Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP5";p="
Wow! That sure as heck didn't stop the Democrats from demonizing Dick Cheney over Haliburton----even though he had no role in awarding contracts.
|
Setting aside the difference in influence between a veep and a minority Senator, I'll make two points: I've never been one of those people demonizing Cheney over Halliburton, and two wrongs don't make a right. If you thought Cheney was just fine, then you can't complain about Feinstein. |
Oh yes I can. I'm complaining about the lack of coverage on one....and the overkill coverage on the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p="
Quote:
|
Oh? So can you show me the rule that says "conflicts of interest ONLY applys to those in the Majority?" I'll wait.....
|
Not what I said. My point was that for it to be a conflict of interest, there has to be a credible mechanism by which Feinstein could use her position to benefit her husband. I don't see one, *especially* because she was in the minority and so would have to convince multiple Republicans to go along with her. |
Well,gee.....what about "where there's smoke; there must be some fire?" Where was the investigation to take a little "look see??"
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p="
Quote:
|
That leaves ONLY 5 years that WERE.
|
Agreed. But you still have to suggest a way she could have used her position to benefit her husband. That's why I ended up writing nothing (and abandoning a half-written post): I couldn't see a way for it to be a credible problem. |
Well, I can't see a credible problem with the firings of 8 political appointees either. But we're sure getting a big TO DO over that!!
