Quote:
Clinton committed crimes and abused his office. And you find inventive ways to rationalize it. Or evade discussing it altogether.

As I pointed out though I didn't justify Clinton's pardons. I did point out how they differred from what Bush did with Libby. What would have been the conservatives response if he had commutted Mcdougal's sentence before she served any jail time? As it was I remember some outrage when he pardonned her after she served her couple of years in prison, a chunk of it in solitary. I don't believe for a minute that those cheering the Libby commute would have felt the same way.

 Quote:
That just seems like liberal spin to me. To the point that I can't even follow your train of thought.
I think Rumsfeld and Bush were loyal to each other. Bush held on to Rumsfeld for 4 years despite calls for his resignation. And that Rumsfeld offered his resignation 4 times indicates he was eager to go, at any point he might be relieved. It's hardly as if Bush relieved Rumsfeld against his will. Rumsfeld was glad to go.

So where was Bush being loyal by keeping somebody in place that didn't want to be there? I guess my point is that Bush kept him because he agreed with what Rumsfeld was doing.

 Quote:
I wished them both to resign because there was widespread loss of faith in their ability to lead, among the military or the attorney general's office, respectively.
I do thionk Bush is loyal to his people. But it's a flaw, because he's put personal loyalty to non-performers, over the best interests of the nation, and his oath to preserve, protect and defend our nation.

So when Bush supports these guys & doesn't offer any contradictory views it's not that he doesn't have them but it's a case of being loyal? I don't buy that speculation.

 Quote:
That's an obvious partisan jab at Giuliani. There's a huge difference between making partisan jabs at a NY city mayor for attacks using airlines that he could never have seen coming, and the mayor of New Orleans who deals with hurricanes every year, and didn't use school buses and other tools for evacuation of a city located well below sea level, in the face of a category 5 hurricane.
The same can be said of the Democrat governor, Democrat Senators and Democrat representatives, who had YEARS to allocate the resources to prepare for the storm, and have managed to get re-elected by scapegoating the entire blame for their own inaction on Bush, Brown, and FEMA.


Katrina wasn't your average hurricane though & New York had been attacked by terrorist before. There wasn't the assumption that it wouldn't somehow happen again. In fact our intelligence that had been reported predicted we would be attacked again.

At any rate a huge diseaster like that requires good federal response & aid. What happened with Katrina was a poor response at the federal level. While it happened the GOP response was to concentrate on whatever some local Democratic local official didn't do. (apparently there are no Republican in the local governments down there) That's fine holding them accountable but that's where the criticism seems to end.

 Quote:
No, it's not unusual. But your point was alleging that Bush was disloyal. My point was that he had complete loyalty, even in the face of his own opposing Republican party, as long as there was a prayer of her being nominated. Far from you allegation of him dumping her at the first moment she became inconvenient.
Any fair observer can see Bush was loyal to her. Bush's nomination of Miers can be criticized for other reasons, but not for Bush's allegedly


I wouldn't say Bush was disloyal just that this was pretty much the status quo with presidential nominations. As long as any President thinks he can get one through their being what you call loyal.

Fair play!