It is a plain old dumb political strategy. The Dems would bash conservatives with the "that's-all-they-have-is-to-attack-Bill-Clinton" club, and we'd get sucked into a debate over the last ten years rather than the next ten. Whatever the Clinton crimes were---and I think there were a lot---every single special prosecutor who has looked at the evidence has agreed that there just isn't enough to "hang" the guy or Hillary.
There is a time to let things go. In the 1880s, the Northern politicians finally quit "waving the bloody shirt," because there were more important things than reviving the Civil War---did you know that Cleveland even advocated pensions for SOUTHERN veterans? Imagine the hue and cry from the northerners!!! But the point is, you can't fight past wars and hope to win future elections. If you "be a chooser" to do that, do so without me. Cause it isn't going to convince a single voter out there, and will only make you look like a kook.
Why is it the "move-on'ers" ONLY focus on Clinton. These crimes were committed by DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of high level democrats. Those people are STILL infesting the democRAT party, just waiting for their next opportunity to steal elections and sell this country out. Many of them are actually still in government. Some of them are running for elections to high office. And the bottom line is that you didn't answer my question. How conservative do you have to be to uphold laws as important as those that protect us against election tampering, privacy violations and murder?
The Dems would bash conservatives with the "that's-all-they-have-is-to-attack-Bill-Clinton" club,
Why are you obsessed with Bill Clinton? Why won't you move-on'ers EVER discuss the many others who committed crimes? Don't they matter? The fact is, without them, the Clintons would have been powerless. The fact is, without Clinton in office, THEY are powerless. NOTHING is preventing Ashcroft from PROPERLY investigating these matters and dishing out justice where it is due.
And who says this must start with an attack on "the Clintons"? Ashcroft would be a FOOL to start with them. Perhaps that is why Starr did. No, you start with the underlings. That's how you ALWAYS break up mafias ... and that is just what Clinton created ... a mafia. You investigate those underlings (Clinton's Chinese "friend" called them "princelings"), charge them (so they face the prospect of LONG jail sentences) and then turn them (and some will to avoid that long jail time) ... so that the case against their bosses and their bosses bosses is eventually undeniable. THEN, you go after their bosses.
I suggest Ashcroft start with just 3 cases. First there is the Riady non-refund where CLEARLY friends of Clinton (be they Riady or be they democRAT fundraisers) committed very serious election tampering (ILLEGALLY and KNOWINGLY introducing MILLIONS of dollars from Communist China into OUR election process). Second there is Filegate, where one party attempted to gain political advantage (ah heck ... let's just say it ... BLACKMAIL) another party's highest members by ILLEGALLY acquiring what might turn out to be THOUSANDS of FBI files and then ILLEGALLY transfer the damning information in them into DNC databases. Third is the deaths of Foster and Brown ... where it would appear, AT BEST, a suicide and a mass murder were covered up.
These cases are perfect because each has hard evidence (you don't just have to depend on hearsay) to prove crimes were committed and that (AT THE VERY LEAST) underlings were involved. Each is about a serious matter and not just about "sex" or "lying about sex". Matters such as election tampering using communist cash, violating the privacy of THOUSANDS of people, blackmailing the other party's leadership, and murdering government officials will be difficult to spin, especially given the existance of FOX NEWS. You saw the effect FOX NEWS had on the reporting of the Pardongate allegations. Each case also has credible witnesses ready and willing to testify. Witnesses don't get any more credible than military officers who were in good standing. And each case leads to the Clinton Whitehouse or the top people in the DNC (FOB's).
You investigate these cases, then AFTER you win them, you will be able to focus on the other scandals with the public's approval and perhaps even move the focus up the ladder towards the Clintons. Prove that the Clinton Whitehouse, at the very least, covered up the murder of Ron Brown and you have the black community and ALL Republicans demanding the rest of the scandals be investigated. Prove the Clinton Whitehouse covered up a MASS MURDER and you will have EVEN democRATS demanding the same. You don't start out by focusing on Clinton as move-on'ers think we would.
Investigating these crimes is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. By ignoring the crimes you only STRENGTHEN the democRAT party. What does it matter if Bush signs a CFR bill that he thinks will help Republicans, if democRATS are just going to go out and STEAL the next election using TENS of MILLIONS in ILLEGAL cash? That is PRECISELY what they did the last couple elections and there is PLENTY of hard evidence ALREADY to prove it. Yet, Ashcroft and the GOP ignore this. Do you think the democRATS won't learn a lesson from this?
If we ignore these crimes, the democRATS will learn that a President who controls the media (like they did AND STILL DO) and the law enforcement arm of the Federal government (like Clinton most certainly did) can get away with literally ANYTHING. They have already learned that Republicans cannot prevent them from committing crimes and they know that during THEIR administration, IF there is an investigation by the GOP, they can plead the 5th, lie or just pretend a memory lapse and the Republicans will essentially do NOTHING. And if Republicans do nothing now, they will learn that when they commit crimes, and after Republicans are back in power, Republicans STILL won't do anything ... even with mountains of evidence. They won't even INVESTIGATE to gather further evidence.
