Why can Democrats not admit that Janet Reno hired the Special Prosecutor Robert B. Fiske to investigate Clinton in Janurary 1994.
And after the Democrat controlled Congress passed the Independent Counsel law in 1994.
Robert B. Fiske was replaced by Kenneth Starr in August 1994.
While Congress was still controlled by the Democrat Party.
The Republicans had nothing to do with Ken Starr being hired.
They might have demanded an investigation, but they certainly didn't have the power to start one in 1994.
2007-05-11 00:08:38 · 9 answers · asked by jeeper_peeper321 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
EDIT:
My point has been made.
Read the post that states the people in kansas cannot be helped because the Kansas national guardsmen are in Iraq.
Thats a flat out falsehood.
Almost all of Kansas's national guardsmen are in Kansas, not Iraq.
They cannot even quote the Governor of Kansas properly, they have to twist the truth.
2007-05-11 00:44:17 · update #1
You don't get it do you. Democrats never admit to anything wrong, what they do do is to blame someone else, and repeat it infinitem, helped of course by the liberal bias in the new industry. Their story is now that President Bush lied when they voted to authorize the war, even though when Clinton was President, the Dems knew for sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. So who are the liars. Thats an easy one.
Their strategy is to call the Republicans names, and repeat them ad nausium. Republicans are liars, especially their hated focus person President Bush. It is this constant rabble rousing that gives the President low ratings. Its a known fact that if you repeat an accusation long enough ( and don't forget they have the press, especially the New York Times to keep the lie going, the citizens will believe it. They have heard it so many times that it must be true. Then we have the wimpy Republicans who don't want to fight this and wonder why they are losing. When the other Republicans, other than rock solid President Bush, finally get enough courage to use similar tactics and learn to fight back to defend themselves, maybe we can become a safe country again.
2007-05-11 00:27:23 · answer #1 · answered by tmchuck 2 · 1⤊ 5⤋
I think most folks have moved on since this. Now, let's see if the Democratic Congress has the cajones to investigate why Bush always has the resources to help Iraq, while America always comes in second. For example, those folks in Kansas can't get National Guard help because their troops are in the middle east helping to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam. ( OMG! He's already dead - somebody tell Bush!)
Remember the Katrina debacle?
Where's the Special Prosecutor now? Will Alberto Gonzales appoint one? I doubt it.
2007-05-11 00:17:15 · answer #2 · answered by Mark G 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
i might remind you that the stated purpose of the surge (stated via GW himself) became into to grant the Iraqi government a window of peace so as to effect the political aims that all and sundry felt have been honestly choose for peace. The surge has a great deal decreased the violence and that's a great difficulty yet any political answer in Iraq seems alongside way off yet. So i might say the surge has worked 50%.
2016-12-11 06:20:46 · answer #3 · answered by adamek 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kenneth Starr was selected for the post by a three person Tribunal of federal judges.
Reno had no say in it, the Democrats has no say in who was selected.
The Democrats, unlike the Republicans, were willing to have their own investigated, but the idea of an impartial investigation was badly derailed by Starr's partisan nonsense and unethical methods. He was, himself, investigated for his methods and practices during the investigation.
Nice try, but Democrats had no say in the selection of Starr.
2007-05-11 01:08:05 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Who are the democrats that denied this?
Yes the republicans demanded an investigation. And the Democrats - unlike your republican friends of late - did the right thing.
And then the people decided they wanted him back for another 4 years regardless.
And then Coulter and a string of other conservative hacks pretending to be journalists have been shamelessly slandering a former president ever since.
2007-05-11 00:13:34 · answer #5 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
For the same reason they refuse to see that Sandy Burger stole classified documents which is totally overlooked by the media and dems...they control the media ...the media covers for them and this type of thing is just never reported because they are traitors to this country....sorry Gary F.
2007-05-11 00:15:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Oh good lord....
Dude...get out of the time machine.....It is not 1998...why are you still arguing about a completely mute point.
Why not talk about current situations........oh.....yeah.....I know.....because you'd have to be nuts to be bragging about being a republican these days...
Ok...nevermind.....keep pretending that incidents that were comepletely insignificant 10 years ago, have any more significance today.....
Its all you have......
2007-05-11 00:15:50 · answer #7 · answered by Dave K 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Ah, blissful forgetfulness! Facts are so inconvenient! Why remember them?
2007-05-11 00:21:09 · answer #8 · answered by Delray 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
http://www.thehuntingofthepresident.com/
2007-05-11 00:13:44 · answer #9 · answered by justagirl33552 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