[Vision2020] Separate V2020 Lists?

Sun, 25 Jan 2004 10:09:27 EST

--part1_1d8.191432aa.2d453627_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tim et. al.

What I think is that for consistency, like anyone really practices this, if 
you slam Clinton with great gusto for his lies, Bush deserves even more 
slamming with even greater gusto for his false statements leading us to war.  So 
perhaps I worded my statements incorrectly, or perhaps you misunderstood.  I am 
suggesting you should be outraged by Bush's lies and going after the Republicans 
who defend him, just as much as you have gone after Democrats who defend 
Clinton.

As far as the scholars defending Clinton, I believe the arguments are rather 
cogent and law based that Clinton's actions did not rise to the level of an 
impeachable offense.  You may disagree with them, but this does not render them 
"ridiculous."  A scholar can argue against Clinton's impeachment without 
defending Clinton the man, of course, even if they find his actions to be 
reprehensible from a feminist perspective.

Anyway, this is way off the Separate V2020 List topic, and I really don't 
want to debate the Clinton saga again, unless it relates to current news, like 
the war on terror or in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the national debt, etc.

Ted

--part1_1d8.191432aa.2d453627_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
 Tim et. al.
 
 What I think is that for consistency, like anyone really practices this,=
 if you slam Clinton with great gusto for his lies, Bush deserves even more=20=
slamming with even greater gusto for his false statements leading us to war.=
 &nbsp;So perhaps I worded my statements incorrectly, or perhaps you misunde=
rstood. &nbsp;I am suggesting you should be outraged by Bush's lies and goin=
g after the Republicans who defend him, just as much as you have gone after=20=
Democrats who defend Clinton.
 
 As far as the scholars defending Clinton, I believe the arguments are ra=
ther cogent and law based that Clinton's actions did not rise to the level o=
f an impeachable offense. &nbsp;You may disagree with them, but this does no=
t render them "ridiculous." &nbsp;A scholar can argue against Clinton's impe=
achment without defending Clinton the man, of course, even if they find his=20=
actions to be reprehensible from a feminist perspective.
 
 Anyway, this is way off the Separate V2020 List topic, and I really don'=
t want to debate the Clinton saga again, unless it relates to current news,=20=
like the war on terror or in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the national debt, etc=
.
 
 Ted
 
 
 
 </HTML>

--part1_1d8.191432aa.2d453627_boundary--