Replies

I'm not running from a thing. The question is meant to take the heat off of Clayman because, deep down, you know what I am saying is true and deflection is your only defense.

No the question is not meant to do that. I've stated repeatedly that I do not like what JW has become recently and I have no objections to people voicing their criticism of THAT transition. What I object to is this very SELECTIVE criticism and the distortion of what he could do. Do you deny that he was limited to CIVIL suits? Do you deny that the SERIOUS crimes committed by the DNC and Clinton administration (which JW was in large part responsible for uncovering and letting us know about) are CRIMINAL matters? Do you want to suggest that Reno/Clinton did a fair investigation of such crimes and tried to prosecute crimes were the evidence was suggested? Do you want to deny that the responsibility for doing that is now Bush and Ashcroft's?

I don't mind you criticizing Klayman but where is the criticism of Bush and Ashcroft? Because I don't see THAT, I'm think I'm right to be suspicious of your real motives. You seem more outraged at Klayman than the men that are ACTUALLY letting Clinton and the DNC get away with MASS MURDER, TREASON, ELECTION TAMPERING and a multitude of other CRIMINAL violations.

Osama and his militant Muslim pals around the world are not simply a convenient excuse for ignoring domestic issues. Our President and his staff have more on their plates than any of us should ever be forced to bear. He has never ignored domestic issues during this time while simultaneously staying in command of a complex military operation with our troops lives at stake. I'm mystified that folks can't understand both the seriousness of the militant Muslim threat and the courage of our President. I could give you 500 examples since 9-11 that prove Bush's courage and compassion, but what's the point. President Bush never once during his campaign said that he'd go after Clinton legally. Clinton's a small man. He will always be a small man.

He looks even smaller compared to the grace of the man who took his place. From ANWR, to removing the ABA referrals, the NOW office, the insistance on jackets, reestablishing Beck so workers can choose how Union dues are paid, treating his wife with respect, saying NO to the UN on Kyoto, the International Court, (both Clinton supported), reaffirming his stance on ABM and missile defense to the UN, the EU and the world, no J Jackson, revoked the expensive ergonomics regs., invited the Boy Scouts to the White House, actually understands and respects our military, doesn't carry a Bible as a prop, but sincerely believes....world leaders have stated the difference, the most important difference. Bush is trustworthy. He means what he says and isn't simply a poser. When he threatens Saddam, he means it and Saddam knows it. When he salutes the troops, he means it, and the troops know it.

Americans have every right to be angry at the Clintons, but taking it out on the current administration during wartime (that "inconvenience" that has cost us over 4000 innocent American lives - and more on the line overseas) is wrong, IMHO.

Let someone else in this great land get off their butts and do something about them.... quietly kidnap Slick and put him away in the country with a patriotic hooker and allow him to write cookbooks and eat Big Macs, but no other contact with the world (just kiding SS).