Email from the anti-America crowd
Here's our president lying:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11348.htm
When he gave this speech, the NSA was, indeed, wire-tapping without warrants.
Now, I know Limbaugh and Hannity would say "well, Bill Clinton lied,
too."
But, remember, when Bill Clinton lied, half this country wanted him
lynched. Why don't they feel the same way when Bush lies? And,
really, do two wrongs make a right?
Also, one might argue that the wire-taps were needed for national
security -- but that misses the point -- the point is: he LIED about
it. Shouldn't we hold him to the same standards we held Bill Clinton
to?
---
For the moment, let's accept your premise that George Bush lied about wire taping Al Qaeda terrorists.
Bill Clinton lied -- under oath -- about having an intern service him in the oval office.
I'd say that pretty much sums up the two men and their terms.
One other thing, I hope you guys go around making this comparison now and throughout the election.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11348.htm
When he gave this speech, the NSA was, indeed, wire-tapping without warrants.
Now, I know Limbaugh and Hannity would say "well, Bill Clinton lied,
too."
But, remember, when Bill Clinton lied, half this country wanted him
lynched. Why don't they feel the same way when Bush lies? And,
really, do two wrongs make a right?
Also, one might argue that the wire-taps were needed for national
security -- but that misses the point -- the point is: he LIED about
it. Shouldn't we hold him to the same standards we held Bill Clinton
to?
---
For the moment, let's accept your premise that George Bush lied about wire taping Al Qaeda terrorists.
Bill Clinton lied -- under oath -- about having an intern service him in the oval office.
I'd say that pretty much sums up the two men and their terms.
One other thing, I hope you guys go around making this comparison now and throughout the election.
posted by Walker at 8:12 AM
1 Comments:
I don't expect the president to be publicly candid about covert operations, information gathering, and other programs where secrecy is part and parcel of protecting the country. Or where it might be.
I wouldn't expect Clinton to tell us everything he knew about Echelon, or covert intelligence, or what he knew was in that aspirin factory, and was never one to make a big deal about it.
Indeed, while Clinton may be personally repugnant on many levels, I never was big on the Lewinski scandal, impeachment, and disagreed with the whole Whitewater investigation.
Charlie Tree and the sale of missile technology to China might have merited some investigation, though. But that's me.
I'm not ready to lynch Bush because I wouldn't be ready to lynch a Democrat for being less than candid about surveillance programs. Frankly, the most draconian domestic surveillance that has ever gone on in this country has been either stupid but largely irrelevant to domestic piece and tranquility, or has caught criminals and protected the nation with no loss of rights or freedoms.
The anti-NSA lynch mob wants to punish Bush for what could maybe happen if the program was taken to the outlandishly paranoid conclusions of that their demented world views think are really possible. The goober agitating for censure of the president said that the NSA program could lead to the president being able to assassinate American citizens willy-nilly. Wow!
The other thing is, I get tired of the drum beat that successful conservative commentators like Hannity and Limbaugh are apologists for any Republican chicanery. Both of them have challenged Bush and the Republican party on issue after issue. They are conservative advocates, not Republican apologists (most of the time, anyway).
Post a Comment
<< Home