alot of friends from the region and all of the text above comes from my studying the region and first hand accounts from people that live there.

Gingrich was Speaker of the House, one of the highest elected positions in the United States and second in line behind the vice president for succession to the Presidency. Are you saying that unless it's the president, adultery doesn't count?

See, what you're doing is tantamount to defending Gingrich by making excuses for his moral terpitude. Obviously, the harshest words you have for him are... wait, non-existent-- just some nebulous assertion that you have spoken out against "Republicans" in the past. Like perhaps Arlen Spector?

I challenge you to rake Gingrich over the same coals you rake Clinton. My bet is that you are too partisan to do it.

-Kerry O.

If you check the record, you'll find that neither was Clinton. The Senate didn't remove him from office, voted 55-45 not guilty on the perjury charge and a draw on the obstruction of justice charge, which by the rules defeats that one, too.

The only charge against him that was affirmed was a civil contempt of court charge, for which he paid a $90,000 fine.

Myself, I wish that Perot had won in '92. That's who I voted for, and I think history would have turned out much differently (and for the better) had he won that election.

-Kerry O.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Haha you are actually comical, thanks for the laugh.

You have no clue what I do on my side. I do my part as an American to try and hold all accountable for their actions. It's people like you that tend to make people lean more to the other side. What Gingrich did was just as disgusting, they ALL need to be held accountable. Clinton lied though, or is that okay in your book

debating you is futile, like I said "brick wall"

Oh, and what 'side' is that? Last I checked, I was as American as you, only the person I voted for this time did become President and yours didn't.

Big deal. I don't win your approval. It'll be a tough slog, but I can assure you I've survived MUCH worse. :) You're pretty new here, so you don't know about some of the other pretty good knock-down-drag'em-outs that happened here before the rules changed and the people who were the most aggressive are gone. Those that can't agree to disagree usually don't hang around too long.

Anyone reading my other posts in this thread can see I obviously DO think that what Clinton did with his philandering was NOT 'ok in my book', thank you very much.

I also think his pardoning of Mark Rich was shameful and I wouldn't have voted for Hillary Clinton because of her work for Wal-Mart.

But overall, he didn't do such a bad job of running the country, proving that a tax increase wasn't the cyanide the Reagan Conservatives said it was. Until I got deadly sick in the late 90's, I was making a LOT more money than I'm making now.


-Kerry O.