The Drive By media just can't help itself.

[AURaptor 1,126]

As reported by the AP and CNN, Scooter Libby is NOT the highest ranking White House official to be indicted since John Poindexter in 1990. As USAToday clearly reports :

In November 1996, Henry G. Cisneros resigned from his position as President Clinton's housing secretary. In December 1997, he was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, obstruction and lying to the FBI. Cisneros pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 1999 and was fined $10,000.

Cisnaros was a Cabinet member of the Clinton White House. That certainly ranks higher than Chief of Staff to the V.P.,which isn't even IN the Executive Branch.

Boy, we sure do need that Fairness Doctrine to balance things out, huh?

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Got any links to these alleged atrociities?

And we don't need the fairness doctrine as much as we need less consolidation of media and a more informed electorate. For example, you don't know that the HUD Sec. is not a White House official. Nor do you know that Libby was also an assistant to the President.

I believe that the media bears some level of responsibility for our misinformed electorate-- they usually do a crappy job-- but I don't think that they bear whole, or even primary, responsibility for your ignorance on these matters. That's on you.

As reported by the AP and CNN, Scooter Libby is NOT the highest ranking White House official to be indicted since John Poindexter in 1990. As USAToday clearly reports :

In November 1996, Henry G. Cisneros resigned from his position as President Clinton's housing secretary. In December 1997, he was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, obstruction and lying to the FBI. Cisneros pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 1999 and was fined $10,000.

Cisnaros was a Cabinet member of the Clinton White House. That certainly ranks higher than Chief of Staff to the V.P.,which isn't even IN the Executive Branch.

Boy, we sure do need that Fairness Doctrine to balance things out, huh?

[AURaptor 1,126]

A cabinet head is certainly a higher ranking official than a aid to the V.P. I gave you the info you need, go find your own damn link.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

A cabinet head is certainly a higher ranking official than a aid to the V.P. I gave you the info you need, go find your own damn link.

Chances are at this stage, they said "convicted" not "indicted", but you don't have a link. You may not know the difference between the two. Anyway, a "white house official" and a "higher ranking official" are two different things. Sec. of Defense is a higher ranking official that oversees the Pentagon. He is not a White House official. The Attorney General is higher ranking, but not a WH official-- He is a confirmed by the Senate-- a WH official is not. That's why the AG testifies in front of Congress, but the WH claims executive privilege when the Congress ask the White House Counsel or Karl Rove to testify.

So Fibby is the highest ranking WH official since Bush I to be convicted of a felony.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

Like many topics in this particular forum, you two are debating over semantics.

I long, nah, I pine for a third party.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Like many topics in this particular forum, you two are debating over semantics.

I long, nah, I pine for a third party.

Not symantics in the least. But good luck w/ that 3rd party search. Let me know when you find it.

[AURaptor 1,126]

So Fibby is the highest ranking WH official since Bush I to be convicted of a felony

As reported by ABC.

"Libby is the first sitting White House official to be indicted in 130 years[8] and "the highest-ranking White House official convicted in a government scandal since National Security Adviser John Poindexter in the Iran-Contra affair" in 1990."

Libby is NOT the first sitting W.H. official to be indicted in 130 yrs. In the past 24 yrs, there have been 8 indictments involving White House officials. Secondly, Libby is NOT the highest ranking W.H. offical to be convicted since John Poindexter.

• In November 1996, Henry G. Cisneros resigned from his position as President Clinton's housing secretary. In December 1997, he was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, obstruction and lying to the FBI. Cisneros pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 1999 and was fined $10,000.

The media got 2 things wrong in just 2 sentences. But I'm sure those were just 'honest' mistakes, don't you agree? Your little caviot of being convicted of a felony is cute, but besides the point. Nice try.

