Issues and facts. Let's try this once more.
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. (from www2.techstocks.com )
That's your version of issues and facts. Then, we have Lawrence Walsh:
With those pardons, Walsh exploded from the careful lawyer's diction and restraints. Walsh lashed out on national television, in words that strongly implied that President Bush's motive for the pardons had nothing to do with mercy but was a craven attempt to save his own skin: "President Bush had failed to produce to investigators his own highly relevant, contemporaneous notes [about Iran-contra] despite repeated requests. . . . " Walsh argued that some of these notes would have had to be furnished to Weinberger. They could have led not only to President Bush being called as a witness but to his prosecution for perjury. "In light of President Bush's own misconduct, we are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who lied to Congress and obstructed an official investigation."
So, you think this stuff was just some policy dispute, but bimbogate is somehow this important constitutional crisis. I'm spewing hate, by quoting a special prosecutor who didn't turn himself into a laughing stock, and you're the calm voice of reason. Perjury only counts when it's in the context of a currently dead lawsuit, instigated as a political mudslinging campaign, by the same allegedly "Independent Counsel" who's put out a ridiculously lurid "report" that now contains the only "facts" that could possibly be relevant here.
Ok.
Cheers, Dan. |
