Apparently while on his way to Pope John Paul II's funeral, Bill Clinton gave an interview to a bunch of journalists while aboard Air Force 1.  And during this interview, he sharply criticized the late Pope on many of his beliefs and standings.

He said that the Pope has left behind a "mixed legacy".  This, from a President that left a legacy of impeachment, scandals, and resignations.  He al stated that the Pope was wrong because he "enforced a very conservative theological doctrine."

Well DUH!  The last time I checked, the Catholic Church is a conservative organization, like most other religious institutions.  But this is also the Church which sponsored and supported people like Mother Theresa.

It makes me wonder how he was able to put such a sorrowful face when he appeard a few hours later, kneeling and praying in front of the Pope's funeral bier.  Then again, since he is not Catholic, it probably does not mean anything to him.  Just like how he recieved Holy Communion, which is contrary to Roman Catholic traditions.

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_7765.shtml
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2005/04/07/20050407_002400_flash3bcp.htm
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/apr/05040704.html

You Clinton bashers just can;'t let it rest.  First, who gives a rat's a$$ what Bill Clinton thinks about the Pope?  Second, This Pope's predecessor was NOT conservative, and there are rumors that he was murdered because of his radical positions on issues like the poor and the underpriveliged.  To me, many of the things that John Paul did were good and progressive, but some of his positions I found to be authoritarian and anti-democratic.  Like all men, he was a mixed bag. 

Oh sure, so if you don't praise everything the man did, that's disrespect?  That's ridiculous.

I didn't hear one word about this on any real news websites. All the links you posted are to heavily biased anti-clinton conservative sites. They're not from the AP or Reuters or any reputable news organization. I think they are just trying to make Clinton look bad. Heck, even FOX news hasn't documented this. I think they just took a little quote from Clinton and twisted it and made it look like he's being disrespectful.

Stop pretending to be a moderate.

thats odd considering many hard-line catholics are calling pope john paul an anti-christian humanitarian.

Lets not get our hopes up, now. By all indications, the next Pope will be just as conservative on social issues as John Paul. No relief for the American Catholic church I suppose..watch the numbers dwindle even further.

he sharply criticized the late Pope on many of his beliefs and standings.

No he didn't.


He said that the Pope has left behind a "mixed legacy".   
No he didn't -- he said the Pope is like all of us and MAY have a mixed legacy.


He al stated that the Pope was wrong because he "enforced a very conservative theological doctrine."


No he didn't --  he just said THAT the Pope enforced a very conservative theologic doctrine.  

The Drudge Report link you supplied quoted Clinton as saying the Pope "centralized authority in the papacy again and enforced a very conservative theological doctrine. There will be debates about that. The number of Catholics increased by 250 million on his watch. But the numbers of priests didn't. He's like all of us - he may have a mixed legacy"

That doesn't quite match the things you said about Clinton's comment.  

For a more complete picture of the interview (with quotes from both Clinton and Bush Sr.,) try this AFP article:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050407/pl_afp/vaticanpopeusbush_050407002123

What Clinton said was right. Nobody can be the perfect statesman all the time now, can they?

I agree with Clinton, although I love the Pope.  If he was talking smack about him as a person, that would be fed up.

Stop pretending to be a moderate.
Good answer!  Good answer!
;D ;D ;D ;D

Apparently while on his way to Pope John Paul II's funeral, Bill Clinton gave an interview to a bunch of journalists while aboard Air Force 1.  And during this interview, he sharply criticized the late Pope on many of his beliefs and standings.

He said that the Pope has left behind a "mixed legacy".  This, from a President that left a legacy of impeachment, scandals, and resignations.  He al stated that the Pope was wrong because he "enforced a very conservative theological doctrine."

Well DUH!  The last time I checked, the Catholic Church is a conservative organization, like most other religious institutions.  But this is also the Church which sponsored and supported people like Mother Theresa.

It makes me wonder how he was able to put such a sorrowful face when he appeard a few hours later, kneeling and praying in front of the Pope's funeral bier.  Then again, since he is not Catholic, it probably does not mean anything to him.  Just like how he recieved Holy Communion, which is contrary to Roman Catholic traditions.

