Posted on 01/08/2002 1:46:27 PM PST by classygreeneyedblonde
Clinton is certainly not "my boy". But Aldrich's wilder claims in the book are never sourced and many are taken as fact that are really just rumors. While Aldrich's opinion of the Clintons and the adminstration are widely shared, it does the cause no good to engage in sloppy journalism. I'm sorry I don't revere him as some do, but that's no reason to hurl insults.
Cheers.
Ah! Here come the thought police of the Orthodox Conservatism, who equate any criticism of one in the fold with high treason against the faith and evidence of evil socialist liberalism. Get a clue. Whatever truth it contained, I thought Aldrich's book was a glorified opinion piece, in which many claimed "facts" were unsourced rumors. I call that sloppy work. To stop corruption in government, and returning to real Constitutional roots, you need to work with facts, not rumors. Aldrich was a bit light on real facts, and ultimately that hurts the cause.
Cheers.
As far as "the benefit of a doubt" is concerned, that ended 6 months ago.
Take a reality check. GW is Clinton lite.
As far as "the benefit of a doubt" is concerned, that ended 6 months ago.
Take a reality check. GW is Clinton lite.
No problem. It seemed you were shouting at me. I guess you respond emphatically, as I often do myself. I think it throws people off and it's not intentional.
"As far as "the benefit of a doubt" is concerned, that ended 6 months ago. Take a reality check. GW is Clinton lite."
Ohhh, I don't think I need a reality check about GW; I've said here many times that Bush Sr. is a New Ager and NWO and we really don't know how far the apple falls from the tree. Clinton lite is spot-on. Thanks for your contribution on the subject. JL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.