Posted on 01/04/2002 8:52:30 AM PST by editor-surveyor
Even J.Edgar Hoover couldn't do what you basely cavail about Ashcroft doing !
Was the " TEAPOT DOME " scandal horrendous ? Yes, it was. Was ALL of LBJ's corruption a disaster ? Yes, it most assuredly was ! What about the first, WORST president of the USA , in the 20th century ? If it wasn't for WQilson's meddling, WW II would NEVER have happened, and neither would so very many ghastly promblems throughout the 20th and now, 21rst, century. FDR ? He died in office, AFTER filling his admiistration FULL of stinking COMMIES, and allowig one of them ( Alger Hiss ) to sell out Eastern Europe, give in to ALL of Stalin's wishes, at Yalta, and sign onto the damned UN ! Sooooooooooo, what does history tell us ? IT TELLS US THAT NO PRESIDENT GOES AFTER THE PRECEEDING PRESIDENT , NOR HIS ADMINISTRATION ; NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED !
You have NO idea what a REPRESENTAVE REPUBLIC means. You are using the words with absoltely NO comprehension , and inserting your opinion , which is based on NO factual information. Your reply, to me, might as well have been in Urdu . We're back to what the meaning of is, is. UNtil you better educate yourself, it is useless to try to have a meaningful discourse. We are using the same langage, but the words have different meanings to us. : - (
NAME THEM, Howlin. Do you mean Colonel Dickerson? He has already been caught LYING about the evidence and the opinions of his pathologists. Why would you trust him? Do you mean Colonel Gormley ... the pathologist who examined he body. He has already been caught LYING about the evidence and has since admitted that Brown should have had an autopsy. Why would you trust his ORIGINAL conclusion? The FACT is that I can name 6 TOP NOTCH pathologists (several who are MILITARY) who say the hole in Brown's head could be a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied. You can't name ONE ... except a PROVEN LIAR. Go ahead, Howlin, CITE the report(s) that documents your willingness to BELIEVE organizations under the control of Clinton. Explain why this was the first crash without a Air Force Safety Board. Explain the loss of transponder signal when the plane was still 8 miles from the runway. Explain the treatment of the MILITARY pathologists and photographer after they came forward. Tell us why Clinton was LAUGHING as he came out of Brown's funeral after such a TEARFUL eulogy? Stop calling me "INSANE" Howlin and debate the facts. Stop RUNNING. Stop acting like a democRAT. Why are you so afraid of a simple autopsy?
As for Vince Foster, I'll take Ken Starr's word over yours, if you don't mind. He doesn't seem quite as PARANOID as you do.
Then do you also think Bob Barr is PARANOID? He does NOT take Starr's word. And can you tell us why Starr would not respond to Barr's questions about the Foster case? Can you explain ANY of the 101 (so more) questions that have been raised? Can you explain the questions raised by Knowlton at FBI-Coverup.com? Can you tell us why Starr told the public that ALL his investigators agreed with him when O'Reilly says that is absolutely untrue? Can you tell us why Starr allowed the ILLEGAL FBI files to remain in the Whitehouse YEARS after he told the public it was ILLEGAL for the Whitehouse to have them AND THAT THEY'D BEEN RETURNED? Starr was recommended by Clinton, you know. Starr was PART of the coverup. And isn't it curious that Starr just happened to focus everyone's attention on SEX just when the Brown case was heating up?
She would have to admit to
not being able to back up her "facts,"
lying, and bluffing.
Well good for you. Now explain why Ashcroft cannot investigate the possible MURDER of TWO senior Clinton administration officials ... one a Secretary of Commerce! Explain why Ashcroft cannot investigate TREASON against the US ... or don't you consider SELLING US secrets for campaign contributions treason? Explain why Ashcroft cannot investigate Filegate and FINALLY tell us how many files were taken, where they now are, whether the material on them found its way into DNC databases and whether those databases still ILLEGALLY contain that information. Try and convince us those matters are outside his venue. Try and convince us that Bush doesn't have a lot of influence over what Ashcroft investigates.
IT TELLS US THAT NO PRESIDENT GOES AFTER THE PRECEEDING PRESIDENT , NOR HIS ADMINISTRATION ; NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED !
