Well, maybe you ought to check out the Constitution on war sometime, if you thing Iran-Contra is so copacetic. But what about perjury? Apparently not so open and shut a case with Clinton. And you said nobody tried to make a case against Bush. Facts are stupid things, you know.
As for stooges, right now it looks like most people think Ken Starr is a stooge or worse. Oh, I got that definition wrong, "stooges", like "stupid" and "hateful", exclusively apply to people who disagree with you. You got "facts" on your side, though. I hope you and Ken enjoy your pompous moral superiority good in the weeks to come.
You have done nothing but spew hate toward republicans, offering no real insight. The Bush and Thomas issues are past and not directly comparable because there was no allegation of perjury or obstruction of justice, as the IC has referred about Clinton. Even if you can't, the Congress will surely stay on topic and most will put aside petty partisan politics.
No allegation of perjury or obstruction of justice, in Iran/Contra, wrt. Bush. The Bush issue is past, true. He was very successful in his little coverup. Mr Walsh's opinion differs from yours, but he's a stooge, unlike the righteous avatar of justice Ken Starr. Funny, most people seem to be thinking Ken Starr is a prig these days, with only the "facts" of the lurid Starr report to go on.
Cheers, Dan. |
