The Republicans can admit wrongdoing, why can't the Democrats?

It seems lots of bloggers have written about Bill Clinton's interview with Chris Wallace last week, that's one of the main reasons I hadn't I figured why repeat what everyone else has said, but something else has came up over the past few days that makes me also think back to that interview. Florida Representative Republican Mark Foley was acused of sending provocative e-mails, and text messages to a 16 year old boy who used to work as a page. I have read some of these messages, and to use the word provocative is an understatement. These messages could not have been mistaken for something they were not. Now over the past few days the Democrats have accused Thomas Reynold's Republican from New York of not doing enough, So here is what I found out about what he did do. In the summer of 2005 is when the contact occurred, this past spring Rodney Reynold's R- Louisiana was contacted by the boys family, He discussed it with Reynold's ,and he told Reynold's the family did not want this pursued legally they just wanted it to stop. After Reynolds looked into it he contacted Dennis Haskert about it who's office did refer it to authorities. Also during that time it was referred to Rep, John Shimkus R- