McCain cheated on his wife too

[atotaltotalfan2001]

So why isn't that an issue?

Women, and men, complain about Hillary sticking by a cheating husband. She's faulted for this.

But McCain cheated on his first wife too -- lots of times -- and that never gets any discussion.

Double standard?

You bet.

By Bill Muller
The Arizona Republic
June 05, 1999 12:12:00

In 1979, John McCain came face to face with his future.

He was in Hawaii, attending a military reception. While there, he met a young, blond, former cheerleader named Cindy Hensley.

It was an incredible stroke of luck for McCain.

How fortunate could one man be? Here was McCain, who had his eye on Congress, meeting a young, attractive beer heiress from Arizona, which was adding a congressional district in 1982.

McCain recalls that both he and Cindy fudged their ages at first. McCain made himself a little younger and Cindy made herself a little older. They found out their real ages when the local paper published them. McCain was 43, Cindy 25.

''So our marriage,'' McCain cracks, ''is really based on a tissue of lies.''

While they were dating, McCain called Cindy from Beijing, where he was traveling with a contingent from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee while she was in the hospital recuperating from minor knee surgery. She thanked him for the lovely flowers in her room, sent from ''John.''

What McCain didn't tell Cindy was that he hadn't sent the flowers. They were from another John, who lived in Tucson.

''I never thanked him,'' Cindy notes with a grin.

After a whirlwind courtship, John asked Cindy to marry him. But there were some details to clear out of the way.

McCain needed a divorce from his wife of 14 years, Carol, who had been badly injured in a car accident while McCain languished in Hanoi.

The marriage had been strained by his years of absence, along with McCain's admitted affairs after returning from Vietnam.

http://www.azcentral.com/republic/sp...cainbook4.html

[crabapples]

I like how when people bring up this and show articles from a decade ago, they dont get McCain's first wife's response to the whole thing and how the divorce proceedings went. She admitted that she had changed, both physically and mentally, and how he had changed as well.

I believe she ended up with two houses and a fair amount of money. Plus her medical bills were all paid for as well, even after the divorce.

So yeah, he came back after being tortured for 7 years to a wife who was severely debilitated by a car accident and he found another woman. Was this the best thing for him to have done? Maybe it was. Until we live in their shoes we would have no idea what was going on. It was likely better for both of them to get divorced than to try and keep a failing marriage together.

But this story has been out there for years upon years. The difference between the Clintons and the McCains is that John never lied about it and he did the right thing by divorcing. Whereas, Bill lied under oath about his fling and chose to stated married.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

I like how when people bring up this and show articles from a decade ago, they dont get McCain's first wife's response to the whole thing and how the divorce proceedings went. She admitted that she had changed, both physically and mentally, and how he had changed as well.

I believe she ended up with two houses and a fair amount of money. Plus her medical bills were all paid for as well, even after the divorce.

So yeah, he came back after being tortured for 7 years to a wife who was severely debilitated by a car accident and he found another woman. Was this the best thing for him to have done? Maybe it was. Until we live in their shoes we would have no idea what was going on. It was likely better for both of them to get divorced than to try and keep a failing marriage together.

But this story has been out there for years upon years. The difference between the Clintons and the McCains is that John never lied about it and he did the right thing by divorcing. Whereas, Bill lied under oath about his fling and chose to stated married.

Bill Clinton decided to stay married and that's a bad thing?

[crabapples]

Bill Clinton decided to stay married and that's a bad thing?

I didnt say it was a bad thing. I said the difference between the two situations is one stayed married the other didnt and one lied and the other didnt.

[PaulJonson]

Bill Clinton decided to stay married and that's a bad thing?

I don't think Bill was in any position to decide anything at that time.....

[atotaltotalfan2001]

I didnt say it was a bad thing. I said the difference between the two situations is one stayed married the other didnt and one lied and the other didnt.

The real difference is no one cornered McCain like Clinton was cornered.

His affair with Monica was no business of ours. Except the far right was outraged that Clinton was president.

If the left operated like the far right, and McCain had been president, he would have found himself in far worst shape -- war hero or no.

Cheating on a wife is cheating on a wife. And McCain did it lots of times. His original wife forgave him. Just like Hillary forgave Bill.

But Hillary is damned for it because she had the nerve to have her own ambitions and run for elective office.

Double standard.

[steven]

We have a president now that cannot legally be licensed in any state because he has multiple DUI's. How many times do u see the "liberal media" mentioning that.

[crabapples]

The real difference is no one cornered McCain like Clinton was cornered.

His affair with Monica was no business of ours. Except the far right was outraged that Clinton was president.

If the left operated like the far right, and McCain had been president, he would have found himself in far worst shape -- war hero or no.

Cheating on a wife is cheating on a wife. And McCain did it lots of times. His original wife forgave him. Just like Hillary forgave Bill.

But Hillary is damned for it because she had the nerve to have her own ambitions and run for elective office.

Double standard.

I think you are missing what I was saying. I was comparing Bill and John. The reason people dont like the Clintons is that Bill lied under oath. If any one of us did that we would go to jail.

Hillary chose to stay with Bill. That was her choice. Just like McCain and his wife decided to get divorced and John remarried.

