No, Eric, I don't want to do that. You brought up Clinton, not me. I
was only pointing out the divide between your alarmist rhetoric and the
'r-e-s-p-e-c-t' Bush gets from Congress and the press. (But, yes, I'd
like to see Bush brought up on charges.)
As to FDR violating American law, I'd say that was an impeachable
offense. While I respect, mostly even applaud, conscientious objectors,
I'm not sure FDR qualifies. First of all, he didn't object, he hid his
activities from the American people. Second of all, the president
specifically swears an oath to uphold the Constitution (as opposed to
most of us who just sort of grow into our responsibilities as
citizens). In addition, the fact that something ends well, doesn't
make it the right thing to have done. (Did I hear Kant's name
mentioned just now?)
Ursula
Eric Yost wrote:
Ursula: I asked where do you see this happening now. The 'this' referred to your 'brought up on charges, endless hearings about legality, etc." I meant "now" as in "with this president". Your answer doesn't cut it.
Eric; My answer doesn't cut it because you want to get into a discussion about all the dark gray areas of Bush's moves, while at the same time ignoring the gray areas of Clinton's and FDR's?
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
