?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Politikrant take two.

After thinking about this for another day or so, I want to make the following amendments to try and be more fair in my assessment.

Some people have taken issue with my referring to westernactor as "a Republican friend." While I feel that mentioning a person's party affiliation to establish a rhetorical footing is sometimes useful, I think my argument would have been clear enough without it this time. I probably should have phrased it differently.

Mark Levin did not actually say that since Clinton lied it's okay for Bush to have lied. What he did say, if I remember correctly (the site seems to be down right now), is that when Clinton lied about Iraq, nobody had any problem with it, and now, the "liberal media" is running rampant with a sentence Bush uttered about Iraq that isn't actually a lie. However, since what Bush said actually is a lie, my point still stands: Presidents should not be lying to the public to get their way.

I stated that "the Republicans took it upon themselves" to perform an investigation into Clinton's behaviour. This is just my bias showing. The investigation was (supposedly) independent and objective. However, my main point there was that $80 million was spent investigating these things that had very little effect on the world at large or the functioning of the government, while there have been no major independent investigations into Bush's lies, or even consideration of impeachment proceedings, and his lies did far more damage.

I hope this helps clarify my point of view a bit.

Comments

( 1 comment — Leave a comment )
popeyechicken
Jul. 26th, 2003 07:47 pm (UTC)
Mentioning your friend's party affiliation seems perfectly reasonable given it was... a p olitical essay.
( 1 comment — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

February 2011
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728     
Powered by LiveJournal.com