8) Michael J. Sniffen and Matt Apuzzo (Associated Press),"Libby Found Guilty in CIA Leak Trial: Ex-Cheney Aide Libby Found Guilty of Obstruction, Perjury, Lying to the FBI in CIA Leak http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2927810

[otterinbham 0]

Interesting take on the Scooter Libby dustup from one political commentator. He has an excellent point, one that's hard for the Libby and Bush apologists to deny:

"...The prosecution obviously wasn't politicized. It was initiated by a Republican Justice Department, it was prosecuted by a Republican appointed prosecutor, and the appeal failed in front of Republican judicial appointees. The jury obviously wasn't rigged. They liked Libby. But the perjury was so obvious, so blatant and so pathetic they had no choice but to convict. There is no coherent defense of this commutation; and no defense of a pardon. There's just elite privilege and rank, shameless abuse of presidential power. People in Libby's privileged circle simply don't believe the criminal law should apply to their friends. And the president has used his constitutional authority (and unconstitutional powers) to hide his own crimes and wartime deceptions.

More broadly, it's a mistake, I think, to try and find a coherent, principled reason for this commutation. I once gave Bush and Cheney this kind of credit and have learned my lesson. This was a brazen political act designed to prevent Libby from telling Fitzgerald more. Bush's loyalty, via Cheney, was already promised long ago. Just read Libby's letter to Judy Miller. This was fixed at the highest levels, regardless of the justice system. In retrospect, it's extremely clear."

[bigsixfive 328]

It was initiated by a Republican Justice Department, it was prosecuted by a Republican appointed prosecutor, and the appeal failed in front of Republican judicial appointees.

That is a valid point, however that system shouldn't be politicized. It shouldn't matter to a judge or prosecutor what side Libby took if the they were competently and properly doing his/her job. I can understand (and witness all the time) instances where a prosecutor from one party might go after a person in another party, but a judge should be impartial at all times (unless presiding in the state of California).

[AURaptor 1,126]

Interesting take on the Scooter Libby dustup from one political commentator. He has an excellent point, one that's hard for the Libby and Bush apologists to deny:

"...The prosecution obviously wasn't politicized. It was initiated by a Republican Justice Department, it was prosecuted by a Republican appointed prosecutor, and the appeal failed in front of Republican judicial appointees. The jury obviously wasn't rigged. They liked Libby. But the perjury was so obvious, so blatant and so pathetic they had no choice but to convict. There is no coherent defense of this commutation; and no defense of a pardon. There's just elite privilege and rank, shameless abuse of presidential power. People in Libby's privileged circle simply don't believe the criminal law should apply to their friends. And the president has used his constitutional authority (and unconstitutional powers) to hide his own crimes and wartime deceptions.

More broadly, it's a mistake, I think, to try and find a coherent, principled reason for this commutation. I once gave Bush and Cheney this kind of credit and have learned my lesson. This was a brazen political act designed to prevent Libby from telling Fitzgerald more. Bush's loyalty, via Cheney, was already promised long ago. Just read Libby's letter to Judy Miller. This was fixed at the highest levels, regardless of the justice system. In retrospect, it's extremely clear."

Who was the political commentator ? There needs not be an defense of this commutation; and no defense of a pardon, as the writer puts it. It's a power given to the President by the Constitution. End of story. There's nothing to it being " shameless abuse of Presidential power. " This 'commentator' sounds very much like a Left wing apologist. Hell, even Bill Clinton came out and spoke against this commutation, and he's the very LAST person who should be saying anything! He commuted and pardoned drug dealers, tax evaders and terrorists!! With Libby, there WAS no underlying crime. Libby didn't harm or hinder anyone's rights through fraud or force. This whole mess was a set up by Val and Joe Wilson, and NOT any abuse of power from the White House.

[otterinbham 0]

Interesting take on the Scooter Libby dustup from one political commentator. He has an excellent point, one that's hard for the Libby and Bush apologists to deny:

"...The prosecution obviously wasn't politicized. It was initiated by a Republican Justice Department, it was prosecuted by a Republican appointed prosecutor, and the appeal failed in front of Republican judicial appointees. The jury obviously wasn't rigged. They liked Libby. But the perjury was so obvious, so blatant and so pathetic they had no choice but to convict. There is no coherent defense of this commutation; and no defense of a pardon. There's just elite privilege and rank, shameless abuse of presidential power. People in Libby's privileged circle simply don't believe the criminal law should apply to their friends. And the president has used his constitutional authority (and unconstitutional powers) to hide his own crimes and wartime deceptions.

