Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Here's a timeline to tell a bit more of the story that you glossed over:Originally posted by: jimkyser
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Clinton was investigated on something that actually happened and there was prof of. It was not BS. It was his own stupidity and thinking with his cawk that got him into trouble. I liked Clinton and still do but I sure don't feel sorry for what he brought upon himself. If Bush was discovered to be having sex in the oval office with an intern the left would have a field day with that.
Clinton was NOT investigated on something that actually happened. He was investigated on WhiteWater and was charged with nothing. He was investigated in TravelGate and was charged with nothing. His wife was investigated on her futures trading, but was charged with nothing.
Then, when they are about to wrap up the whole thing, Linda Tripp shows up and says she can prove that BillyBoy is having an affair. Note that he hasn't committed a crime yet. So they tape the phone conversation between BillyBoy and Monica and then feed that info to the lawyers working for Paula Jones. They add a question or two about it to his deposition and he lies. Now he has commited a crime, but the investigations of him and his family by the special procesutors didn't invastigate what he hid, because he hadn't even done it yet.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/
Clinton was investigated on the affair and two potential issues:
1) Did he give Lewinsky preferential treatment in trade for her silence?
2) Did he encourage Lewinsky to lie under oath?
Did those things happen? Of course they did. In retrospect it's obvious. His lying in the deposition was ultimately either icing on the cake or a dumb move, depending on your partisan pov.
Ha, an old fart like you should know that once people reach a certain age, they don't really care too much about sexual indiscretions. It wasn't really anybody eles's business and if it wasn't for independant investigator Ken Starr it never would have hit the light of day.
That is the real reason why all the righties are scared to death of an independant investigation of Bush. You never know what might turn up, LOL!!
"Clinton was investigated on something that actually happened and there was prof [sic] of."Originally posted by: jimkyser
Clinton was NOT investigated on something that actually happened. He was investigated on WhiteWater and was charged with nothing. He was investigated in TravelGate and was charged with nothing. His wife was investigated on her futures trading, but was charged with nothing.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Clinton was investigated on something that actually happened and there was prof of. It was not BS. It was his own stupidity and thinking with his cawk that got him into trouble. I liked Clinton and still do but I sure don't feel sorry for what he brought upon himself. If Bush was discovered to be having sex in the oval office with an intern the left would have a field day with that.
Then, when they are about to wrap up the whole thing, Linda Tripp shows up and says she can prove that BillyBoy is having an affair. Note that he hasn't committed a crime yet. So they tape the phone conversation between BillyBoy and Monica and then feed that info to the lawyers working for Paula Jones. They add a question or two about it to his deposition and he lies. Now he has commited a crime, but the investigations of him and his family by the special procesutors didn't invastigate what he hid, because he hadn't even done it yet.
Starr was about as independent as Rush Limbuagh and everyone knows that. His title didn't mean squat. He was a Republican, a rabid one at that, and toed the party line.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Here's a timeline to tell a bit more of the story that you glossed over:Originally posted by: jimkyser
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Clinton was investigated on something that actually happened and there was prof of. It was not BS. It was his own stupidity and thinking with his cawk that got him into trouble. I liked Clinton and still do but I sure don't feel sorry for what he brought upon himself. If Bush was discovered to be having sex in the oval office with an intern the left would have a field day with that.
Clinton was NOT investigated on something that actually happened. He was investigated on WhiteWater and was charged with nothing. He was investigated in TravelGate and was charged with nothing. His wife was investigated on her futures trading, but was charged with nothing.
Then, when they are about to wrap up the whole thing, Linda Tripp shows up and says she can prove that BillyBoy is having an affair. Note that he hasn't committed a crime yet. So they tape the phone conversation between BillyBoy and Monica and then feed that info to the lawyers working for Paula Jones. They add a question or two about it to his deposition and he lies. Now he has commited a crime, but the investigations of him and his family by the special procesutors didn't invastigate what he hid, because he hadn't even done it yet.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/
Clinton was investigated on the affair and two potential issues:
1) Did he give Lewinsky preferential treatment in trade for her silence?
2) Did he encourage Lewinsky to lie under oath?
Did those things happen? Of course they did. In retrospect it's obvious. His lying in the deposition was ultimately either icing on the cake or a dumb move, depending on your partisan pov.