If it isnt the publics right to know about the Clintons (mind you that Bill was fooling around with an intern in the White House), why are you so concerned with the McCains?

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

So why isn't that an issue?

Women, and men, complain about Hillary sticking by a cheating husband. She's faulted for this.

But McCain cheated on his first wife too -- lots of times -- and that never gets any discussion.

Double standard?

You bet.

Do not agree. Cheating is bad no matter how you look at it. But if people want to give Bill a free pass then you have to give John a pass.

The problem from a lot of people with HC is she stood by Bill only for her career. Not because she was wanting to work on the marriage. When someone will do that on such a personal issue, what is going to stop them from selling out people for personal gain when it is not personal. See 200k jobs. At least that is how I see it.

[therising]

I read the title of this thread, and immediately clicked "Post reply" without even reading it.

The reason - I don't really care if he cheated on his wife. That's their problem, not mine. I'm not casting stones.

[raoul duke]

The reason people dont like the Clintons is that Bill lied under oath. If any one of us did that we would go to jail.

Show me one person who went to prison for a perjury trap over an extramarital affair and I'll believe that. Good luck finding an example. There are a lot of reasons people don't like the Clintons (I could name about 100 of them personally.) The horse-crap that was Slick Willie's impeachment was not one of them. In fact, his popularity rose during the whole embarassing mess.

[crabapples]

Show me one person who went to prison for a perjury trap over an extramarital affair and I'll believe that. Good luck finding an example. There are a lot of reasons people don't like the Clintons (I could name about 100 of them personally.) The horse-crap that was Slick Willie's impeachment was not one of them. In fact, his popularity rose during the whole embarassing mess.

PERJURY is PERJURY no matter what the context is. He could have simply told the truth, but he chose not to.

No traps, he had his affair and LIED about it. CHEATING is CHEATING, doesnt matter what the context is, thats why McCain and Bill are equal on that.

So in recapping my point: McCain and Bill Clinton both cheated. One lied under oath after swearing to tell the truth...

[raoul duke]

PERJURY is PERJURY no matter what the context is. He could have simply told the truth, but he chose not to.

No traps, he had his affair and LIED about it. CHEATING is CHEATING, doesnt matter what the context is, thats why McCain and Bill are equal on that.

So in recapping my point: McCain and Bill Clinton both cheated. One lied under oath after swearing to tell the truth...

Don't know anyone that went to prison, eh?

BTW, perjury trap is a legitmate defense. It goes like this: Under oath, you are asked about something that, at the moment, is not directly related to the line of questioning (like "have you ever cheated on your wife?" during an investigation into business and real estate deals.) Not seeing how thats related and not wanting to open a can of seemingly unrelated worms, you tell the white lie most would and have in this situation - "no I haven't." Now for the trap. Having your answer on record, the questioner, usually at a later date, comes back with proof that you, in fact, cheated on your wife. Thus exposing a lie in your testimony. If you can prove the person conducting the examination knew in advance the answer to that question and asked it to set you up, you have a defense. Perjury is perjury, but with every crime there are circumstances and sometimes legitmate defenses with regards to those circumstances. It's not like he was lying to conceal war crimes or the overt politicization of the Department of Justice or anything. . .

It's not the most persuasive defense and it doesn't seem to be that often used, but it's there and it's a completely legitmate defense. It's not an easy one to prove but any matrimonial lawyer worth his/her fee will tell you it's a useful and legitmate tool. Nevermind that up until Clinton, presidents were granted immunity from civil actions not related specifically to their performance in office until after their term was over. But since when have Republicans cared about legal traditions?

[crabapples]

Don't know anyone that went to prison, eh?

BTW, perjury trap is a legitmate defense. It goes like this: Under oath, you are asked about something that, at the moment, [COLOR="Red"]is not directly related to the line of questioning [/COLOR](like "have you ever cheated on your wife?" during an investigation into business and real estate deals.) Not seeing how thats related and not wanting to open a can of seemingly unrelated worms, you tell the white lie most would and have in this situation - "no I haven't." Now for the trap. Having your answer on record, the questioner, usually at a later date, comes back with proof that you, in fact, cheated on your wife. Thus exposing a lie in your testimony. If you can prove the person conducting the examination knew in advance the answer to that question and asked it to set you up, you have a defense. Perjury is perjury, but with every crime there are circumstances and sometimes legitmate defenses with regards to those circumstances. It's not like he was lying to conceal war crimes or the overt politicization of the Department of Justice or anything. . .

It's not the most persuasive defense and it doesn't seem to be that often used, but it's there and it's a completely legitmate defense. It's not an easy one to prove but any matrimonial lawyer worth his/her fee will tell you it's a useful and legitmate tool. Nevermind that up until Clinton, presidents were granted immunity from civil actions not related specifically to their performance in office until after their term was over. But since when have Republicans cared about legal traditions?

Clearly you dont remember these words that came out of his mouth:

"No I did not have sexual relationships with that women, Ms. Lewinsky." It was not like he just said No. He infact named her in his statement. So dont give me that line of b.s.

I havent had time to research how many people have gone to jail for perjury and perjury related to extramarital affiars. But it is still ILLEGAL!

[CSense]

If I recall this is where we have a new definition for sex. Playing the skin flute is not considered sex.