Thanks for the reply sdnativeson. I feel that you are correct in your analysis of how arguments should be constructed. It’s important to acknowledge the failures of your “side” on the issue to have your main points hold water. Usually in politics there is truth (and fallacy) to both stories and it’s a matter of who is “more” right on the particular topic.
As you stated on Starr; Clinton was being “bad”, but the extent it reached and the cost it incurred was purely driven by partisan politics. $40 mil is quite a bit for that and I think he spent $5 mil on his defense. Crazy. I still have some questions on how the whole situation was constructed to trap him into either publicly outing himself, or perjuring himself. Either way though, that is completely his fault. However, was the whole thing a total waste of time and money, or worse, possibly even detrimental to our country as a worthless distraction from more important issues? I’m inclined to say yes.
My sincere hope is that if, in fact the Democrats decide to go after Bush for something, it had damn well better be more important than what was leveled at Clinton. I don’t really care if Bush stepped on one small law to avoid a personal embarrassment. However, if any law was stepped on/over/around in order to further a personal agenda of his or others in his cabinet, then we have something that needs to be revealed and dealt with.
They tried the whole “Al Capone Tax Evasion” plan on BC (even though there really weren’t some “worse” charges that he really should have been convicted on), but I really don’t care to see that again with Bush. I’d rather see the real dirt or nothing. I think it’s cowardly to try and take down a sitting president (no matter your preference) with drivel.
P.S. If you’re truly not bgates, then you’re a worthy protégé. Very similar style.
