Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Which is like saying that I am the same as Jack the Ripper because I jay walk. There are levels of corruption that should be carefully examined so that an apt comparison can be made. For example: Feinstein really didn't have the power to do what she's bee accused of by a second rate media source. None of the accusations have backing. While some of the decisions by the subcommittee did benefit her family, there's no evidence to suggest that she was fully responsible for the decisions (frankly, she didn't have the power at the time). For Cheney, we're looking at a very different picture. Evidence exists to suggest that Cheney's own stock options for Haliburton rose 3281% in one year. Cheney was directly responsible, as well as Bush, for the war in Iraq. His is a classic story of the revolving door between corrupt politicians and the military industrial complex. Haliburton has been accused, with evidence, of cost overruns, tax avoidance, and cooking the books, and yet still is able to get huge bids in the wars that it's former CEO is responsible for. Compare those. Cheney is Jack the Ripper and Feinstein is the jay walker. That's blatantly clear.
I'm against that because term limits with the president lead to decisions that only have considered effects for 4 years. Can you imagine a president that makes decisions that consider effects 10, 20, 100 years down the line? We call those Democrats.
|
Cheney as no control over the funding of the Iraq war. Cheney did not give Congressional approval for military action against Iraq. I have not seen evidence that Cheney had influence over Haliburton getting Iraq military contracts.
When are the Congressional hearing going to start on Haliburton, I am very interested in seeing what the real evidence is.
It also seems to me that Feistein would have influence over the things where you say she has no influence. At the very least didn't she have an ethical obligation to disclose? I guess (using the logic from another thread) she is a lier.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
If it is indeed true that Feinstein resigned from her committee, and as we know, Cheney has not resigned, it would appear that this statement is exactly incorrect.
I agree, it is hard to support Cunningham. No one would want to own that mess - understandable.
|
The equal would be that she resign from the Senate. However, even I don't think that she should. Again the point is the double standard. To me it is obvious both parties have lapses in judgement, ethics, and sometimes violate the law. The left down plays it when it is their guy and the right down plays it when it is their guy. Life goes on, those are the rules of the game in Washington. The only problem is that too many pretend it is not one of the unwritten rules.