What point? The point you want to argue? Who elected you?
I did not accuse all Republicans of being dishonest. What I said, precisely, was "I'd say Bill Clinton was justified in considering the whole thing political, and acting accordingly. You find me an honest voice on the other side, I'll reconsider." This isn't an entirely precise statement, but I'd say it's quite debatable to say, as you do, that it constitutes an accusation that all Republicans are dishonest. "Honest voice", I'd say here, could be reasonably interpreted as "somebody speaking honestly on the issue of the Starr report and impeachment. As in this nameless guy:
"I thought from day one, as I think today, that this was bad for the country," said one of Starr's defenders who now questions his tactics. "Sometimes you have to exercise prosecutorial discretion." Even though this defender of Starr said he believed the president was guilty of significant misconduct, he said, "the cost to the country far outweighs the value of proving it." (from nytimes.com
Or maybe he's not a Republican, I don't know. Do you have some problem with the statement quoted above?
So, once more.
Dan, re: the source of your confusion. You refuse to argue the point. You accused all Republicans of being dishonest. That is a ridiculous statement and I pointed out just how ridiculous it was.
I'd say you're arguing your own interpretation of what I said. I'd say you're putting words in my mouth. I'd say you're being disingenuous, if not ridiculous. I'd say the guy I quoted above, who I assume is a Republican, was being honest. Once more, though I have no idea what the point is now:
It's hard to defend Clinton, he's an embarrassment. But this has been a partisan witchhunt from the start. From the moment Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth went to see the judge they had gotten appointed and told him who they wanted for special prosecutor. If somebody gives me some indication of politicians of any stripe taking this "I swear to tell the truth" business seriously, I'll start taking this particular instance of "perjury" seriously. If this is a high crime, we may as well abolish the office. I'd say Bill Clinton was justified in considering the whole thing political, and acting accordingly. You find me an honest voice on the other side, I'll reconsider.
And once more, sadly, you responded, precisely and in toto:
Dan, "You find me an honest voice on the other side, I'll reconsider."
You smear too much with that broad a brush - I personally resent the generalization you're making that all of the opposition is cut of the same cloth as Mr. Clinton.
To me, that's as fundamentally repugnant as saying all Germans were Nazis or that all white people are racists.
It is a weak point from which to engage in a substantive debate.
As to the vote thing, what I am saying, precisely, is that candidates in the November election should make clear how they intend to vote on the impeachment issue, before the election, given the information available at that time. The voters have the right to know, given the magnitude of the issue, wouldn't you say? Is there perhaps some more important issue likely to face the next Congress? Direct answer, please.
Cheers, Dan. |