More broadly, it's a mistake, I think, to try and find a coherent, principled reason for this commutation. I once gave Bush and Cheney this kind of credit and have learned my lesson. This was a brazen political act designed to prevent Libby from telling Fitzgerald more. Bush's loyalty, via Cheney, was already promised long ago. Just read Libby's letter to Judy Miller. This was fixed at the highest levels, regardless of the justice system. In retrospect, it's extremely clear."

Who was the political commentator ? There needs not be an defense of this commutation; and no defense of a pardon, as the writer puts it. It's a power given to the President by the Constitution. End of story. There's nothing to it being " shameless abuse of Presidential power. " This 'commentator' sounds very much like a Left wing apologist. Hell, even Bill Clinton came out and spoke against this commutation, and he's the very LAST person who should be saying anything! He commuted and pardoned drug dealers, tax evaders and terrorists!! With Libby, there WAS no underlying crime. Libby didn't harm or hinder anyone's rights through fraud or force. This whole mess was a set up by Val and Joe Wilson, and NOT any abuse of power from the White House.

Andrew Sullivan. Hardly a tool of the left. A strict constitutionalist. You remember the Constitution, don't you?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Andrew Sullivan. Hardly a tool of the left. A strict constitutionalist. You remember the Constitution, don't you?

Guess he's not so strict as you were led to believe. Seems he's overlooked Article 2, secion 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states , among other things that

...and he ( the President ) shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States

Which is exactly what Bush did. Because he could. No abuse of power, what so ever.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Andrew Sullivan. Hardly a tool of the left. A strict constitutionalist. You remember the Constitution, don't you?

Guess he's not so strict as you were led to believe. Seems he's overlooked Article 2, secion 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states , among other things that ( the President )

...and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States

Which is exactly what Bush did. Because he could. No abuse of power, what so ever.

One has to use power to abuse power. No one disputes that he has the power. Every use of the power isn't appropriate. Clinton had the "power" to pardon Marc Rich. Was that power abused? Seems to have been.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Do you got a link proving that "sitting WH officials" were indicted in the last 24 years, or did those 8 you mentioned resign first?

Again, Cisneros was not a WH official.

So Fibby is the highest ranking WH official since Bush I to be convicted of a felony

As reported by ABC.

"Libby is the first sitting White House official to be indicted in 130 years[8] and "the highest-ranking White House official convicted in a government scandal since National Security Adviser John Poindexter in the Iran-Contra affair" in 1990."

Libby is NOT the first sitting W.H. official to be indicted in 130 yrs. In the past 24 yrs, there have been 8 indictments involving White House officials. Secondly, Libby is NOT the highest ranking W.H. offical to be convicted since John Poindexter.

• In November 1996, Henry G. Cisneros resigned from his position as President Clinton's housing secretary. In December 1997, he was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, obstruction and lying to the FBI. Cisneros pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 1999 and was fined $10,000.

The media got 2 things wrong in just 2 sentences. But I'm sure those were just 'honest' mistakes, don't you agree? Your little caviot of being convicted of a felony is cute, but besides the point. Nice try.

8) Michael J. Sniffen and Matt Apuzzo (Associated Press),"Libby Found Guilty in CIA Leak Trial: Ex-Cheney Aide Libby Found Guilty of Obstruction, Perjury, Lying to the FBI in CIA Leak http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2927810

[AURaptor 1,126]

Do you got a link proving that "sitting WH officials" were indicted in the last 24 years, or did those 8 you mentioned resign first?

Again, Cisneros was not a WH official.

I suppose you're gonna start quibbling over what the definition of IS is , next. What the hell difference does it make if they're sitting or not, since they know they're being investigated anyways ? The point is that they were in the administration at the time they were being investigated, whether or not they still were by the time the indictment comes down.