Ha, an old fart like you should know that once people reach a certain age, they don't really care too much about sexual indiscretions. It wasn't really anybody eles's business and if it wasn't for independant investigator Ken Starr it never would have hit the light of day.
The investigation against Clinton was a waste of time and considering there have already been two investigations of Bush along similar lines that turned up nothing, an inestigation against him would be a waste of time too. It wouldn't accomplish anything of any real value. The left would reply with 'Oh yes it would. It would uncover the truth!' Bleh. The left is not concerned with truth. If they were they'd behave differently than they do today. What it would do is satiate their desire for some of Bush's flesh between their teeth. It would be retirbution for the assualt on Clinton, which still galls them painfully. Uncovering whatever truth may be there wouldn't do squat to Bush anyway in the long run. It sure didn't hurt Clinton.That is the real reason why all the righties are scared to death of an independant investigation of Bush. You never know what might turn up, LOL!!
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The investigation against Clinton was a waste of time and considering there have already been two investigations of Bush along similar lines that turned up nothing, an inestigation against him would be a waste of time too. It wouldn't accomplish anything of any real value. The left would reply with 'Oh yes it would. It would uncover the truth!' Bleh. The left is not concerned with truth. If they were they'd behave differently than they do today. What it would do is satiate their desire for some of Bush's flesh between their teeth. It would be retirbution for the assualt on Clinton, which still galls them painfully. Uncovering whatever truth may be there wouldn't do squat to Bush anyway in the long run. It sure didn't hurt Clinton.That is the real reason why all the righties are scared to death of an independant investigation of Bush. You never know what might turn up, LOL!!
You don't know what Bush has actually done anymore then I do, but your more then willing to give him a "get out of jail" card. They're serious allegations against Bush and if he started a war based on intelligence that he knew was cooked, he should burn. The only way to find out the truth is an independant investigation, complete with the money neede to do it right and the power to prosecute people for lying under oath.
I supported the war against Afhganistan, but was doubtful about the war against Iraq. I felt at the time that we should have given the UN inspectors more time. I remember at the time thinking to myself that they better find some WMD's. Clearly Bush jumped the gun on that war. I want to know if he did it knowingly or if it was truely a mistake. I would think Bush would want to clear the matter up and the fact that they fight an independant investigation so venomously just adds more fuel to the fire of doubt as far as I'm concerned.
This war has already busted the budget and spending $70 million on an investiqation is just a drop in the bucket. Complaining about the cost of an investigation is nothing more then a flimsy excuse.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I'm just trying to figure out why a bumrush of Clinton was deemed worthless and a waste of money and time by the same folks who scream for a bumrush of Bush.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The investigation against Clinton was a waste of time and considering there have already been two investigations of Bush along similar lines that turned up nothing, an inestigation against him would be a waste of time too. It wouldn't accomplish anything of any real value. The left would reply with 'Oh yes it would. It would uncover the truth!' Bleh. The left is not concerned with truth. If they were they'd behave differently than they do today. What it would do is satiate their desire for some of Bush's flesh between their teeth. It would be retirbution for the assualt on Clinton, which still galls them painfully. Uncovering whatever truth may be there wouldn't do squat to Bush anyway in the long run. It sure didn't hurt Clinton.That is the real reason why all the righties are scared to death of an independant investigation of Bush. You never know what might turn up, LOL!!
You don't know what Bush has actually done anymore then I do, but your more then willing to give him a "get out of jail" card. They're serious allegations against Bush and if he started a war based on intelligence that he knew was cooked, he should burn. The only way to find out the truth is an independant investigation, complete with the money neede to do it right and the power to prosecute people for lying under oath.
I supported the war against Afhganistan, but was doubtful about the war against Iraq. I felt at the time that we should have given the UN inspectors more time. I remember at the time thinking to myself that they better find some WMD's. Clearly Bush jumped the gun on that war. I want to know if he did it knowingly or if it was truely a mistake. I would think Bush would want to clear the matter up and the fact that they fight an independant investigation so venomously just adds more fuel to the fire of doubt as far as I'm concerned.
This war has already busted the budget and spending $70 million on an investiqation is just a drop in the bucket. Complaining about the cost of an investigation is nothing more then a flimsy excuse.
