Now, About the Rule of Law - Clinton's defenders don't have the credibility to criticize Ashcroft

The Wall Street Journal. editorial page | December 10, 2001 | Robert L. Bartley, editor of the WSJ.

[KC_Conspirator]

Clinton's defenders don't have the credibility to file a loan application, if it comes to that. But does this mean Ashcroft is beyond criticism?

The article mentions that. Civil libertarians were against Klinton sending thugs to kidnap Elian and other abuses of power by the Klinton administration. The jist of the article is that its hard to take the left seriously because they enabled documented, criminal behavior for all of Klinton's 8 years; yet now they are concerned about rights and the law?

[Savage Beast]

"...he's a good man and doing his job well." Yes, and that's what Liberals hate and fear most--for good reason. They particularly hate honesty.

[Savage Beast]

Most other media outlets are organs for Liberal propaganda.

[Savage Beast]

"Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."

You make an important point. This was the main objection to the assault on law during the Clinton Administration.

[Hal.009]

Great quote for the defense of the Rule of Law.... Unfortunately, Moore was ultimately destroyed by the coruption of the very system of law he supported through the false charges by Sir Richard Rich.

The greatest enemy of "The Rule of Law" is corruption.

The exact same corruption of law is being used to attack the Republicans and John Ashcroft.

Mr Ashcroft is not a corrupt man. Senator (Cromwell) Leahy, and Maxine (Richard Rich) Waters, however ....... "For Whales?" (pun intended)

[Quila]

I'm not worried about Ashcroft. I'm worried about the multitude of agents that will be enforcing this, or Ashcroft's possibly less-than-honest, worse-than-Reno replacement.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

bump