Posted 10/26/2005 8:54 AM

A history of indictments involving White House staff

The Associated Press

A brief history of indictments in recent administrations:

• The only sitting Cabinet member in recent history to be indicted while in office was Raymond J. Donovan, President Reagan's labor secretary. In September 1984, Donovan was indicted along with several others, accused of grand larceny in his co-ownership of a construction firm. After going on unpaid leave in October, Donovan resigned in March 1985. In 1987, a jury acquitted Donovan and his co-defendants.

• In October 2005, David H. Safavian, the top procurement official for President Bush, resigned. Three days later, he was arrested and indicted on five felony counts connected to criminal investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. At the time the indictment covered, from May 2002 to January 2004, Safavian had been serving as the chief of staff at the General Services Administration. Case pending.

• In November 1996, Henry G. Cisneros resigned from his position as President Clinton's housing secretary. In December 1997, he was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, obstruction and lying to the FBI. Cisneros pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 1999 and was fined $10,000.

• In December 1994, Mike Espy resigned from his position as Clinton's agriculture secretary. In August 1997, Espy was indicted on 39 corruption counts in allegations that he had received financial gifts from Tyson Foods Inc., one of the companies his department regulated. In December 1998 Espy was acquitted on all counts.

• In May 1993, White House travel office chief Billy R. Dale and his entire staff were fired by the Clinton administration. Dale was indicted in December 1994 on two counts of embezzlement and conversion after a grand jury said he pocketed up to $68,000 from media organizations traveling with the president. Dale was acquitted of all charges in November 1995.

• In November 1986, John M. Poindexter resigned from his post as national security adviser to President Reagan. In March 1988, Poindexter and three others were indicted in relation to the Iran-Contra affair. Poindexter was charged with two additional counts of obstructing Congress and two counts of making false statements. He was convicted in 1990, but the charges were overturned the following year.

• In 1983, Thomas C. Reed resigned from the Reagan administration after working as a presidential assistant under National Security Adviser William P. Clark. In August 1984, he was indicted on four counts related to alleged illegal stock trading. He was acquitted in 1985.

• In April 1973, President Nixon forced White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, domestic affairs counsel John Ehrlichman and five other staff members to resign. In March 1974, they were indicted in connection with the Watergate cover-up. Along with several others found guilty, both Haldeman and Ehrlichman were convicted in 1975 and sentenced to 18 months in prison.

Sources: Associated Press archives; Jimmy Carter Presidential Library and Museum.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ite-house_x.htm

[AURaptor 1,126]

Andrew Sullivan. Hardly a tool of the left. A strict constitutionalist. You remember the Constitution, don't you?

Guess he's not so strict as you were led to believe. Seems he's overlooked Article 2, secion 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states , among other things that ( the President )

...and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States

Which is exactly what Bush did. Because he could. No abuse of power, what so ever.

One has to use power to abuse power. No one disputes that he has the power. Every use of the power isn't appropriate. Clinton had the "power" to pardon Marc Rich. Was that power abused? Seems to have been.

On the issue of 'abuse of power', I'll grant you , is a dicey one. But I find hard to understand is the angst and noise being made over the Libby commutation that was utterly missing when Clinton commuted and pardoned FAR worse. It is this bias, this blatent unbalance in the reporting of the news which has given print and t.v. news media it's 'Left wing' label. This is why talk radio is doing so well, because it points out such clear discrepencies in the media where other wise such items would be glossed over.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

It only makes a difference because your the one who is insisting that it is inaccurate. You are the one quibbling over what they said and insisting that it is wrong. And then you are trying to build on that to make the larger case that they are part of a larger Lib conspiracy to denigrate the Republicans. You find conspiracy everywhere and play fast and loose with the facts for support.

Do you got a link proving that "sitting WH officials" were indicted in the last 24 years, or did those 8 you mentioned resign first?

Again, Cisneros was not a WH official.

I suppose you're gonna start quibbling over what the definition of IS is , next. What the hell difference does it make if they're sitting or not, since they know they're being investigated anyways ? The point is that they were in the administration at the time they were being investigated, whether or not they still were by the time the indictment comes down.