Did Bush push an agenda? Well of course he did. That's what politicians do. He had the intel that backed up that agenda too and an investigation into that intel clearly states that the faulty intel was a problem endemic to the agencies, not pressure from the politicians. Twice this has been proven to be the case yet there are those that won't be satisfied until someone corroborates their own allegations.
Sorry, but you can't take Bush to trial for using information that was exactly what he wanted and helped his agenda of going into Iraq. With the changes going on in the ME and other Muslim countries as well, I don't think it was a bad move either. In the long run it's going to be good for the US and the moderate Muslims in the ME that have been held down for so long. They also seem to be realizing that this is not a crusade against Islam, we are not out to steal their oil, or land, or anything of the sort. We only want them to take care of their extreme factions and keep their murderous ways away from the West. As far as the money spent on the war. In comparison to the costs of another 9/11, both in money and lives, it's a bargain, and the results are beginning to show.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I'm just trying to figure out why a bumrush of Clinton was deemed worthless and a waste of money and time by the same folks who scream for a bumrush of Bush.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The investigation against Clinton was a waste of time and considering there have already been two investigations of Bush along similar lines that turned up nothing, an inestigation against him would be a waste of time too. It wouldn't accomplish anything of any real value. The left would reply with 'Oh yes it would. It would uncover the truth!' Bleh. The left is not concerned with truth. If they were they'd behave differently than they do today. What it would do is satiate their desire for some of Bush's flesh between their teeth. It would be retirbution for the assualt on Clinton, which still galls them painfully. Uncovering whatever truth may be there wouldn't do squat to Bush anyway in the long run. It sure didn't hurt Clinton.That is the real reason why all the righties are scared to death of an independant investigation of Bush. You never know what might turn up, LOL!!
You don't know what Bush has actually done anymore then I do, but your more then willing to give him a "get out of jail" card. They're serious allegations against Bush and if he started a war based on intelligence that he knew was cooked, he should burn. The only way to find out the truth is an independant investigation, complete with the money neede to do it right and the power to prosecute people for lying under oath.
I supported the war against Afhganistan, but was doubtful about the war against Iraq. I felt at the time that we should have given the UN inspectors more time. I remember at the time thinking to myself that they better find some WMD's. Clearly Bush jumped the gun on that war. I want to know if he did it knowingly or if it was truely a mistake. I would think Bush would want to clear the matter up and the fact that they fight an independant investigation so venomously just adds more fuel to the fire of doubt as far as I'm concerned.
This war has already busted the budget and spending $70 million on an investiqation is just a drop in the bucket. Complaining about the cost of an investigation is nothing more then a flimsy excuse.
Did Bush push an agenda? Well of course he did. That's what politicians do. He had the intel that backed up that agenda too and an investigation into that intel clearly states that the faulty intel was a problem endemic to the agencies, not pressure from the politicians. Twice this has been proven to be the case yet there are those that won't be satisfied until someone corroborates their own allegations.
Sorry, but you can't take Bush to trial for using information that was exactly what he wanted and helped his agenda of going into Iraq. With the changes going on in the ME and other Muslim countries as well, I don't think it was a bad move either. In the long run it's going to be good for the US and the moderate Muslims in the ME that have been held down for so long. They also seem to be realizing that this is not a crusade against Islam, we are not out to steal their oil, or land, or anything of the sort. We only want them to take care of their extreme factions and keep their murderous ways away from the West. As far as the money spent on the war. In comparison to the costs of another 9/11, both in money and lives, it's a bargain, and the results are beginning to show.
First off, the Starr "investigation" wasn't a waste of money. What should have been taken out of it was that Clinton didn't commit crimes in Whitewater, travelgate, troopergate, murder or whatever other rediculous charges the right came up with. Instead, it was relagated to only one person being "shot" and zero casualties.
Bush, on the other hand, has done everything in his power to render the two "investigations" into the intelligence (one of which didn't even address the topic of how the intel was used) null and void. He has repeatedly refused documention, intelligence briefings, seperate interviews of himself and Cheney so that they wouldn't have to worry about having discrepincies in their stories and also refused to be sworn in.
