Originally Posted by KCWolfman
He said while stating there was no reason to investigate the Clintons.
Thank goodness the left isn't just as mind-boggling, eh?
His request is reasonable, and you are merely pulling fluff to dodge the fact that you have no facts.
You just don't get it.
You justify the investigations of Clinton which bore absolutely nothing except the entrapment of a sitting president by an independent investigative branch that pursued the president's personal past based on accusations, not facts. And you justify what amounted to a "real time" monitoring of the the president's daily activities by the same independent investigation.
Yet, you slam those who want to look into those things which are very questionable concerning matters most important to the conduct of our government.
I'm not slamming the attacks on Clinton (although they were petty) as much as I'm asking how you can slam those who want to know whether our leaders are on the level or if they are really capable of conducting themselves in the arrogant and wreckless manner that it appears they may have.
You know as well as I do that nothing has really been determined concerning the integrity of this administration's words and deeds. Everything is being looked at (supposedly) but just not being looked at in the open (and often overbearing) way that Clinton's personal life and daily presidential activities were scrutinized.
There is no doubt a difference in the level of diligence in the pursuit of the facts when considering the two situations. And it is mind-boggling when one considers the difference in the context of the real and historical importance of each situation. One (the witch-hunt of Clinton) was petty, partisan, and pushed by the right to the point where it consumed our nation for reasons ultimately unimportant to the conduct of American policy. On the other hand, questionable conduct and judgment in the name of America has been overlooked by the corporately-owned media for what reason? Is it because they have a right-wing bias as business usually does? Or is it because democrats don't control congress rendering them unable to appoint an independent council? Or is it both?
For whatever reason, it is disingenuous, IMO, for thoughtful and intelligent people like yourself to pretend that these distinctions are not valid and that a double-standard does not exist.