You call that engaging in a debate? Looks more like RUNNING from the facts to me ... dreaming up EXCUSES for Ashcroft NOT doing EXACTLY what ArneFufkin, himself, said an AG is supposed to do. Remember? He wrote that the AG's "job is to enforce existing law." Well do YOU think the Clinton's and their minions broke laws or not? Apparently NOT and that should give everyone pause about anything else you have to say.
He is fixated on dragging the Clintons before the courts, especially over Ron Brown, and any logical argument about why this is not being done falls on deaf ears.
I'm not half as fixated on Bill Clinton as you are Miss Marple. You are obviously obsessed with the man because you NEVER mention or will discuss the dozens if not hundreds of other democRATS that were knowingly involved in the Clinton era crimes and who are STILL in positions of influence ... in Bush's administration, the democRAT party, the media ... STILL doing damage and waiting to STEAL future elections like they almost did the last.
You WANT US to focus solely on Bill Clinton, Miss Marple. You'd rather we not even investigate these matters so that those many other criminal conspirators can continue their dirty work. You'd rather we not even investigate and find out the names of everyone who was involved ... names that I'm sure would include some still working in the Bush administration. You want everyone to think that the investigations and prosecutions would start with Clinton when in fact dozens of others would be investigated and convicted before Clinton had even a chance of becoming a target of prosecution. Why is that? Why are you using Clinton's name to keep the focus off those others, Miss Marple?
And since YOU bring up the name Ron Brown, why don't you tell us why ALL the people that seem to think like you (i.e, that Bush should ignore ALL the crimes the democRATS committed the last nine years ... even if they involved murder) REFUSE to discuss the facts surrounding his death? One of those people even claims that Brown wasn't murdered but won't say why. In fact, one of them even claims that such matters as Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate and the Riady Non-Refund were all about "nothing". Yet you consistently step in to defend that person and her positions. Yet, you want us to believe you are a died-in-the-wool conservative.
Just why are YOU and your friends afraid to discuss the circumstances in the Brown case? Because there is no statute of limitations on that crime? Because it can't be spun since its about murder and mass murder, not sex? Because the proof that a murder occurred is a simple exhumation and autopsy away? Because MILITARY officers were the whistleblowers in the case and therefore difficult to smear and discredit? Because it is easily shown that AFIP managers LIED about the facts in the case and the opinions of their pathologists? Because many, many other facts point to foul play? Because neither you or the government can explain the loss of transponder and radio contact when the plane was still 8 miles from the crash site? Because you can't explain what the surviving photo of the head x-ray shows or how the originals of the x-rays and photos all came to disappear from a locked safe at AFIP? Because you are afraid that a little digging might uncover a "suicide" (of the mechanic in charge of the missing beacon that could have been used to make the plane fly into the ground as it did) that was not a "suicide"? And I can go on but why waste the effort. I know that this time like ALL the times before you will RUN.
He has already placed you on the dreaded list of "Move-on types" and discounted your opinion. Howlin and I are on the list, you know.
Yes. Howlin ... who claimed that Brown wasn't shot but won't say why (other than to cite a very liberal democRATS belief, a demonstrably bogus government report, Ken Starr who had nothing to say about the case, and unnamed "others). And here you are defending her again.
Yes. Howlin ... who said that all those scandals I mentioned were "about nothing" and IMPLIED that Tripp and all the others who testified under oath in those matters might be lying. And here you are defending her once again.
And YES ... both of you do insist that the AG move on even if crimes were committed. That was the question being discussed in this thread you know.
Forget the Clintons. Human lives - yours, mine, our family and friends - are at stake. Today. The killers are here ... they're waiting for time, weapon and opportunity. We NEED Ashcroft and everyone in his outfit to find these murderous bastards first.
Get your head on straight. FR is becoming one big rubber room.
Nevermind that we are at war, and the DOJ is needed for more urgent matters.
Nevermind that this is a guaranteed loser of a case, and that it will divide the country, in time of war.
Nevermind that the media would attack Bush and cause him to lose popularity, making him a one-term president, and guaranteeing us Hillary.
You are wrong, you are obsessed, and I don't really have any use for your interminable paragraphs.
Go pound sand.
