Chris Graham over at the Augusta Free Press did a great article on "What is a Bush Hater" since it has become such a big topic and favorite past time for many from the "Left"...
http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$39336
It is interesting to see how this topic is viewed from many different directions and the history of this topic. Many feel that President Clinton was attacked for a minor incident, "It was only Sex" I had a problem when he lied about it to a grand jury to avoid prosecution in the Paula Jone's case which would have resulted in fines, political fallout, and additional legal actions.
Unfortunately we have come to a point where lying to a grand jury by the top executive is considered trivial. "He was just protecting his family"...
2 comments:
This is indeed an insightful article. Thanks for pointing it out. And to some extent I agree with your observation that we've come to a point where lying to a grand jury is considered trivial.
With Clinton it was not the lying that fascinated the media coverage. It was the juicy topic of sex. Most people said, "oh well who cares if he gets with the fat chick?" But the fact that a lie is unacceptable holds true.
With Bush it's not that people think we shouldn't wiretap terrorists, but that he's lied about how it's being conducted. As well as skirted the Congress in an executive power grab (on many fronts).
Both of these illustrate the danger of setting precident and the slippery slope of tolerating lies and deceit.
I also like the tone the article brings up that labels are often inaccurate. You even mentioned the fallacy in the "pro-war" label. But it also addressed that not even criticizm is meant to be personal.
It is pretty good article. As far as tagging Monica goes it was a good thing, looking at Hillary, it was gonna be an intern or and animal. At least Bill stayed within the species.
(Man, this new coffee must have too much caffine or something)
Post a Comment