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_7765.shtml
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2005/04/07/20050407_002400_flash3bcp.htm
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/apr/05040704.html

I also don't recall Cinton saying, "The Pope's legacy may be mixed, but mine is S-P-O-T-L-E-S-S, immaculate!"  Come on now.  And I'll pass on those sources.

I also don't recall Cinton saying, "The Pope's legacy may be mixed, but mine is S-P-O-T-L-E-S-S, immaculate!" Come on now. And I'll pass on those sources.


Yeah if making mistakes disqualified people from being able to put forth criticism, than the entire world would tell nothing but little white lies. Scratch that. Big ones.

Yeah if making mistakes disqualified people from being able to put forth criticism, than the entire world would tell nothing but little white lies. Scratch that. Big ones.

I'll drink to that!
;)

I saw part of an interview with Clinton last night vis-a-vis the Pope and he either had one helluva change of heart or the comments this story was written based upon were taken out of context....considering the sources, I'll go with the latter statement for $400, Alex ;)


I actually threw that out, to see what the responses would be like.

And sadly, they are almost exactly what I thought they would be.  *sigh*

I actually threw that out, to see what the responses would be like.

And sadly, they are almost exactly what I thought they would be.  *sigh*


sadly?  You mean it's sad we don't take conservative news sources at face value?  Maybe after several years of printing factually incorrect information, they can't be trusted.  You yourself said newsmax should be taken more as an editoral style site and doesn't have to meet the same level of quality as a real news source. 

or maybe it's sad that Clinton isn't the monster the conservatives think he is, so they have to invent controversy even when there isn't one.

or maybe it's sad that conservatives are using the passing of the Pope as an excuse to grandstand and promote their own agendas. Watch the White House press conference from the other day, where the talking head for Bush is talking up how both Bush and the Pope support the "culture of life" and try to draw parallels between them. Only to be reminded of how the Bush admin. lashed out when the Pope and the Vatican refused to approve of their invasion of Iraq.

Clinton made a completely viable and accurate statement. And at least at the moment, we are allowed to say what we think in this country.

I'm so goddam sick of this media frenzy BS everytime someone important dies. It's like that person becomes a demigod for a month while a bunch of real news is going on right under everybody's nose. They did it with Lady Diana Spencer, they did it with Gianni Versace, they did it with JFK Jr., they did it with Ronald Reagan, they did it with John Ritter (WTF?? a comic genius??? gimme a break!), they did it with Schiavo, now they're doing it with Pope John Paul II. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with these deceased personally, but I resent the media using their lives and memories, and in many cases (like Ritter, Versace and JFK Jr.), blowing up their actual contributions to more than what they were worth, only in order to attract viewers, make money, and distract us from what's really going on. There's a war, there's an ecological catastrophe in Alaska, there's a situation in Asia, there is failing support for the president at home, there is Tom Delay f*cking us all up the arse. Amidst all this, unless I am a Catholic, why on earth would I want to devote more than a few odd minutes of my life to remembering this man who, despite his many noble deeds, still stood for over a thousand years of religious, political, and racial opression throughout the world and promoted a political agenda contrary to what I believe the world needs (with the sole exception of charity and social responsibility for the poor)?

I agree that there should be ample news coverage of the goings-on at the Vatican re: JP2, but I think that 24/7 coverage on every channel is totally ridiculous. This is a pulsing nation with a lot more to worry about than a deceased religious icon in a foreign land. Let them give sufficient coverage for the Catholic community's sake (and that does represent about 60 million Americans, last I checked), but I want to hear some hard news (of course, in the United States of America, a reputable and trustworthy news service is nothing but a pipe dream).

sadly?  You mean it's sad we don't take conservative news sources at face value?  Maybe after several years of printing factually incorrect information, they can't be trusted.  You yourself said newsmax should be taken more as an editoral style site and doesn't have to meet the same level of quality as a real news source. 


Strange, how Liberal sources must be taken at face value, yet anything "Conservative" most be wrong and evil.  And while I rarely question the source of others, mine are constantly questioned.

