Replies

Put a sock on it.

What an outstanding argument. See, folks, I told she'd run.

We all know that you think the President should open investigations on all the crimes the Clintons perpetrated, regardeless of whther they think they can get a conviction.

Clintons. Clintons. Clintons. See, folks, she's still obsessed with Clintons. Still wants you to focus on them and ignore ALL the others. And how can one make a SOUND decision about whether a conviction is possible without a investigation? Some one sure is SPINNNINNG.

And by the way, YES ... people do know where I stand. The question is do we really know where you stand. Do you believe Brown was murdered? Do you believe crimes were committed in Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate, the Riady Non-Refund? Do you think some of the people involved in those crimes are still active in government, the media or the democRAT party? Just what do you REALLY think?

Nevermind that we are at war, and the DOJ is needed for more urgent matters.

Like fighting against voter approved assisted suicide? Like fighting against voter approved medical marijuana? Like fighting against pornography? Like I said in another post, if you need more agents ... hire them, rather than spend BILLIONS on programs that only liberals are really applauding. Hiding behind the WOT does not explain why NOTHING was done to investigate these matters before 9/11. And isn't defending our system of government, our freedoms, our way of life just as important as defending lives and buildings? Afterall, throughout history we have SPENT LIVES and RESOURCES to defend those things. Then why let democRATS do more damage to our institutions of government and law than terrorists could EVER do?

Nevermind that this is a guaranteed loser of a case,

Focusing on Clinton again are we? What about the dozens of others that we already KNOW committed crimes and for which there is plenty of evidence in the public domain, even without an HONEST investigation by an HONEST DOJ, with which to convict them? Imagine how much evidence there would be AFTER an investigation by parties that weren't trying to protect the Clinton administration and DNC? Lots of those people would be convicted and if you don't believe that is possible, explain what happened in Whitewater. Or have you completely given up on our judicial system in which case what are we fighting the WOT to protect? That's one of the most important things distinguishing us from the terrorists and voices of tyranny throughout the world.

and that it will divide the country, in time of war.

You think it isn't divided now? Maybe you should open a paper or two ... or listen to what they say on ABC, NBC and the like. The problem is that democRATS are becoming emboldened again because they are beginning to think they've gotten away with all the crimes they committed during the Clinton years. So its back to business as usual. But look what happened when the Pardongate matter was starting to get looked at seriously as a possible criminal matter. The democRATS AND liberal media were falling all over themselves to distance themselves from the Clinton administration and, in some cases, even being a democRAT. But then Bush moved-on there too ... and learned another lesson regarding the GOP's inability or unwillingness to prosecute their criminal behavior.

Nevermind that the media would attack Bush and cause him to lose popularity, making him a one-term president, and guaranteeing us Hillary.

And they aren't doing that now? Why half the posts here on FreeRepublic, especially those that you and your friends start and frequent, are about perceived attacks on Bush by the media. Are we to let the media decide which crimes get investigated and prosecuted and which don't. If so, I can guarantee you that the next election will be stolen by the democRATS. You think you saw media bias the last election? Just wait till the next when democRATS KNOW they can commit ANY CRIME IN THE BOOK and the GOP won't do anything about it. What is coming the next election will make what happened in the uninvestigated, unprosecuted Riady Non-Refund case look like chicken feed.

You are wrong,

You haven't proven me wrong. All you've done is mouth some platitudes, some PERSONAL opinions and RUN from the facts in case after case in order to defend the indefensible.

you are obsessed,

With what our Constitution says a President is supposed to do vis a vis crime and laws (namely ENFORCE THEM)? With what our forefathers thought about enforcing laws at the WHIM of a ruler (read the Declaration of Independence)? If so then I PROUDLY stand convicted as charged.

But if you want to claim I'm more obsessed with the Clintons than YOU, I'll disagree by simply pointing out that I'm not the one who ignores all the other criminals to focus SOLELY on Clinton and HIS chances of conviction ... I'm not the one who shows up to make nasty remarks about Bill, Hillary and Chelsea's LOOKS at every opportunity. It is those who seem more than a little EAGER to ignore the many serious crimes that dozens, if not HUNDREDS, of democRATS committed during the Clinton administration who seem obsessed with him.

and I don't really have any use for your interminable paragraphs.

Nor, it seems, the facts and Constitution.