RE: RE: Bush Takes Blame
We've called a spade a spade from day one.
You mean like we did with the Slickster?
And for the last time, I believe sexual escapades and lying about them are on a completely different level than declaring war on sovereign nations...
I expect the owners and occupants of that aspirin factory take a different view of that.
Let's see: We attacked private property on the soil of a sovereign nation so that the Prseident's sexual escapades with the staff would fall off the front page. Later, we invaded a sovereign nation because they might have had ABC weapons but didn't and because their leader sent a hit-man after one of our Presidents.
You're right, it was a different level. Clinton's was much more inexcusable. He has set the bar for the level of shame required for an American Chief Executive to resign. That bar is pretty high (or low depending on your point of view). Clinton was busy enjoying the rewards of turning the White House into a private bordello while Janet Reno and her jackboots were busy violating the Fifth Amendment (Elian Gonzalez). As incompetent as I think Bush might be, he has a long way to go to sink to Clinton's level. The American political establishment decided Clinton had done nothing worthy of punishment, so it is difficult to believe that they would find any different for Bush.
On another note, congratulations, the frustration, anger, and disgust you are now experiencing with regard to Bush is exactly the same that most of the rest of us experienced with Clinton (both of them). My question is this: Will Americans find a way to elect a leader that doesn't disgust half of the population?
You mean like we did with the Slickster?
And for the last time, I believe sexual escapades and lying about them are on a completely different level than declaring war on sovereign nations...
I expect the owners and occupants of that aspirin factory take a different view of that.
Let's see: We attacked private property on the soil of a sovereign nation so that the Prseident's sexual escapades with the staff would fall off the front page. Later, we invaded a sovereign nation because they might have had ABC weapons but didn't and because their leader sent a hit-man after one of our Presidents.
You're right, it was a different level. Clinton's was much more inexcusable. He has set the bar for the level of shame required for an American Chief Executive to resign. That bar is pretty high (or low depending on your point of view). Clinton was busy enjoying the rewards of turning the White House into a private bordello while Janet Reno and her jackboots were busy violating the Fifth Amendment (Elian Gonzalez). As incompetent as I think Bush might be, he has a long way to go to sink to Clinton's level. The American political establishment decided Clinton had done nothing worthy of punishment, so it is difficult to believe that they would find any different for Bush.
On another note, congratulations, the frustration, anger, and disgust you are now experiencing with regard to Bush is exactly the same that most of the rest of us experienced with Clinton (both of them). My question is this: Will Americans find a way to elect a leader that doesn't disgust half of the population?
posted by Anonymous | 4:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home