Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
Why is it that special counsels had enough time during the Clinton years to query the president about an affair, but counsels during *this* administration can't get a question in edgewise about what Bush knew when.
I submit to you again, which is more worthy of inquiry?
If the roles were reversed, and this was Clinton's war, could you say the same thing with a straight face?
And can we get *SOMETHING* else to discuss in here...
|
Well, for one, the special counsel provision was eliminated with bipartisan support. I submit, once again, that one is quite obviously a crime and the other is not. There is a significant difference there.
If the roles were reversed, I absolutely would be supporting Clinton's decision to go into Iraq. My belief in the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing to do with George Bush. The same can't be said for most opponents to the actions. They seemed to support Clinton's military actions, but when it's Bush, it's a whole different ball game. Perhaps if Clinton, or Bush Sr, or Carter, or Reagan had reacted to the consistent terrorist actions during their administrations, there would be no Iraq invasion and there would be no Bin Laden and 9.11 would just be another day on the calendar.
As far as something new to talk about, I welcome the prospect. Any suggestions?