Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (17280)	7/12/2002 1:05:29 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

What misconduct? The SEC investigated Bush and the facts developed clear him....

To: Lane3 who wrote (17280)	7/12/2002 2:02:33 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I am a little surprised that more hasn't been made of Bush's DUI alongside these allegations, to attempt to portray him as someone who is no stranger to ethical and judgment lapses. (Not saying I agree with that portrayal, just that it is related to the overall issue). The parallel is in the misconduct. Clinton screwed up by lying to get a pack of mad dogs off his back. We have yet to see a pack of mad dogs after Bush, although they're warming up in the wings, and so we have yet to see if he would handle them in any more classy a way. I don't buy that the Harken situation is parallel to anything Clinton did. So far Clinton's misconduct (the head of the branch of government charged with executing laws basically lying through his teeth under oath to save his skin) was of such a gross character in comparison to Bush's that we aren't even in the same ballpark. And few human beings, much less Presidents, have had less class than Clinton. But this isn't about Clinton; it's about Bush, and it should be looked into thoroughly and openly. BTW, what do you have against packs of mad dogs? <vbg>