Replies

To: carenot
How about "restoring honor and decency to the White House," which he has done.
He did NOT campaign on a pledge to prosecute the Clintons.
You will not find that anywhere in his campaign speeches or writings.
He wanted to remove the poison of the Clinton years from the public discourse.

Now, you can disagree with him about whether or not he should prosecute
(I go back and forth sometimes about this myself)
but he never said he would do so.
# 430 by Miss Marple
************************

"he never said he would do so"
is the reason that I didn't support him
in the Republican primaries.

"he never said he would do so"
is the reason that I didn't vote for him
in the general election.

He didn't investigate
the treasonous activities
of the Clinton administration,
which is why I consider him
to be nothing but a politician,
with no principles
that extend past the next vote.

He's no better than Clinton.
They're two of a kind.

Them's fighting words. They are not two of a kind, and you know it.

Bush wanted an end to the personal destruction side of politics, perfected by the Clintonistas. His judgement is that there is no future in the prosecution of these two, especially since they are so good at covering their tracks.

Why should he sacrifice his agenda to satisfy your desires for revenge, especially since it wouldn't work anyway?

You see, this is the whole problem with you folks. If you had said you didn't vote for him because he wouldn't discuss or prosecute the Clintons for their crimes, I would have had no problem with your opinion.

But instead, you hurl an extra poisonous insult that he is no different than Clinton, and you know, deep in your heart, that is not true.