You, yourself, have just said that he was pushing an agenda. The Downing St. Memo states that he was doing that same thing. The fact that his cabinet was filled with 75% of the PNAC membership does the same thing. All of it points to one and only one conclusion, that the intelligence was distorted to fit the needs of the agenda.
When you keep referring back to the "bipartisan" investigations, why do you never mention that they also stated that there were a lot of doubters and detractors of the evidence and/or statements that Bushco used in making their case for war?
Would you also still be spouting that it is a bargain if it was your wife/husband, son/daughter or mother/father that was one of the lives lost for this war of choice? Don't answer, I know what kind of BS you will give.
True, let's form an association, march to Washington DC and kick him out of office once and for all. The question is when? Do we have any guts? Is our balls bigger then his? Most people are pussies so I doubt it's going to happen today or tomorrow. Realistically some peoplle are already scared out of their pants due to their terrorism bs spreading fear just as bad a pol pots in Cambodia. Then we have those bush lovers who would love anyone who is president including a monkey but I don't see how that makes any sense since all humans are not created equal and should be judged differently according to their deeds. Bush in truth is exactly like Nixon, starting a war just so he can take their oils for free at the cost of the American lives. The fact that most people hate him from the day of his inauguration.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
As far as I'm concerned, if Bush started a war based on information he knew to be false he deserves what he gets. Everybody needs to be accountable, not just Democrats. Nobody is above the law. Clinton wasn't and Bush isn't either.
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What would be the point of stating there were doubters and detractors? There are doubters and retractors that the earth is round and that we ever went to the moon as well. A few doubters are meaningless and when it comes to politics, and the Bush admin, there are plenty willing to go to rhetorical excesses. See Dean's latest rant for evidence of that.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I'm just trying to figure out why a bumrush of Clinton was deemed worthless and a waste of money and time by the same folks who scream for a bumrush of Bush.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The investigation against Clinton was a waste of time and considering there have already been two investigations of Bush along similar lines that turned up nothing, an inestigation against him would be a waste of time too. It wouldn't accomplish anything of any real value. The left would reply with 'Oh yes it would. It would uncover the truth!' Bleh. The left is not concerned with truth. If they were they'd behave differently than they do today. What it would do is satiate their desire for some of Bush's flesh between their teeth. It would be retirbution for the assualt on Clinton, which still galls them painfully. Uncovering whatever truth may be there wouldn't do squat to Bush anyway in the long run. It sure didn't hurt Clinton.That is the real reason why all the righties are scared to death of an independant investigation of Bush. You never know what might turn up, LOL!!
You don't know what Bush has actually done anymore then I do, but your more then willing to give him a "get out of jail" card. They're serious allegations against Bush and if he started a war based on intelligence that he knew was cooked, he should burn. The only way to find out the truth is an independant investigation, complete with the money neede to do it right and the power to prosecute people for lying under oath.
I supported the war against Afhganistan, but was doubtful about the war against Iraq. I felt at the time that we should have given the UN inspectors more time. I remember at the time thinking to myself that they better find some WMD's. Clearly Bush jumped the gun on that war. I want to know if he did it knowingly or if it was truely a mistake. I would think Bush would want to clear the matter up and the fact that they fight an independant investigation so venomously just adds more fuel to the fire of doubt as far as I'm concerned.
This war has already busted the budget and spending $70 million on an investiqation is just a drop in the bucket. Complaining about the cost of an investigation is nothing more then a flimsy excuse.
Did Bush push an agenda? Well of course he did. That's what politicians do. He had the intel that backed up that agenda too and an investigation into that intel clearly states that the faulty intel was a problem endemic to the agencies, not pressure from the politicians. Twice this has been proven to be the case yet there are those that won't be satisfied until someone corroborates their own allegations.
Sorry, but you can't take Bush to trial for using information that was exactly what he wanted and helped his agenda of going into Iraq. With the changes going on in the ME and other Muslim countries as well, I don't think it was a bad move either. In the long run it's going to be good for the US and the moderate Muslims in the ME that have been held down for so long. They also seem to be realizing that this is not a crusade against Islam, we are not out to steal their oil, or land, or anything of the sort. We only want them to take care of their extreme factions and keep their murderous ways away from the West. As far as the money spent on the war. In comparison to the costs of another 9/11, both in money and lives, it's a bargain, and the results are beginning to show.
