[Mr. Mojo]

he [Bush] doesn't want to set the president

You mean precedent?

Well, what's more important, the national security of the U.S. or hurting the "integrity of the Presidency?" I maintain it's the former, and if by exposing the OKC-Iraq connection harm is done to the Presidency by implicating the traitor/rapist/murderer Bill Clinton, then so be it. IMO, it's very unhealthy for Americans to look upon the Presidency as an unassailable institution. The days of King George (of England) are long gone, in case you haven't noticed.

[Lancey Howard]

I maintain it's the former, and if by exposing the OKC-Iraq connection harm is done to the Presidency by implicating the traitor/rapist/murderer Bill Clinton, then so be it.

I agree. The failure of the Republicans to talk about Scumbag's crimes, and even the stuff some of them bothered to review in the Ford Building, makes you wonder what kind of dirt the Clintons are keeping handy.

[Utopia]

The days of King George (of England) are long gone, in case you haven't noticed.

You've never been on the 8th floor of the State Department -- the little people never get to go there. We do have an elected monarchy. And the pomp and circumstance gets more and more pronounced with each succeeding President. The first generation of Presidents were true to the spirit of the Republic. The days of George Washington are long over. Harry Truman just had his army pension to survive on when he retired. Not so, now.