Originally posted by pfflam
Except the "Kerry Incident" was a complete, and obvious, and utterly absurd fabrication, without the slightest bit of truth or integrity (sound familiar coming from BushCo?!) and the Bush incident is caught on Video
and THEN it is joyfully and ignorantly peddled by the very same idiot-echo-chamber as the false 'incident' without even recognizing the complete Lameness that the video reveals!
And BTW, it is clear that the video was taken when Bush was preparing for a political talk before cameras . . . so he was not '17'
and the possibly-drunk video was taken well after he supposedly 'gave-up drink' and turned hollier-than-thou.
Let's put this into perspective, and let's assume that you are 100% correct. OK?
Let's lay it out:
1) Bush is caught on tape holding a drink, let's just say it is gin or whisky or libation of your choosing. Let's assume that he drank it.
2) Bush is caught on tape flipping the Bird.
Now let's look at the former occupant of the white house (please feel free to go bonkers now) shall we:
He was caught red handed, or maybe you prefer stained-dressed or soggy-cigared, having sex with an intern in the Office of the President, and subsequently lying about it under oath.
Now, the democrat masses locked onto the idea that the whole thing boiled down to make him appear "more likable and human".
So to summarize, Slick Willie:
1) Cheated on his wife.
2) Left Little Willie tracks all over the Oval Office.
3) Lied under oath and to the American people on camera.
You tell me which is worse. I say it was Clinton's actions. Yet most lefties wax nostalgic about the Clinton years, while at the same time condemning bush for flipping the bird and having a drink at a party. Comparing what one person did while President with what the other did long before holding the office.
Shall we discuss Teddy 'Hiccup' Kennedy? Or Robert 'KKK' Bird?
What is the point, anyway?