so why aren't we impeaching them, too? (no spam)

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 11:52 am

Check this out from CNN.com. If Clinton were still president, there would be a special prosecutor and the Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. As it is, Dubya and Cheney are allowed to put a spin on their past (alleged) wrongdoings and we let it slide.

Dubya and the Veep's past business dealings stink so bad that even the watchdog group Judicial Watch, a conservative group who made name for themselves Clinton-bashing, is piling on. Can we say "double standard"?

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 11:58 am

I agree, HLD.

Check out this related link from the Village Voice:
George Bush, Failed Corporate Crook

It has an excellent history of Bush's fraudulent corporate activities prior to becoming President from the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, DC.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:16 pm

I suspect the Democrats, Independents and even old-style Republicans will be all over Dubyah and/or Cheney if anything comes of the SEC probe. It's probably just too early in the process. As for Bush's slap-on-the-wrist speech for corporate fraud, you can see already how the public has responded by watching the continued fall of the various US (and international) stock markets. I sincerely hope Congress gets its act together and pushes somthing more serious through, and soon.

SadisticShadow · Post by **SadisticShadow** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:20 pm

The reason Bush or Cheny isent being impeached is that Clinton was hated by alot of people and Bush is a rich puppet. Also there isent as much publicity as there was about the Monica Lewensky thing because the Media's gaze is on Terrorism and Stocks.

I agree it isent fair but Polotics are always this way, at least in america.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:31 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali
It has an excellent history of Bush's fraudulent corporate activities prior to becoming President from the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, DC.

Didn't Dubya run on a platform with the keyword "character"?

What saved Clinton was that the economy was doing well, so we (the public) didn't mind his personal indiscretions. Plus, his alleged wrongdoings were in Arkansas (the Whitewater mess) and affected a fairly small number of folks, while Dubya's are coming to light amidst several high-profile corporate accounting scandals (Enron, Adelphia, WorldCom) that are leaving people without retirement funds and in dire financial straits. I think unless the economy turns around mightily around election time, not only is a Democrat going to get elected in 2004, but they're going to get several seats in the Senate and regain control of the House.

leedogg · Post by **leedogg** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 1:57 pm

I may get burned for this, but it seems that the democrats always seems to be better on the economy. we were doing OK with Carter(although he was a nitwit), then Reagan and Bush SR run us in the ground again. Then 8 yrs of Clinton dug out out of the hole, which Jr is digging for us once again.

As far as Clinton's affairs...He done something wrong??

Now, in Jr's defense, the War on Terrorism isn't helping our situation either.

They won't impeach him either way, IMO. It is funny that He gave the speach about the book fixing...and they have done it thierselves.

I have decided to hold off on my 401K until the market gets down to 8300-8500. then reap the profits when it comes back up.

EDIT- I need to learn how to spell/type!!

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 6:16 pm

Originally posted by fable
I suspect the Democrats, Independents and even old-style Republicans will be all over Dubyah and/or Cheney if anything comes of the SEC probe.

I would bet money on it.

My thoughts....

"If you goto Washington...make sure you have no skeletons in your closet....or they will grow skin and come back for you."

PosterX · Post by **PosterX** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 7:22 pm

I think it is because any real investigation into political-corporate corruption will also hurt the Dems. For instance Terry McAullife, who is head of the DNC, invested $100,000 into Global Crossing which turns into $18 million before the company announces bankruptcy. If you buy the line that Democrats look out for the "little guy" you're kidding yourself. The worst part of the corporate scandals is that it gives the oppurtunity for the political class to assume even more power and control over society in the name of protecting "the common man" (which they don't care about at all).

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 7:35 pm

The worst part of the corporate scandals is that it gives the oppurtunity for the political class to assume even more power and control over society in the name of protecting "the common man" (which they don't care about at all).

Hell, if they want to set out laws that put away CEOs who are guilty of fraud and corporate execs who shred documents, I don't see how that can give 'em more power; but I'm all in favorite of it.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 8:13 am

Interesting column up at Red Herring. Here's the link: http://www.redherring.com/columns/2002/ ... 71202.html

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 8:42 am

Dubya's rhetoric the other day was pure show. There was no substance to it. If he wanted to halt certain business practises or investigate people who may have broken the law, he could do so; the SEC is an executive branch agency and answers to him, not Congress.

I think our friend PosterX is exactly right to say the the Democrats don't want too many people investigated because some of their friends will invariably be caught by the same net. Still, there is too much public outrage for politicos to do nothing, yet that seems what Dubya is fully intending to (not) do.