OK, here are 2 other sources, and they are far from being "Conservative":

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/04/08/national/w082221D55.DTL
http://magic-city-news.com/article_3593.shtml

And notice the first is from the AP?  And notice how there has been no retraction?  No claim from ANYBODY that they are false?  How about concentrating on the information, and not the source? 

Strange, how Liberal sources must be taken at face value, yet anything "Conservative" most be wrong and evil.  And while I rarely question the source of others, mine are constantly questioned.

OK, here are 2 other sources, and they are far from being "Conservative":

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/04/08/national/w082221D55.DTL
http://magic-city-news.com/article_3593.shtml

And notice the first is from the AP?  And notice how there has been no retraction?  No claim from ANYBODY that they are false?  How about concentrating on the information, and not the source? 




nope, no one here is saying liberal sources HAVE to be trusted.  Just that those with an axe to grind shouldn't be trusted.

About the only thing consistent between the sites you've just linked to, and the original ones, is the "mixed" message comment.  The original sites have lots of nice "commentary" around them about how the message is "harsh" and how Clinton thrased the pope, etc.  Let's take one fact, and spin it to fit our world view.  heck, the MichNews site barely has anything of substance at all, just loads of commentary and rantings from a delusional right-wing-nut.  If I had only read that one, I'd have no idea what had been said.

I guess if Clinton says there will be mixed readings of the John Paul II's place in history, and Bush only praises on an on about how great he was, Clinton would sound harsh by comparison.  Read Bush's comments, and they're a clearly just an attempt to curry favor with the voters.  Nothing but empty praise from an administration that was screaming bloody murder when the Vatican disagreed with them.  Honesty though, has no place in the Bush administration, and we've seen that plenty of times before.

or maybe it's sad that conservatives are using the passing of the Pope as an excuse to grandstand and promote their own agendas. Watch the White House press conference from the other day, where the talking head for Bush is talking up how both Bush and the Pope support the "culture of life" and try to draw parallels between them. Only to be reminded of how the Bush admin. lashed out when the Pope and the Vatican refused to approve of their invasion of Iraq.


As I recall, after visting Cuba, John Paul condemned our embargo and had some nice things to say about the "totalitarian regime" where, by the way, education as far as you can go and health care, not to mention public transportation and recreational facilities etc. are all free.

As I recall, after visting Cuba, John Paul condemned our embargo and had some nice things to say about the "totalitarian regime" where, by the way, education as far as you can go and health care, not to mention public transportation and recreational facilities etc. are all free.


And that is really saying something for that government if the head of the CATHOLIC CHURCH which is supposedly(and probably) repressed in that country has some good things to say about that government. They do have a lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. No government is all good or all bad.

I saw part of an interview with Clinton last night vis-a-vis the Pope and he either had one helluva change of heart or the comments this story was written based upon were taken out of context....considering the sources, I'll go with the latter statement for $400, Alex ;)


Wait, a member of the media taking a statement out of context?  Never would have imagined that happening. ::)

I agree. Who cares about Clinton now that he's out of office? And I don't care about his wife's political plans, either. I'd like to forget this man ever got in the White House, but I can't. So, I'll just leave him in the hands of God, like everyone else. The Pope would have wanted it that way.
First, who gives a rat's a$$ what Bill Clinton thinks about the Pope? 

This topic sounds a little bit too close to "Clinton Bops the Bishop!"  ;D

Well DUH!  The last time I checked, the Catholic Church is a conservative organization, like most other religious institutions.  But this is also the Church which sponsored and supported people like Mother Theresa.



You can't categorize either Church Doctrine or Pope JP2 in American terms of "conservative" or "liberal".

In "morals" or "values" terms, the Church teaching is conservative in American lingo.

But with regard to economic issues Church teaching is quite liberal.  There is plenty in the Catholic faith for conservatives to love and hate; ditto for liberals.  ???

You can't categorize either Church Doctrine or Pope JP2 in American terms of "conservative" or "liberal".

In "morals" or "values" terms, the Church teaching is conservative in American lingo.

But with regard to economic issues Church teaching is quite liberal.  There is plenty in the Catholic faith for conservatives to love and hate; ditto for liberals.  ???


