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.
I was providing info that YOU DEMANDED, and apparently you don't like being proven WRONG, so you want to take it out on me.
I can't speak for Soul Seeker, but I don't want Bush to give the CLINTONS a FREE PASS (as someone earlier remarked).
But I don't want the President to waste all his time chasing after the Clintons, attempting to get them prosecuted for claims that won't hold up in court.
Quietly, and discreetly, routing of corruption at all levels of the government is taking place, and because the media doesn't trumpet it to your home, most of the public is not aware it is even going on. There is a long chain of corruption that ultimately leads to the former President. TIME and MONEY are the limiting factors, and whether the top of the chain will ever successfully be reached is unknown.
Perhaps, after you read ALL THE POSTS, you will see my position on this issue and that I do not suggest nor support Bush 'protecting the clintons'.
I, again, apologize for any readers who did not understand the words "IMPLIED REFERENCE" followed by YOUR VERY OWN WORDS WHERE YOU CLEARLY SAID IT WAS WRONG TO SUGGEST HE would have tried to GAIN in the ELECTION by dropping pursuit of the Clintons.