[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by arcsine
But this begs another question " What does it matter what we thought of something that happened 10 years prior and our reaction to it? Cannot issues with regards to W be discussed without historical reference? Or is there a need to be able to point a finger and say "Well, he did it first!"?"

Just asking.

Gary, they can but it seems that certain people on this forum feel that if W picks his nose that its a cardinal sin, while if Clinton dicks the entire WH staff (while being married I might add) that its just fine.

If someone says that they could care less what Clinton did while lying to the entire world but has their feathers ruffled by the above situation with Bush, then I could care less about their opinion because they are going after the party and the person at the head of the party and not being objective in their morals. Clinton and other Presidents did not always tell the truth and if we all admit it and realize this its a bit easier and more fair.

For me I would much perfer Bush as a President. Clinton was just too slimey, but then he was a lawyer. Bush is not perfect but he is a moral man, loves and sticks with his wife and I feel that he is trying to do what is right for this country. Not everyone feels the same way but thats their right.

Joe A