Not when compared to the Starr Commission investigating Clinton’s whole life for practically his entire term. The Dems should have investigated Bush as soon as they got in power. Thyt would have had an embarrassment of riches.
But Poppy Bush pardoned everyone in sight before he left office just to keep that scenario from happening.
No, I’m talking about dragging certain things out into the light of day, not prosecuting them as crimes if they cannot be so prosecuted. The point being that the former has its own value independent of the latter.
Really, Shodan, what’s wrong with your reading comprehension the past two days?! Even by your standards, your posts in this thread have been pure dumbth!
It also leads to certain acts, shameful but not illegal, being exposed to the light of day; and if they’re not actually prosecuted as crimes, and if they’re not actually shameful acts in your eyes, then there’s no harm in the exposure, is there? 
Well, now I’m confused. I had heard on these boards that the Ken Starr investigation was horrible and bad and all, and the reason usually given is that no serious crime was uncovered. Now it seems that it is not so bad, even if no crime is uncovered. Go figure.
Regards,
Shodan
I can’t speak for anyone else, but the Starr investigation was a witch hunt in that it just kept going and going until they could find something to pin on Clinton. In the meantime we got to hear all about his private life, but not much more.
I think Obama would have more success if he laid out a plan. “We’re going to look at this and this and this.” And no more. If they can’t find anything in the areas they laid out beforehand, then they accept that there’s nothing illegal and move on. If they keep going and hunting and looking for anything to “get” Bush on, then it would be a witch hunt and I wouldn’t condone it at all.
What, they find Jimmy Hoffa?
Have you a link about Cheney’s above safe?
Thanks
Well, there is - and the pros and cons of that could be debated endlessly - but that wasn’t the point of my post. I merely wanted to counter your suggestion that surely none of the conservative posters here would dare to find fault with the idea of publicizing any so-called egregious acts discovered over the course of an investigation.
In other words, I wanted to point out that egregiousness lies in the eye of the beholder, and that the answer to your insinuation was not as cut-and-dried as you seemed to think.
I was thinking more along the lines of the fresh, living hosts upon which he must daily feed to prevent his undead corpse from putrifying.
WaPo article here. It revealed that Cheney keeps “man-sized safes” in his office. It was a source of late night jokes for a while.
Y’know, I do believe you offered this with a straight face, and I do believe it will follow you around for a while.
The Washington Post broke that story last June:
See also here. (You won’t be sorry! 
)
Then go ahead and counter it – so far you have not.
Conservatives finding fault with transparency?! This is a republic, is it not?
Plus the power was held by the Radical Republicans, who probably felt he should have ordered the army to burn the South to the ground. Remember, Johnson, more of a moderate, got impeached.
But Obama didn’t make the limitations you claim. He said he would review to see if crimes occurred. The only limit is his own self-imposed sense of restraint. And how is that any different then what Ken Starr did? He said he was only looking to see if Bill Clinton committed any crimes - and he eventually found one.
It seems some people are holding the standard based on personalities; the Obama administration can be trusted to do the right thing and the Bush administration can’t. The Bush administration deserves to be punished and the Clinton administration didn’t.
Subjectively, I’d agree that the Bush administration has been less trustworthy than most administrations and deserves whatever it gets. But the government shouldn’t operate on subjective standards like that; our legal system should be objective and impartial.
My post was my counter.
You suggested that no conservative poster here would dare find fault with publicizing ancillary acts discovered over the course of an investigation which [certain elements of the] population might find ‘egregious,’ and I posted what I believe was a reasonable disagreement with that assumption.
(And to think you’ve been criticizing Shodan over his reading comprehension.)
No, no, reread post #90. I said no conservative would argue to the contrary. Objection is not, in and of itself, argument. If you have an argument, please make it. You haven’t, yet. (Nor has Shodan.)
First, if Clinton got a witch hunt and Bush didn’t, then it’s hardly impartial, is it? Joke, mind you; Obama’s quote says he does not want a witch hunt, and so far I’ve seen no reason not to take him at his word.
Second, IMO it comes down to probable cause and knowing what to look for. Ken Starr was brought on for Whitewater. When that didn’t pan out to anything prosecutable, he moved on to other stuff, continuing investigations into anything he could find until he did land something. If all he had done was handle Whitewater and stop there when he couldn’t get a bite, I don’t think people would have been nearly as critical of the investigation.
Anyway, Obama didn’t elaborate on what “reviewing the information” means. It could be a months-long intensive witch hunt, or it could be as simple as opening those man-sized safes of Cheney’s and examining what was labeled Top Secret to see if it was simply reporters’ talking points or receipts of weapon sales to Al-Qaeda.
In the end, this will all probably boil down to nothing. I rather expect the administration to shred everything they possibly can, so there won’t be much to base any investigation on. They’d be completely daft to leave anything incriminating where the new administration could easily get at it.
You know (and I’m sure Cheney knows), an office shredder is a lot cheaper than a safe.
Last paragraph.
Dang, Glut! You need to eat more brains.
You specifically said that you hoped no conservative here would argue the contrary (the contrary clearly being that these so-called egregious acts should not be brought forth), and I specifically said (argued, if you will) in post #97 why I would not necessarily favor publicizing so-called egregious acts discovered in the course of an investigation looking for criminal wrongdoing, and I gave two reasons for this belief.
Seems like countering to me.