That kind of stuff is said about every president and sorry if I wasn't clearer in my earlier post. Again, though, there is a difference. The stuff you reference regarding Bush is relegated to the realm of supermarket tabloids or internet snark. It is not trumpeted repeatedly from the editorial pages of the WSJ. It does not lead to investigations by national news organizations. It does not lead to subpoenas before grand juries.
Aren't you just too cute for words. So, your support of torture now compels you to attack torture victims. Tell me... what, pray tell, would be her incentive to exaggerate? I know it's subtle, but see is you can grasp the differences... In a boxing match, the opponents enter the ring willingly, have medical professionals nearby, have a referee in the ring, have agreed upon rules they must follow, and are free to box to the best of their abilities. Fights last 12-15 rounds of 3 minutes each. One is not willingly tortured. In torture, one's hands are literally tied. There is no ref. There is nobody ready to throw the towel in to stop the torture. There are no rules except those set by the torturer. There is no time limit on torture... it can go on for days, weeks, months, years. There are no breaks, unless you're talking about bones. If you're being tortured, you can't look into the audience for your loved one to give you inspiration. Comparing the torture described in the article to a boxing match (and a fictional one that would have been stopped had it been real at that) is obscene.
I think Basso and Giddyup will disagree but anyway my point is that hatred of Clinton or GW Bush isn't unprecedented.
i would not disagree that there was a lot of irrational hatred of slick willie. i voted for the man, and my overriding sentiment is disappointment, not hatred. but i'd suggest that the bile directed at bush is far beyond anything that was ever directed at clinton, and despite rimman's suggestion that it's all warranted, it in fact started well before election night 2000. i was at an awards ceremony here in new york, sponsored by a women's magazine, in late september. lot's of celebrities on hand, giving speeches, tom brokaw, cheryl crow, lenny kravitz, karena gore, and sharon stone, among others. sharon stone literally broke down in tears, and wailed away through a rambling 20 minute diatribe on the thought of bush getting elected. it was embarrassing, but (most of) the audience ate it up.
I don't think you are making like-to-like comparisons. I'm not sure who the Republican equivilent of Sharon Stone is, but using her as the baseline for decorum in political discourse is like using Rush Limbaugh as the basis for determining the politeness of Republican reaction to Clinton and perhaps that is giving Stone too much weight as at least Limbaugh's business makes him intricately familiar with politics.
If that is the case then why hasn't, even with a Democractic Congress he been subjected to anything like the Whitewater investigation?
but this is exactly what the democrats do, except, their own politicians spew the vile at bush that rush and co spewed at clinton. this is a major distinction.
Plame was not personally directed at GW Bush and wasn't open ended. Whitewater was both and also started with something that happened well before Clinton's Presidency. There also was no special prosecutor appointed to Plame.
If we are comparing politicians, I have very little qualms stating that I unequivocally believe that the "Trent Lott and Tom DeLay" group was far more malicious to Clinton than Pelosi and Reid have been to Bush. I would go so far as to describe that first group as petty and vindictive in a way that genuinely was shocking to me at the time. I will stake my life that the current crop of Democrat politicians haven't treated Bush anywhere near the way that Rush did Clinton. If you genuinely believe otherwise, I think we must be living on different plains of reality.
Not quite Republican politicians in the 90's spewed quite a bit at Clinton. Rep. Bob Dornan would take the floor of the house to accuse Clinton of all sorts of things and Gingrich practically blamed the woman who drowned her kids in NC on Clinton. Again none of this is new or unique to US history.
Did you really listen to his show daily in the 1990's? I'm hopeing the answer is no, because this is litterally like I am looking at a green wall as you tell me it is painted red. I am completely befuddled.
whose show, rush's? i've never listened to it, nor have i ever watched hannity, o'reilly, coulter, or any of the shout fests that pass for political "entertainment". i'm more of a jim leher kind of guy.
Well, then I feel better. I am not having problems with what is or isn't real. But if you've never listened to Rush and company, do you think you should really be telling us all that what comes out of the mouths of Democratic politicians is the same as what comes from Rush if you've never listened to him?
Fitzgerald wasn't specifically appointed as a special prosecutor, although he was special counsel. My understanding of the difference is that one is appointed by the Justice Department, counsel, and one by Congress, prosecutor, and as such doesn't have the same power to launch an open ended investigation as Ken Starr did. Anyway unlike Ken Starr who was specifically appointed to investigate Clinton Fitzgerald wasn't appointed to investigate Bush and to my knowledge never publically said that Bush was a target, unlike Ken Starr. Again though was Bush impeached? Have motions for his impeachment passed even in committee? The Plame affair isn't comparable to Whitewater in terms of scope, motive or result.
You're correct, the independent counsel statute (since expired) under which Starr was appointed and the special prosecutor status that PF had are two completely different animals. It's like comparing a bazooka to a BB gun. And it doesn't hurt when there's a partisan ultraconservative like Starr handling the bazooka against a right wing bogeyman like clinton - vs. a career straight arrow by the book lawman in PF.
