This is NOT just about the Clintons. This is about DOZENS of high level democRATS who committed serious crimes ... perhaps even mass murder, treason and blackmail. They definitely tried to undermine our election system using money from the Chinese communists and other illegal sources. They did other things that might constitute election tampering. Yet you want to just ignore that?
No matter how much WE wish to see the Clintons in jail, the process for that is NOT in the now president's hands.
Yes it is. Ashcroft and the FBI are under his thumb and to suggest otherwise is nothing short of spin.
Those of us who are SO relieved to have President Bush in the Oval Office, must allow him to be president, and NOT wish for him to be an " avenging angel " !
Yet if he is willing to ignore credible evidence of crimes as serious as mass murder and treason by democRATS, many of who are STILL in power, why should we believe he and the GOP will not break the law and cover up those misdeeds in order for Republicans to stay in power. As you said, you can't have it both ways!
Either we have a Representative Republic ( which I do believe that President Bush IS bringng this country back to ) , or we don't.
Either we are a nation where the laws apply equally to everyone or they don't. And if they don't then we don't have a "representative republic" ... we have a totalitarian government.
Immediate cures are NOT possible.
Agreed but how long does it take to start ANY investigation. Why you and I could go out and dig up Ron Brown and probably know within a week whether he was shot or not. Time is not the issue. A willingness to uphold the laws is.
Incrimentalism go us to where we are now, and it is the ONLY way to turn back the clock.
But ONLY if the trend is in the direction of upholding the laws. I see no movement in that direction. I'll challenge you like I have all the other "move-on'ers". Provide one indication that Bush/Ashcroft have or are investigating ANY of the following: Filegate, Chinagate, Emailgate, the death of Brown, the death of Foster, the Riady non-refund (i.e., campaign finance illegalities), election tampering. Just ONE.
President Bush is far more intelligent than most ( even Conservatives ! ) are giving him credit for being.
I know he's intelligent. But so was Clinton.
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. : - (