Posted 10/26/2005 8:54 AM

A history of indictments involving White House staff

The Associated Press

A brief history of indictments in recent administrations:

• The only sitting Cabinet member in recent history to be indicted while in office was Raymond J. Donovan, President Reagan's labor secretary. In September 1984, Donovan was indicted along with several others, accused of grand larceny in his co-ownership of a construction firm. After going on unpaid leave in October, Donovan resigned in March 1985. In 1987, a jury acquitted Donovan and his co-defendants.

• In October 2005, David H. Safavian, the top procurement official for President Bush, resigned. Three days later, he was arrested and indicted on five felony counts connected to criminal investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. At the time the indictment covered, from May 2002 to January 2004, Safavian had been serving as the chief of staff at the General Services Administration. Case pending.

• In November 1996, Henry G. Cisneros resigned from his position as President Clinton's housing secretary. In December 1997, he was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, obstruction and lying to the FBI. Cisneros pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 1999 and was fined $10,000.

• In December 1994, Mike Espy resigned from his position as Clinton's agriculture secretary. In August 1997, Espy was indicted on 39 corruption counts in allegations that he had received financial gifts from Tyson Foods Inc., one of the companies his department regulated. In December 1998 Espy was acquitted on all counts.

• In May 1993, White House travel office chief Billy R. Dale and his entire staff were fired by the Clinton administration. Dale was indicted in December 1994 on two counts of embezzlement and conversion after a grand jury said he pocketed up to $68,000 from media organizations traveling with the president. Dale was acquitted of all charges in November 1995.

• In November 1986, John M. Poindexter resigned from his post as national security adviser to President Reagan. In March 1988, Poindexter and three others were indicted in relation to the Iran-Contra affair. Poindexter was charged with two additional counts of obstructing Congress and two counts of making false statements. He was convicted in 1990, but the charges were overturned the following year.

• In 1983, Thomas C. Reed resigned from the Reagan administration after working as a presidential assistant under National Security Adviser William P. Clark. In August 1984, he was indicted on four counts related to alleged illegal stock trading. He was acquitted in 1985.

• In April 1973, President Nixon forced White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, domestic affairs counsel John Ehrlichman and five other staff members to resign. In March 1974, they were indicted in connection with the Watergate cover-up. Along with several others found guilty, both Haldeman and Ehrlichman were convicted in 1975 and sentenced to 18 months in prison.

Sources: Associated Press archives; Jimmy Carter Presidential Library and Museum.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ite-house_x.htm

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Andrew Sullivan. Hardly a tool of the left. A strict constitutionalist. You remember the Constitution, don't you?

Guess he's not so strict as you were led to believe. Seems he's overlooked Article 2, secion 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states , among other things that ( the President )

...and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States

Which is exactly what Bush did. Because he could. No abuse of power, what so ever.

One has to use power to abuse power. No one disputes that he has the power. Every use of the power isn't appropriate. Clinton had the "power" to pardon Marc Rich. Was that power abused? Seems to have been.

On the issue of 'abuse of power', I'll grant you , is a dicey one. But I find hard to understand is the angst and noise being made over the Libby commutation that was utterly missing when Clinton commuted and pardoned FAR worse. It is this bias, this blatent unbalance in the reporting of the news which has given print and t.v. news media it's 'Left wing' label. This is why talk radio is doing so well, because it points out such clear discrepencies in the media where other wise such items would be glossed over.

It wasn't missing. It was a big story. Clinton's favorability dropped significantly. It would have been a far bigger deal had Clinton not been out of office. A new administration eats up the news. But Bush's administration appointed a federal prosecutor to investigate the case:

Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate. She stepped down before the investigation was finished and was replaced by James Comey. Though Comey was critical of Clinton's pardons, he could not find any grounds on which to indict him.

During hearings after Rich's pardon, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who had represented Rich from 1985 until the spring of 2000, denied that Rich had violated the tax laws, but criticized him for trading with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages. In his letter to the New York Times, Bill Clinton explained why he pardoned Rich, noting that U.S. tax professors Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center concluded that no crime was committed, and that the companies' tax reporting position was reasonable. [New York Times, February 18, 2001][2]. In the same letter Clinton listed Libby as one of three "distinguished Republican lawyers" who supported Rich's pardon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich

You see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear and remember what suits your view.

