Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I think I get it now, ace.
Am I to understand your point to view to be that Reagan, GWH Bush and Clinton had administrations that were or may have been as equally corrupt and unethical as G Bush...it was just not uncovered....even with more investigations of Clinton than any recent President?
Now that is a unique perspective, but it does enable you to hold the Bush administration less accountable for its actions than I do.
Its basically the old "they all did it" defense.  |
dc_dux, ace "answered" you in a similar way as in my exchange with him, today on your <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=118311">"Bush Says What He Means II" thread</a>..... I'm thinking that he cannot "do" specifics...only sweeping generalizations that require nothing to support them. It's like talking to yourself, because "everybody knows", and "some people say" that all politicians check one:
A.) Lie
B.)Cheat
C.)Steal
D.)Are Corrupt
.....so the "degree", the "specifics"....just don't effing matter. Keeping a mistress, accepting a bribe...is no different from transforming the DOJ into a mechanism to suppress votes and civil rights protections, or using the authority of your office to initiate an avoidable and unnecessary war of aggression....they're all crimes, and they "all do it", and that is all that there is to talk about. The rest is just finger pointing......live with it, the political parties and those who they nominate and get elected are equally flawed...indistinguishable.
What are not "indistinguishable", however, are the consequences of the corrupt or illegal acts, themselves. I don't think that ace wants to "go there"