[drt1]

Hello,

I'm confused. Was the poster (UCANSEE2) implying that I suggested that W should have used the indictment for political advantage? If so, you were right in your reading - I said no such thing and, in fact, said just the opposite - Arguing for COMPLETE agnosticism re: Things outside of the elections process (Of which this is one).

I'm surprised it could have been construed otherwise.

[bjs1779]

I'm confused.

Was the poster (UCANSEE2) implying that I suggested that W should have used the indictment for political advantage? If so, you were right in your reading - I said no such thing and, in fact, said just the opposite - Arguing for COMPLETE agnosticism re: Things outside of the elections process (Of which this is one).

I'm surprised it could have been construed otherwise.

Yes drt1, UCANSEE2 was sticking up for soul seeker who thinks the Clintons should be left alone by the Bush administration. You are correct absolutely and they look silly.

[UCANSEE2]

Sorry if I misled any reader about your post. I said it was an IMPLIED REFERENCE.

Your remarks implied that SOMEONE said Bush did it for gain during the election. I am assuming you didn't come up with that idea on your own.

You were stating that IT WOULD BE WRONG for BUSH TO DO SUCH A THING, and I completely agree with you.

It was not the best idea to use your post to support what I was doing. I hope this clears it up.

Thanks for being civil in your redress of this misunderstanding.