[AURaptor 1,126]

You see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear and remember what suits your view.

The fact that Mrs Rich gave a sizeable donation to the Clinton library wasn't in any way a consideration to Mr Rich getting pardoned, was it ? Naww. Hell, Bush half assed the investigation, and only had one so he could put on a show. It was of little priority. It was Bush's attempt at a new tone in D.C. , mending fences w/ the Dems. He'd come off harsh to the meda.. " Why, I'll investigate this matter!!..... ", but he knew it was all an act. Fact is, he covered for Bill many times, including the issuing of executive orders which protected the office of the Presidency. It's Bush's soft spot , thinking he can appease the Left by offering them tokens of kindness and they'll respond in like manner. They never do.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

You see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear and remember what suits your view.

The fact that Mrs Rich gave a sizeable donation to the Clinton library wasn't in any way a consideration to Mr Rich getting pardoned, was it ? Naww. Hell, Bush half assed the investigation, and only had one so he could put on a show. It was of little priority. It was Bush's attempt at a new tone in D.C. , mending fences w/ the Dems. He'd come off harsh to the meda.. " Why, I'll investigate this matter!!..... ", but he knew it was all an act. Fact is, he covered for Bill many times, including the issuing of executive orders which protected the office of the Presidency. It's Bush's soft spot , thinking he can appease the Left by offering them tokens of kindness and they'll respond in like manner. They never do.

[AURaptor 1,126]

It only makes a difference because your the one who is insisting that it is inaccurate. You are the one quibbling over what they said and insisting that it is wrong. And then you are trying to build on that to make the larger case that they are part of a larger Lib conspiracy to denigrate the Republicans. You find conspiracy everywhere and play fast and loose with the facts for support.

It is inaccurate. And only one of millions of 'errors' that have been made and one of many which can be found daily in the Left wing media. I'm not insisting anything. I've shown where they are wrong, using their own words. The fact that the writer of the Libby story was able to connect this case to the Iran / Contra case, while completely overlooking the Cisneros case is blatently telling. It tells the reader, ' see? Republicnas are crooks now, just as they were back then '. It's a clever ploy, and sadly too often used by the Left wing media to be a coincidence.

[AURaptor 1,126]

You see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear and remember what suits your view.

The fact that Mrs Rich gave a sizeable donation to the Clinton library wasn't in any way a consideration to Mr Rich getting pardoned, was it ? Naww. Hell, Bush half assed the investigation, and only had one so he could put on a show. It was of little priority. It was Bush's attempt at a new tone in D.C. , mending fences w/ the Dems. He'd come off harsh to the meda.. " Why, I'll investigate this matter!!..... ", but he knew it was all an act. Fact is, he covered for Bill many times, including the issuing of executive orders which protected the office of the Presidency. It's Bush's soft spot , thinking he can appease the Left by offering them tokens of kindness and they'll respond in like manner. They never do.

Your inabilty/ refusal to post a coherent, rational reply only proves I'm right.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

You see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear and remember what suits your view.

The fact that Mrs Rich gave a sizeable donation to the Clinton library wasn't in any way a consideration to Mr Rich getting pardoned, was it ? Naww. Hell, Bush half assed the investigation, and only had one so he could put on a show. It was of little priority. It was Bush's attempt at a new tone in D.C. , mending fences w/ the Dems. He'd come off harsh to the meda.. " Why, I'll investigate this matter!!..... ", but he knew it was all an act. Fact is, he covered for Bill many times, including the issuing of executive orders which protected the office of the Presidency. It's Bush's soft spot , thinking he can appease the Left by offering them tokens of kindness and they'll respond in like manner. They never do.

Your inabilty/ refusal to post a coherent, rational reply only proves I'm right.

[AURaptor 1,126]

See? I told ya so.

I win.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

See? I told ya so.

I win.