Exactly.  While the Church is pro-life, lukewarm on the environment, and anti-gay it is at the same time anti-death penalty, against the Iraq War, and is like you said economically liberal.  But because of Abortion Catholics have lately sided with Bush more, but it's still one of the more liberal churches.

Well, I can honestly say that I've NEVER heard the Catholic church described as "liberal" ;D


Well compared to the evangelical protestant churches, it is very liberal.

Well compared to the evangelical protestant churches, it is very liberal.


Agreed.

Good point, but to say it's "one of the most liberal"???


Yea, that may be an overstatement.

Well compared to the evangelical protestant churches, it is very liberal.

Not compared to the Unitarians, man.  Don't forget the U.U.s!

You know, I smell a rat.

If they can get all humanity to worship a reactionary religious figure, they can get us all bow before predistined and cruel social structures, if they can all humanity to believe the billionaires and the clergy know best, you've got a system which will go on uninterrupted until the bloody revolution.  The trick is to postpone the bloody revolution as long as possible.  By the time the time of the revolution you and your fellow plutocrats will have infiltrated the workers' revolution, and own 2/3 of the new political power to prevail!  That's why it's going nice and slow instead of being announced all at once.  Rest assured, the religious zealots have won.  It's theocracy tomorrow.  This is the calm before the storm, if you like.  Right now the zillionaire preachers are just toying with us, throwing the fight until the judiciary is cleansed of the last living liberaly
:o :o :o :o
Muuuaaahahahaha!!!

Hey, don't let the bastids grind ya down!

Well compared to the evangelical protestant churches, it is very liberal.


That is not saying much.  I am a Presbyterian, and I am a radical liberal to most of them as well.  8)

If Clinton is pounding the pope, maybe its just because Hillary is mad at him?  ???

;D

If Clinton is pounding the pope, maybe its just because Hillary is mad at him? ???

;D


Poor Bill. I couldn't even imagine being married to that woman. :(

I thinks it's wrong to talk badly about a person around the time of thier funeral. Have some respect. But, knowing nothing about this story, I cannot comment on Clinton....just making my own feelings about funerals in general.

I thinks it's wrong to talk badly about a person around the time of thier funeral. Have some respect. But, knowing nothing about this story, I cannot comment on Clinton....just making my own feelings about funerals in general.

There's a difference between discussing Uncle Louie and discussing the Pope, who is one of the most influential human beings on the planet.  Was Clinton really talking about Pope John Paul II as a person?  It seems to me the Pope's "legacy" refers more to the results of the doctrine and policies the Pope advocated.
When powerful political figure dies, we shouldn't canonize him or her.  We shouldn't make a two-week moratorium in which we, as private citizens, are asked to be nice.  Look, last June I still thought Reagan was a wicked old man, and that didn't change just because he died after being sick for ten years!

There's a difference between discussing Uncle Louie and discussing the Pope, who is one of the most influential human beings on the planet. Was Clinton really talking about Pope John Paul II as a person? It seems to me the Pope's "legacy" refers more to the results of the doctrine and policies the Pope advocated.
When powerful political figure dies, we shouldn't canonize him or her. We shouldn't make a two-week moratorium in which we, as private citizens, are asked to be nice. Look, last June I still thought Reagan was a wicked old man, and that didn't change just because he died after being sick for ten years!


Here here!

Was Clinton really talking about Pope John Paul II as a person?  It seems to me the Pope's "legacy" refers more to the results of the doctrine and policies the Pope advocated.
When powerful political figure dies, we shouldn't canonize him or her.  We shouldn't make a two-week moratorium in which we, as private citizens, are asked to be nice. 

Fair enough.  But if we had to compare the "legacy" of the Pope to Clinton, who spent his presidency getting BJ's in the Oval Office and contemplating the meaning of the word "is", there is no comparison.

The Pope's legacy to the 1,100,000,000 Catholics in the world is clear and it is not mixed as Clinton would have us believe.  Indeed, the Pope's positions were clear and unwavering.  His legacy might not be "agreeable" to alot of people but it is not "mixed".

Fair enough. But if we had to compare the "legacy" of the Pope to Clinton, who spent his presidency getting BJ's in the Oval Office and contemplating the meaning of the word "is", there is no comparison.

