Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Necrosis
This appears to be "an inconvenient truth." Clinton fired at least SEVENTY (I have read up to 93, but I do not care to research it)who had been appointed by Bush the elder, including one who was in the middle of investigating Dan Rostenkowski. Here is what the New York Times had to say on March 26, 1993:
|
And with post #23, Shakran's law is invoked.
I'll say it again. I'll even bold it so people don't miss it.
past crimes and wrongdoings of past presidents do not excuse the crimes and wrongdoings of current presidents.
The republicans love to call themselves the party of morals, yet any time they're caught doing something immoral instead of doing the moral thing they immediately try to justify it by saying "well HE did it TOOOOO!" That didn't work with my kid when he was 5, and it sure as hell doesn't work with the leader of the country.
That said, your point is invalid anyway. It's routine for a president to replace the prosecutors with his own people when he takes office. You're right that no one got upset when Clinton did it. No one got upset when Bush the First did it either. They got upset this time because W fired the prosecutors for bullshit political reasons - -and he's the first president EVER to pull that stunt.
Quote:
|
It is dishonest to protest now, if you did not protest then.
|
Nice try. Sorry to have to bust that up for ya.