But of course Obama is in the same boat in this regard. There's no actual physical evidence against him and he was never arrested or convicted either. So we have to presume he's innocent too by that ultimate standard, just like with Bush and Clinton.
Not true, actually. Obama admitted he hs used marijuana and cocaine, and drove while under the influence of alcohol, in one of his books. Admission (confession) is really one of the strongest forms of proof there is. I really don't believe there could be any doubt that Obama used cocaine, marijuana, and drove under the influence of alcohol.
My only point here was to emphasize that we really can't say what Bush did, while we can be pretty sure Clinton smoked marijuana, and that Obama smoked marijuana, abused cocaine, and drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
Not trying to jump on you, but just your post. I think the above is the truth as we know it, and we shouldn't let people in the opposing political party(s) hand stuff on our leaders without probably cause, at minimum.
You have noticed, I am sure, that the same ones who were condemning Bush for drug use, had no grounds to do so, while they have very reason to know Obama did marijuana and cocaine multiple times, and admitted to it in a book he wrote himself.
Where are all those folks who were condemning Bush, when we now have a leader who admits past drug abuse? |
