From: "Gary Britt" 

It is different for Clinton, because nobody believes he would have launched
those ineffective and pitiful attempts at defense of the country EXCEPT FOR
his desire to avert attention from impeachment proceedings.  Remember he
launched those *attacks* and then his minions began floating stories in the
MSM about it would be wrong to impeach a President at a time of war.
Clinton didn't make those attacks because he was acting on intelligence and
thought it was in the best interests of the USA.  He made those attacks
because he thought it was in *HIS* personal best interest, and he would not
have made those attacks otherwise.

That's why its different for Clinton.  You are comparing apples to oranges.
Or more properly rotten apples to oranges.  You yourself called Clinton's
actions "wag the dog".

Gary

"Dave"  wrote in message
news:24nlj11bhmfmc1uvn3aapscvs5lcvdojcs{at}4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:37:46 -0400, "Gary Wiltshire"

> wrote in message :
>
> | On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:59:25 -0400, Dave  wrote:
> |
> | > On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:02:57 -0500, "Robert G Lewis"
> | >  wrote in message
:
> | >
> | > |  I doubt that you can find any message where I've condemned Clinton
> | > for his
> | > | actions as president. I have a suspicion you have confused me with
> | > someone
> | > | else.
> | >
> | > That was the collective "you" directed towards all
conservatives.
> |
> | Then you're painting with too wide a brush.  The most serious thing
> | Clinton broke with his "private life" is that he opened
himself up for
> | wag-the-dog charges.  Presidents don't HAVE a "private life."
>
> I was trying to point out the hypocrisy, because (not here) it seems
> like the same people who lambasted Clinton for "wagging the dog" are
> the same people who defend Bush for acting on "the best intelligence
> he had at the time".
>
> It seems like people are only willing to extend the benefit of the
> doubt to their own side.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5