So what you are saying is that Bush IS just like those other criminals. How reassuring. You are also proving that Republicans are no more discerning than democRATS when it comes to insisting on their leaders obeying the law. Party over politics. I THOUGHT that FR stood for something better. Can't you see that MASS MURDER is a lot different than the Teapot Dome or any those other previous scandals? TREASON with a nuclear armed Communist Chinese is a lot more serious than anything previous. Dispute THAT.
You have NO idea what a REPRESENTAVE REPUBLIC means. You are using the words with absoltely NO comprehension
Go ahead. Tell us why our nation UNDER Clinton wasn't a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. Then tell us the difference between a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC and a TYRANNY when the leaders of BOTH parties apparently think they are ABOVE THE LAW.
You do have a reading comprehension problem. Stop putting words in my mouth . You are claiming that I ( ? ) said that President Bush is as " bad " as Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Clinton ? IN WHAT UNIVERSE ? Maybe YOU think he is, but I don't.
There is not a single person, who, as president, could / would do what you think should be done. The press, the media, both Houses, and many just " average " citizens would call for his impeachment. And ou knw what ? If it was a Republican president, he WOULD be impeached and thrown out of office; unlike Clintoooooooooon. This is reality, and what you want ( and all of us here , would love to see it too ! ) is fantasy land.
Just because what I say , displeases you, don't you dare to heap calumny upon me. Got that ?
Instead, try to use your intellect, instead of " feelings ", as a Dem would. This isn't about party; it's about saving what's left of this nation. It's about doing what CAN be done, instead of demanding the impossible. It's about being an adult, rather than a " terrible two " throwing a tantrum. It's about seeing the glass as 1/2 full, instead of seeing it ( even though there is liquid in it ! ) as being empty !
NO, TEAPOT DOME wasn't anywhere near as horriffic , as what the Clintons and Co. pulled off; however , what FDR and Co. did was ! TRuman certainly wasn't about to do anything about that, and Ike didn't either. Neither did J. Edgar Hoover, and he had much more power, than Ashcroft does.
As a candidate, President Bush NEVER said that he would go after the Clintons, for their corruption , crimes, and treasonous behavior. What he has done, as president, is , in the span of one year,kept almost ALL of his campaign pledges . I guess that you expected him to do that which he never promised to do, nor even mention. That is patently obtuse / juvenile / politically naive / illogical.
Please truthfully answer the following, for me. You meet a man, he is handsome, wealthy, of good character, and seems to be your ideal mate. This man asks you to go to dinner with him, and tells you that he will buy you THE finest meal in a 5 star restaurant. He tells you that he will pock you up at 6:30 P.M. a week from Friday. Come the appointed day and time, he arrives, dressed well, and takes you to a 5 star restaurant. You look at the menu, and a vast selection of comestables are listed in the menu. You order what you want, the meal comes, and you eat THE best meal that you've ever had . The evening is a great sucess. The next day , your friend calls you and asks how it went, and you proceed to tell her that your shoes hurt the whole evening. This is what you have metaphorically done.
He never once mentioned that he would buy you comfortable shoes, he never once mentioned shoes, yet ALL you can talk about is that your shoes hurt.
WHEN DID CANDIDATE GEORGE W. BUSH EVER SAY THAT HE WOULD GO AFTER THE CLINTONS ? WHEN DID PRESIDENT GEORGE WALKER BUSH EVER STATE THAT HE WOULD GO AFTER THE CLINTONS ? WHEN HAS ANY PRESIDENT GONE AFTER ANOTHER PRESIDENT AND / OR THEIR ADMINISTRATION ?
Look, if you STILL don't " get it ", see if you can take an on line college class ( any colleges and universities now give classes on line ! ) in government / politics / history. I am NOT condoning the fact that THE most corupt president and his administration have gotten of scot free. Where do you think my nic came from ? It's just that I know that what you and a few others, have stated on this thread, is SO unrealistic, as to be startling in its naivete.
Piffle and balderdash.
I think a few of us thought there were more important criteria for putting GWB in the White House simply a promise to "get the clintons". Things like a more conservative agenda, replacing an embarrassing president with one that would restore dignity to the office, one that wouldn't squander our military resources, etc.
Poll upon poll showed us that the 'american people were negative about the repubs never-ending investigations of clinton. To suggest that a candidate who conducted a rankerous "get the clintons" campaign would have handily won is ridiculous.
I'm not supporting GWB here, I'm simply offering my opinion as to why his administration isn't engaged in hunting the elusive clintons.
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.