Dear Elephant-
Lets see, why is it that you have seen no judge, jury, or indictment?
Could it be that we have a justice department run by Bush Cronies, i.e. Alberto Gonzalez, and a Republican Congress that turned a blind eye to all of the Bush administration wrong doings during his first six years in office. Or maybe its because we have a President that has invoked executive privilege more then any other in recent memory, and who was willing to pardon the one person who was convicted in order to keep him from revealing what he knew. What's more we now have Republican presidential candidates that suggest they also would have pardoned Libby.
All of this demonstrates that the media has good reason to ask tough questions of George Bush and of the Republican party's notion of justice generally. Questions they should have asked a long time ago.
Why can't this administration just be honest? Who knew what and when? The criminal conspiracy is the cover up. Regardless of what Bush knew about Plame, it is more then obvious that he was involved in the cover up, and at the very least has allowed those who were definitely involved in the leak directly, (Rove, Libby, Cheney, Card), to continue serving in their positions. This, despite his public pronouncement that he would not do so.
Finally, I find it ironic that you chastise me for throwing stones when in your previous post you accuse Hillary Clinton of having ties to communism on the shaky ground that she had a summer job with a law firm whose named partners were alleged communists. So Elephant, does that mean that I am a Republican, because I worked for a law firm whose named partners are Republicans including one who is now Bush's chief counsel? If it does, I am doing a pretty good job of covering it up. Almost as good a job as this administration has done at covering up their criminal behavior.
Peace,
Donkey
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In response to the comments of a broken criminal justice system, you can address that in another post, but to tie a string of assumptions together that leads to a "conclusion" that President Bush is a criminal is frightening to me. Furthermore, our democrat-lead congress can indict him if they choose, and I'm certain they would if there was enough evidence to indict.
As for the Hillary post, I didn't claim she was a communist; I claimed she had "ties" to communism, just like you have "ties" to Republicans for clerking at a well-known Republican law firm.
Would you have clerked at your law firm if you strongly disagreed with the principles upon which it chooses its cases? Probably not. That's why it's not surprising that you didn't clerk with the ACLU, given your conservative views on social issues. I think your choice of law firm is reflective, at least in part, of your values, which in your case leans Republican.
The same can be said of Hillary. If she had totally disagreed with the ultra-liberal opinions of the law firm where she clerked, she would not have accepted the offer. Certainly she must have agreed with some tenants of that law firm's value system. If she did, it proves our suspicions that she falls much farther to the left than she wants us to believe. On the other hand, if she didn't, as you suggest, it just proves that she's more wishy-washy than we thought she was, because who in their right mind associates with those types of groups?
Hey, let's not use law firm names here. After all, this is a public forum. :) And by the way, I actually did choose my law firm based on its reputation. Sure, it may take cases I don't agree with, but that's entirely different from being notorious as an ultra-liberal law firm that prides itself on taking controversial cases that nobody else is willing to accept.
Do you know how most law firms accepts their cases and clients? Has yours ever accepted controversial cases? Have they ever defended causes or clients you don't agree with? Was any of this honestly part of your decision on where to work? I doubt politics had anything to do with it. It certainly had nothing to do with my decision or I would have chosen a different firm noted for being a more liberal law firm. And there is certainly a difference between working for the ACLU and any law firm. One implies you want to promote certain causes and the other that you want to make money.
But that is typical Republican strategy. Don't say she is a communist, just imply it by pointing to frivolous and unsubstantiated "ties to communism." What is alarming is that you and numerous other Hillary haters buy into this. It reminds me of when Republicans labeled anyone who challenged George Bush on Iraq as Un-American and as wanting to help the terrorists. It echoes one one of the darker chapters of American history, that being McCarthyism. And that is what is truly frightening.
Post a Comment