First off, the Starr "investigation" wasn't a waste of money. What should have been taken out of it was that Clinton didn't commit crimes in Whitewater, travelgate, troopergate, murder or whatever other rediculous charges the right came up with. Instead, it was relagated to only one person being "shot" and zero casualties.
Bush, on the other hand, has done everything in his power to render the two "investigations" into the intelligence (one of which didn't even address the topic of how the intel was used) null and void. He has repeatedly refused documention, intelligence briefings, seperate interviews of himself and Cheney so that they wouldn't have to worry about having discrepincies in their stories and also refused to be sworn in.
You, yourself, have just said that he was pushing an agenda. The Downing St. Memo states that he was doing that same thing. The fact that his cabinet was filled with 75% of the PNAC membership does the same thing. All of it points to one and only one conclusion, that the intelligence was distorted to fit the needs of the agenda.
When you keep referring back to the "bipartisan" investigations, why do you never mention that they also stated that there were a lot of doubters and detractors of the evidence and/or statements that Bushco used in making their case for war?
Maybe you don't know, but my son is a marine stationed in Iraq, just outside of Baghdad. I'm proud of him for being there too because he and all the rest of the military are, imo, doing something that will be good for this country and the world in the long run.Would you also still be spouting that it is a bargain if it was your wife/husband, son/daughter or mother/father that was one of the lives lost for this war of choice? Don't answer, I know what kind of BS you will give.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What would be the point of stating there were doubters and detractors? There are doubters and retractors that the earth is round and that we ever went to the moon as well. A few doubters are meaningless and when it comes to politics, and the Bush admin, there are plenty willing to go to rhetorical excesses. See Dean's latest rant for evidence of that.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I'm just trying to figure out why a bumrush of Clinton was deemed worthless and a waste of money and time by the same folks who scream for a bumrush of Bush.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The investigation against Clinton was a waste of time and considering there have already been two investigations of Bush along similar lines that turned up nothing, an inestigation against him would be a waste of time too. It wouldn't accomplish anything of any real value. The left would reply with 'Oh yes it would. It would uncover the truth!' Bleh. The left is not concerned with truth. If they were they'd behave differently than they do today. What it would do is satiate their desire for some of Bush's flesh between their teeth. It would be retirbution for the assualt on Clinton, which still galls them painfully. Uncovering whatever truth may be there wouldn't do squat to Bush anyway in the long run. It sure didn't hurt Clinton.That is the real reason why all the righties are scared to death of an independant investigation of Bush. You never know what might turn up, LOL!!
You don't know what Bush has actually done anymore then I do, but your more then willing to give him a "get out of jail" card. They're serious allegations against Bush and if he started a war based on intelligence that he knew was cooked, he should burn. The only way to find out the truth is an independant investigation, complete with the money neede to do it right and the power to prosecute people for lying under oath.
I supported the war against Afhganistan, but was doubtful about the war against Iraq. I felt at the time that we should have given the UN inspectors more time. I remember at the time thinking to myself that they better find some WMD's. Clearly Bush jumped the gun on that war. I want to know if he did it knowingly or if it was truely a mistake. I would think Bush would want to clear the matter up and the fact that they fight an independant investigation so venomously just adds more fuel to the fire of doubt as far as I'm concerned.
This war has already busted the budget and spending $70 million on an investiqation is just a drop in the bucket. Complaining about the cost of an investigation is nothing more then a flimsy excuse.
Did Bush push an agenda? Well of course he did. That's what politicians do. He had the intel that backed up that agenda too and an investigation into that intel clearly states that the faulty intel was a problem endemic to the agencies, not pressure from the politicians. Twice this has been proven to be the case yet there are those that won't be satisfied until someone corroborates their own allegations.
Sorry, but you can't take Bush to trial for using information that was exactly what he wanted and helped his agenda of going into Iraq. With the changes going on in the ME and other Muslim countries as well, I don't think it was a bad move either. In the long run it's going to be good for the US and the moderate Muslims in the ME that have been held down for so long. They also seem to be realizing that this is not a crusade against Islam, we are not out to steal their oil, or land, or anything of the sort. We only want them to take care of their extreme factions and keep their murderous ways away from the West. As far as the money spent on the war. In comparison to the costs of another 9/11, both in money and lives, it's a bargain, and the results are beginning to show.