The Pope's legacy to the 1,100,000,000 Catholics in the world is clear and it is not mixed as Clinton would have us believe. Indeed, the Pope's positions were clear and unwavering. His legacy might not be "agreeable" to alot of people but it is not "mixed".


Who cares if Clinton got a BJ? I honestly don't care. None. His sexual life, his marriage, is his business. He is not the National Pastor, he is the President. I dont' care about his personal life by a damn sight as long as he does his job well. He could be snorting lines of coke off a hooker's butt at night for all I care, as long as he is a good President, its not my concern.

And Clinton's legacy? Reduction of violent crime, a record 8-year economic expansion, a balanced budget, a large federal surplus, the Good Friday agreement..but who cares, right? He got a blow job.

Apparently according to "American values" its ok to lie and take this country into an illegal war(Bush is a war criminal and should have to go on trial in The Hague just like Milosevic), but just don't lie about a sex act. That is an Impeachable offense!

And Clinton's legacy? Reduction of violent crime, a record 8-year economic expansion, a balanced budget, a large federal surplus, the Good Friday agreement..but who cares, right? He got a blow job.


Well I think any logical human being would conclude that all the good a man has accomplished in his life is washed away with a few blowjobs. ::)

Long live Clinton!

Okay hands up guys... anyone ever had a bad word to say about blow jobs ? Lets face it - I'm more likely to believe in God while having a BJ than at any other time in my life. I wish our PM was getting his pipes cleaned ona regular basis as i reckon he'd be a happier leader of our country and we probably wouldn't have been along with you guys for the ride at Iraq as he would have been too busy laughing his tits off at No. 10.

Blow Jobs rock and anyone who says they don't has probably had to give someone one !  ;)

Okay hands up guys... anyone ever had a bad word to say about blow jobs ? Lets face it - I'm more likely to believe in God while having a BJ than at any other time in my life. I wish our PM was getting his pipes cleaned ona regular basis as i reckon he'd be a happier leader of our country and we probably wouldn't have been along with you guys for the ride at Iraq as he would have been too busy laughing his tits off at No. 10.

Blow Jobs rock and anyone who says they don't has probably had to give someone one ! ;)


;D Good show.

And I can see your point. There was something comforting in that Clinton was the leader of the Free world, balanced our budget, made a peace agreement in Northern ireland, and everything else he did as President, and STILL found the time to get himself a nice BJ.

I saw an interview with a French politician who couldn't understand the fuss about Clinton getting his naughties in the White House - it's compulsory in Europe don't ya know ?

I mean come on, you;re leader of the free world, you;re married to a woman who, although an attractive lady in many ways is not exactly cover girl material. You have the power in your hands to destroy the world at the press of the button and then some dark-haired minx offers you a BJ. I mean the answer is YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

This is also why I should never be allowed to have any political power ever as I would probably nuke a guy called Peter Shabir who pissed me off for the last two years of high school and, subconcsiously, my whole life has now been dedicated to his destruction and perpetual damnation regardless of the costs to human life. If billions had to die it would be worth it !!!

Do you think GW was bullied at school too ????  ;D

That simian-looking fellow? Most definitely!

That simian-looking fellow? Most definitely!

No, he was the creepy bully from the rich and powerful family.
He hassled your girlfriend, he threw up in your car, he spilled a bong all over your mom's Persian carpet, said he'd pay you for the repairs, didn't.  You know that kind of creep.  The guys hung out with him and the girls slept with him because he really loaded and if you got in good with him you could up to the family summer place on weekends, where they have the best weed, the best blow, the most popular guys, the hottest college chicks, and you could stay up in the hot tub and take 'shrooms and as you watch the sunrise and, blah blah blah.....

Second, This Pope's predecessor was NOT conservative, and there are rumors that he was murdered because of his radical positions on issues like the poor and the underpriveliged.

Read Yallop's book "In God's Name": it's not so much "was JPI murdered?", but "by which of the many power bases within the Vatical was he murdered"... my favourite bit is when he points out that the embalmers turned up an hour after the body was found, from three hours' drive away.


Lets face it - I'm more likely to believe in God while having a BJ than at any other time in my life.

ROFL!  I guess you can't say "Oh evolution!", can you?