A Shifting Standard
This piece outlines the instructive contrast between press coverage of Tom DeLay's so-called "ethical troubles" and those of Hillary Clinton.
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:11 AM
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Contact & Other Information
Contributors
Key Links
Previous Posts
- On KABC This Friday
- The Real State of Affairs in Iraq
- Al Qaeda Captured on Mexican Border?
- Franken v. Scalia: Not a Close Call
- Problem Corrected . . .
- Red Fridays -- For the Troops!
- Note to Commenters
- Take It Up With God
- Kelly on Zarqawi's Bad Week
- ECUSA Update
5 Comments:
It's IMPOSSIBLE for Hillary Clinton to have ethical troubles. She has no ethics to be troubled with.
That was funny, Greg.
Here are some differences that a person of impeccable ethics would have made clear.
Hillary Clinton was never actually indicted, nor was she ever directly connected to the questionable fund raising. Tom Delay was indicted for money-laundering and conspiracy, and by his own testimony to the Grand Jury he personally approved the transactions in question.
According to this Fox News post, David Rosen was acquitted of all charges related to the matter in May of this year. Tom Delay is still in legal jeopardy.
Another example of a shifting standard?
Back in the mid-1990s, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, aggressively delving into alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration, logged 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether former president Bill Clinton had used the White House Christmas card list to identify potential Democratic donors.
In the past two years, a House committee has managed to take only 12 hours of sworn testimony about the abuse of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
This is, of course, just a single example. The entire article, which talks about the whole sorry debacle that is the Republican lead House, can be found here.
Of course, to answer the last comment, one has to remember the substance of the entire 140 hours of testimony was largely stonewalling techniques, pleading the 5th, and a titillating discussion of the meaning of the word "is". There never was any attempt at honesty, only a concerted effort to duck the truth. To say that Monica Lewinsky was the only thing that came out of the overwhelming number of items actually under investigation belies the effort that went into covering for the ex-President and Junior Senator from New York and their cronies. It is the only thing they were willing to get caught on, and they gambled that the whole country would be so sickened that the dogs would stop sniffing and go home. We are still suffering from the legal maneuverings that were invented to keep the facts from view of those responsible for investigating (whose reputations were smeared and dragged through the mud). We had a wall constructed between law enforcement agencies and it was put there to keep information from being allowed into the record. We had a National Security Advisor who 2 years later still had a need to go in and intentionally destroy documents because he was a pawn of the Clinton Administration to cover up the National Security blunders while all the parties and illegal fundraising was going on. As I read about Hillary and her dealings, I really wonder what happens if you are a Democrat supporting her in a Presidential bid in 2008. Do you really bet the whole farm on her? Will she be able to slide through without anybody wanting to get greedy and score a big scoop? That's quite a gamble, especially when you have the goods on her in stories such as these, and you've got people all over the place who'd love to testify against her if only the charges could get some traction. They will get traction if there's money to be made, even in the MSM. They aren't so altruistic that they'd ALL neglect this story.
Post a Comment
<< Home