kakki wrote: > Randy asked: > > > You mean, if our president has a criminal past, why should we > > make an issue of it? > > You are assuming or wishing he has a criminal past as your premise out the > gate. If indeed he did, he never ever would have gotten as far as he has in > any venture of his life. You know that his political opponents would have > found it out and screamed it from the rooftops years ago.
Actually, he does have a criminal past-his drunk driving record which was covered up by his influential dad. > I guess this ties > in because he political opponents were the ones who were ranting about the > deal with Harken way back when. There was a full and extensive > investigation and he was found to have committed no wrongdoing, much less > anything criminal. I actually looked around quite a bot to find a current > news article which could explain the history of this Harken issue > objectively and without political bias and found one at National Review > online thank you for sending this. I will try to look at it when I get a chance, but am insanely busy for the immediate future. > > the link http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york071002.asp > Of course it is not some aberration - such situations have been going on in > one form or another since the beginning of time. Greed is timeless. What > is preposterous is to somehow try to link it to Bush. It's not preposterous to link political favors to Cheney or Bush's cohorts-it's been in the mainstream news about how they have been in on discussions about national energy policy. Campaign support and political favors. Not to mention Cheney's employment by both Halburton and Enron. And of course, here in California, it's been discovered that Enron manufactured the electricity crisis to double their rates. Slightly off topic, but it's not a stretch to suspect collusion in Sacramento. > It was laughable that the political opponents who rushed > to try to slime Bush with Enron were suddenly silent after it was revealed > through public records that they themselves owned thousands of dollars in > Enron stock and had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in political > contributions from Enron. The gall and venality of those who try to foist > this junk on public opinion is so transparent to most people. These are the > same opponents who gave Clinton a pass on everything, even while he was > brazenly violating several laws right in front of our faces. Setting aside > the perjury offense let's take one example of many - Clinton and Gore openly > getting millions of dollars in campaign money from Chinese government > representatives (in exchange for what?). Not sure who you are referring as being Bush opponents and owning Enron stock. If it was other politicians, that's no surprise, they act like a pack of dogs and will gladly devour their own if their image is on the line. Regarding Clinton, Kakki, you find it easy to recognize his criminality, but scoff at the possibility when it comes to Dubya. I always felt that if Clinton was committing illegal acts, it should have been fully investigated instead of spending millions in a partisan attack on his marital indiscretions. RR
