Reply #24: How ironic [View All]

[Time for change]

I was very much against the ruling in the Paula Jones case. I thought it was ridiculous that a sitting President could be forced to spend so much time defending himself with respect to an alleged act that occurred when he did not hold his office and had nothing to do with his current responsibilities. I mean, with all the responsibilities that the President has, how can we as a country allow his time to be taken up with such things. And indeed, that is exactly why this case was pursued -- to distract him from doing the job that he was elected to pursue.

But the case against Bush is entirely different. That involves allegations that are central to his role as President, and to say that he couldn't be subpoenaed in reference to that would simply add to the likelihood that a President could make his office into a dictatorship (which in fact he is well on his way to doing.)