Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tecoyah
The statement cannot be premature Marv, as it is intended to address current events, by using current events. If we were talking about a " Future History" lecture, perhaps your opinion on Bush would be accurate, but we wont know for a couple decades. As for Mr. Cinton, I would agree with you, however he has nothing to do with this discussion, and falling back on the "Bush isn't all that bad....Just look at Clinton" position, is a very tired and played out strategy, though the French Connection is a new one to me.
|
Perhaps if I post this, I can simply link to it the next time a Bush-basher says, “I don’t care if Clinton committed murder while in office.” I’m not interested in going back to find that post, but it did appear on TFP. I will, however, give an analogy of why I think what you call a "tired and played out strategy" is relevant.
Let’s say one of your kids has his or her heart set on a bicycle. You, being short on funds at the moment, say there’s no money for one. Your kid starts a neighborhood leaf-raking service, works his butt off, and over six or eight months, earns enough for this fancy bike. You take him to the bike store, where he proudly plops down his money and rides the bike home. A real Kodak moment.
However, the dirt-bag father who lives on the next block has a kid or two who take after their old man. A couple of days later, your kid has gone somewhere, and since he didn’t know to buy a lock for the bike, dirt-bag’s kid heists it. No one sees him do it, and no one has seen your kid in possession of his new bike.
A month or two later, dirt-bag’s kid is observed riding the bike. You verify that, and call the father. He calls you unpleasant names, like “liar.” Says the whole neighborhood is participating in a “conspiracy to get him.” So you call the cops, but your kid didn’t know to save the receipt, and you can’t prove anything. You and your kid are out of luck.
Fast forward a year or so, and dirt-bag kid leaves the bike lying around. Your kid sees it, and takes his property back. However, once your kid is seen riding it, you get a call from dirt-bag father, calling your kid a thief, and threatening to call the cops. There are now plenty of neighbors who have seen dirt-bag kid riding the bike, and you still don’t have any proof that the bike originally belonged to yours. Dirt-bag father, who managed to ignore crime in the past, is now a champion of justice, as far as your kid’s “crime” is concerned.
So how forgiving will you now choose to be in regard to the original theft, and how forgiving of the current "theft?" Me too.
I’m really not interested in all of the "reasons" that will soon be posted in regard to how this “isn’t comparable” to Clinton and Bush. The crimes/lies committed by Clinton affected (and continue to affect) me, my friends, and my family. I’m NOT talking about Monica, either. I choose not to give Clinton a free pass for the crime while I’m still doing the time.
Yes, at some point, it’s useless to hang on to past injustices (like slavery, since no one living today was a slave when it was legal in the US, or Mexicans claiming they still own Texas and California), but some issues (Nazi war criminals, DNA evidence from 30-year old trials) are still being decided that are quite a bit older than Clinton’s misdeeds. Child molestation now seems to have an indefinite period in which charges can be filed.
Summation: If a dishonest politician affects my life, I am not willing to accept an arbitrary “statute of limitations” defense from someone who’s only a champion of justice in regard to Bush. Nor will I be anxious to clean up a situation the other party was only too happy to tolerate when it worked to their advantage.
Don’t like my analogy? Let’s condense your philosophy, then. If Bush okays drilling in the ANWR, outlaws abortion, and privatizes Social Security, by your reasoning, he gets a clean slate in January of 2009. “It’s time to move on,” as some here would say.