Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_els  You're a smart guy so I trust you're not reading what I'm not saying. |
Yes, I am reading what you are saying...
Quote:
|
First, I drew the parallel because I find Clinton's lack of prosecution a precedent for the non-prosecution of Bush.
|
I asked you what lack of prosecution, but you didn't answer me. If you are talking about the Lewinsky scandal, YES, HE
WAS PROSECUTED. DO YOU NOT REMEMBER THAT HE WAS IMPEACHED? That's about as prosecutorial as you can get with a sitting president. If you weren't talking about the Lewinsky scandal, then what are you saying he
should have been prosecuted for,
that he was not?
Quote:
|
Second, I'm not hijacking the thread, I'm answering an accusation based upon a mistaken assumption on your part.
|
Which mistaken assumption is that? Specifically?
Quote:
|
You do realize that every time you say Clinton's perjury is, "...beating a dead horse," that it is precisely the argument which will be used against you by Bush supporters once he's left office? They will point out that if that reason is good enough to excuse Clinton then it's good enough to excuse Bush. People have been put in prison for committing perjury about their sex lives in civil cases so it's impossible to argue that Clinton was not treated with special consideration. Just watch, you will see the conservatives spouting the same apologetics the liberals did for Clinton and when that happens, the moral force of prosecuting Bush (and Cheney) will collapse.
|
Perhaps they will, but my point is, Clinton WAS prosecuted. You have got to understand that he WAS impeached, and impeachment IS prosecution. So it ends up being
"Bush has suspended habeas corpus, has no authority to do so, and it's against US and international law."
"Yeah, but Clinton lied about his blowjob."
"Bush has lied to the American public about why the US Attorneys were fired, lied about why those records were 'destroyed,' and lied about the extent of the illegal wiretapping he authorized."
"Yeah, but Clinton lied about his blowjob."
"Bush has authorized illegal, indefinite incarceration of US citizens without charges or access to cousel."
"Yeah, but Clinton lied about his blowjob."
"Bush has abused the executive privelege by refusing to turn over White House records, which are public property."
"Yeah, but Clinton lied about his blowjob."
"Bush has decided to illegally divert funds from the National Archives to the Department of Justice."
"Yeah, but Clinton lied about his blowjob."
The point is, Bush has performed, or directed his staff to perform, many, many, illegal acts, and has yet to be prosecuted for any of them. Clinton lied under oath, and was prosecuted for it. Besides that one thing, what else did Clinton do that he should have been prosecuted for, but was not? (The legality of Ken Starr even asking him about his sex life in the first place, is suspect.)
Tell ya what, I'll post a list of Bush's impeachable crimes, you post a list of Clinton's impeachable crimes. Whoever has the longer list wins.