First off, the Starr "investigation" wasn't a waste of money. What should have been taken out of it was that Clinton didn't commit crimes in Whitewater, travelgate, troopergate, murder or whatever other rediculous charges the right came up with. Instead, it was relagated to only one person being "shot" and zero casualties.
Bush, on the other hand, has done everything in his power to render the two "investigations" into the intelligence (one of which didn't even address the topic of how the intel was used) null and void. He has repeatedly refused documention, intelligence briefings, seperate interviews of himself and Cheney so that they wouldn't have to worry about having discrepincies in their stories and also refused to be sworn in.
You, yourself, have just said that he was pushing an agenda. The Downing St. Memo states that he was doing that same thing. The fact that his cabinet was filled with 75% of the PNAC membership does the same thing. All of it points to one and only one conclusion, that the intelligence was distorted to fit the needs of the agenda.
When you keep referring back to the "bipartisan" investigations, why do you never mention that they also stated that there were a lot of doubters and detractors of the evidence and/or statements that Bushco used in making their case for war?
Maybe you don't know, but my son is a marine stationed in Iraq, just outside of Baghdad. I'm proud of him for being there too because he and all the rest of the military are, imo, doing something that will be good for this country and the world in the long run.Would you also still be spouting that it is a bargain if it was your wife/husband, son/daughter or mother/father that was one of the lives lost for this war of choice? Don't answer, I know what kind of BS you will give.
The point of letting the detractors being heard is a matter of who the detractors were. There were those in the intelligence agencies that were saying that the intel doesn't support the conclusions being drawn. THe doubters of the earth being round have been proven wrong as has GWB about their being stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons.These are not ordinary citizens like you and I that are basing our opinions on what we have heard, seen and read. That is a very big difference. Their doubts should have had an equal part of the debate over whether or not we commit the troops and resources to this war. Their voices were not once made public.
Also, I didn't know that your son was over there. You should be proud of the work that he is doing to better the world. I just wish that he didn't have to go there based on someone's "vision" or agenda and more because the necessity was there i.e. Afghanistan. Regardless of that, I hope that he and all of the others are able to come home safely and quickly. I hope that you never have to experience the grief that almost 1700 other American families have had to.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
"Clinton was investigated on something that actually happened and there was prof [sic] of."Originally posted by: jimkyser
Clinton was NOT investigated on something that actually happened. He was investigated on WhiteWater and was charged with nothing. He was investigated in TravelGate and was charged with nothing. His wife was investigated on her futures trading, but was charged with nothing.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Clinton was investigated on something that actually happened and there was prof of. It was not BS. It was his own stupidity and thinking with his cawk that got him into trouble. I liked Clinton and still do but I sure don't feel sorry for what he brought upon himself. If Bush was discovered to be having sex in the oval office with an intern the left would have a field day with that.
Then, when they are about to wrap up the whole thing, Linda Tripp shows up and says she can prove that BillyBoy is having an affair. Note that he hasn't committed a crime yet. So they tape the phone conversation between BillyBoy and Monica and then feed that info to the lawyers working for Paula Jones. They add a question or two about it to his deposition and he lies. Now he has commited a crime, but the investigations of him and his family by the special procesutors didn't invastigate what he hid, because he hadn't even done it yet.
I love Sir Chicken's circular reasoning here. The Starr witch hunt was justified because, after blowing $70M investigating every rumor and bit of innuendo leveled against Clinton, they finally cornered him on a personal matter -- legal, consensual sex between two adults -- and made one small charge stick (a "crime" that was the direct result of the investigation itself, by the way, though Clinton was an idiot for lying under oath. He should have just told Starr to go to hell, and left it at that).
For Bush, on the other hand, Sir Chicken is against an independent investigation because we haven't already convicted King George of any of the many substantial allegations against him. (Though the allegations are well-documented, we don't yet have 100% conclusive, beyond a shadow of a doubt "proof" -- the kind of proof one will only get through an independent investigation with full funding, unfettered scope, and full subpoena authority.) No conviction, therefore the offenses didn't "actually happen" in the Bush apologist lexicon. It's a slick catch-22 and an absurd rationalization. How convenient for the Bush faithful.