K, I never said "it's not bad because everybody does it". What I say, actually, is that the Iran/Contra issues were much more serious. The original actions under investigation involve serious governmental issues, and the cover-up that followed involved all the litany of felonious actions you harp on with Clinton, but nobody ever came clean. You're being a bit of the cheesemeister to characterize my argument as "everybody does it". Purposeful miscontruing, I'd say.
And I never said Reagan or Bush should have been impeached, either. It was too late to go after Reagan, and his control over the whole matter was questionable. Bush wasn't President at the time. He probably knew and understood more about what was going on than Reagan did, but didn't have any control either. Nobody ever claimed the buck stops with the VP. Congress was correct to stop well short of impeachment. By all indications, though, Bush has never been the least forthcoming about what he actually knew.
What I argue, of course, is that if Iran/Contra didn't merit impeachment, BJgate merits it even less. The original acts, seamy thought they may have been, didn't involve anything like the same abuse of Presidential pardon, and the cover-up, with your litany of trumped up felonious charges, is over. All the alleged felonies amount to imperfect cooperation with Grand Inquisitor Starr, and many think Starr shouldn't have been involved in that level of personal investigation to begin with. But at least BJgate involved something that happened while Clinton was President, as opposed to the all the junk that Starr actually prosecuted people for. 4 years work and he never touched Clinton on that stuff, not a word about any of it in the dreaded report.
But somehow impeachment talk has gone much further with BJgate than with Iran/Contra. Most of us know far more than we ever wanted to about BJgate, and think it's time to give it a rest. Prosecutorial discretion. Others differ. From discussion here, those that differ seem to be driven by personal hatred of Clinton and his politics more than anything else.
As for the rehash part, of course, you guys are perfectly willing to rehash every charge ever made against Clinton ad nauseum, along with whatever Drudge dragged in lately. So what's the big deal? |