They will learn they can get away with stealing elections and Republicans will do NOTHING. They will learn they can openly tamper with the voting process and Republicans will do NOTHING. They will learn that they can get campaign funds from illegal sources (even by selling US secrets to the enemy) and Republicans will do NOTHING. They will learn that even if discovered, they can say they returned the illegal funds, not do so, get caught not doing so and STILL the Republicans will do NOTHING.
They will learn that they can ILLEGALLY examine government files for damaging information on their opponents, put that information ILLEGALLY into their own databases and publish the information in their controlled media ... and the Republicans will do NOTHING. They will learn that they can both destroy the evidence of their wrong doing or simply disconnect the systems that are supposed to preserve a "paper trail" of government activities ... and the Republicans will do nothing.
They will learn that they can abuse the IRS, FBI and military, turning them into instruments for distracting the public from reports that might damage them or even use them to harass their enemies ... and the Republicans will do NOTHING. They will learn that they can intimidate, smear and lie about anyone who threatens them and the Republicans will do NOTHING.
They will learn that they can KILL high level members of the government (like Foster and Brown) who threaten to expose their activities and Republicans will do NOTHING. They won't even investigate.
If the GOP ignores the crimes the democRATS committed, they leave people like me (life-long Republicans) wondering whether we really can trust Republicans to properly investigate crimes by Republicans ... or even whether they might not commit crimes just like the democRATS did to stay in power. After all, why should we trust Republicans, if they won't even investigate crimes as serious as MURDER ... by DEMOCRATS? And once that trust is gone it will be very hard to regain.
The only groups I know of that "mand we'd get sucked into a debate over the last ten years rather than the next ten.
There won't be a next ten years if you don't fix the danger that the democRAT behavior of the last ten years poses. There won't be a next ten years if you ignore these laws just because you think you will gain politically. That very action will destroy this country, because if our leaders do not respect the laws, don't expect the public to either. And a nation without laws is not a nation ... it is either anarchy or a TYRANNY.
Whatever the Clinton crimes were---
Clinton Clinton Clinton. Why do you insist this is only about the Clintons? It is NOT. It is about a whole party gone bad and the other teettering on the edge of an abyss. NOW, because of GOP inaction, it is BECOMING "about" BUSH!
every single special prosecutor who has looked at the evidence has agreed that there just isn't enough to "hang" the guy or Hillary.
Oh give me a break. And who exactly selected those prosecutors. Fiske was #1 on a list drawn up by CLINTON. Starr was #2 on that list. Do you honestly think, knowing what we know about the Clintons, that they would have put ANYONE on that list that they didn't think they could control. If you don't think Starr was controlled, then explain this. Why did Starr allow the FBI files which HE told US were ILLEGAL for the Whitehouse to have, to REMAIN in the Whitehouse for YEARS after he told us that? Why didn't Starr say something when both the Whitehouse and FBI told the public that the files were returned? Starrs investigation of the Filegate was a JOKE. He didn't even bother to interview many of the key witnesses ... he left that up to Klayman then never used what Klayman learned. And why did Starr do such a shoddy job of investigating the Foster matter? All he did was RUBBER STAMP Fiske's report. Do you believe Fiske was honest? And as to Ray, he ALSO allowed those FBI files to remain in the Whitehouse, although to his credit he at least told the truth when directly asked where the files were a few years after the Whitehouse and FBI LIED. Sorry, your special prosecutors were more than TAINTED by the Clinton corruption. It is time for some HONEST investigation of these matters. It is time that some of these matters (like the Ron Brown case) be investigated at all. Reno just IGNORED military officers who SWORE UNDER OATH that something was very wrong.
There is a time to let things go.
Sure ... just "move on" ... adopt the mantra of the democRAT party and "be happy".
In the 1880s, the Northern politicians finally quit "waving the bloody shirt," because there were more important things than reviving the Civil War---did you know that Cleveland even advocated pensions for SOUTHERN veterans?
Don't try and suggest this is about "revenge". Thisis most assuredly NOT. It is about whether we are going to be a nation of laws or not. It is about whether we are going to allow leaders and parties to do ANYTHING they want.
But the point is, you can't fight past wars and hope to win future elections.
There is no statute of limitation on murder. You seem to think there is. There are NO EXCUSES for not investigating many of these crimes and the questions I'm asking are not going to go away regardless of how much you and the rest of the move-on'ers want them to.
and will only make you look like a kook.
Time will tell. Your problem is that unlike the "kooks" you equate me to, I have the facts on my side. Or would you like to try proving me wrong in any of the cases I mentioned?