It is one thing to by skeptical, another to take stories and twist them and then present those as your reasons for not trusting President Bush.
You accuse people who correct the record by presenting facts as "thinking the president can do no wrong". That is rather extreme. It is that President Bush has earned the trust (not blind faith) of many and he has demonstrated he operates from an honorable base. Your hints of some sinister motive similar to clinton's clearly corrupt way of doing business falls by the wayside.
I haven't twisted anything. I haven't accused Pres. Bush of anything. I simply asked how would you have felt if Clinton had done it. It was an observation and question and by the way - I got no answers. No, I twisted nothing -
You accuse people who correct the record by presenting facts as "thinking the president can do no wrong". That is rather extreme. It is that President Bush has earned the trust (not blind faith) of many and he has demonstrated he operates from an honorable base. Your hints of some sinister motive similar to clinton's clearly corrupt way of doing business falls by the wayside.
There was no hint of any sinister motive - that must have been someone else or something you read into it. I simply asked that you take some circumstances (one you say didn't happen, I will check )and insert another person into those circumstances and ask yourself self how I would have reacted to it. The telling thing is - no one can answer it.
You think President Bush has earned your loyalty - he hasn't earned mine - in fact just the opposite. Perhaps it is because we have differing views on what is important and perhaps he has achieved what you wanted done. He hasn't for me - in fact - he has done just the opposite - so yes, I question him.
But I don't care how much faith he has earned - it is dangerous to take on face value what any politician does and that is what he is - a politician. We need to keep that in mind.