Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
You must not have been watching when Clinton said "While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information."
In other words, he said he spoke truthfully when he said he remembered Monica Lewinsky when she was ordering a pizza, but not when she was delivering oral sex.
Then, of course, he spent the next ten minutes or so saying it was all the Republicans' fault.
There's also the matter of Janet Reno taking "full responsibility" for Waco, and propagating the many lies told about the FBI's illegal actions there. I still can't believe there hasn't even been a trial for the FBI's burning about 80 men, women, and CHILDREN to death.
So don't tell me BUSH was insincere.
|
I am left to wonder....does the fact that others (Clinton/Reno) were insincere, change the position held by the thread starter concerning Bush. Or does bringing up the actions of others simply justify it in some way?
Not that I think Bush was insincere....I am simply pointing out the weakness of your post as a bebuttal, and the tendency to sideline, or whitewash the debate by redirecting it. I have noticed this defense of our current Administration on a regular basis, and noted also, that by doing so we quite effectively postpone or disregard the discussion of what accually occured. Instead focusing on the actions of others to justify a situation that may be distastful.
So a simple question here:
By qualifying Mr Bushs' actions, and placing them in the context of Clintons/Renos Lies....are you in effect admitting to a belief that he is guilty of the charge?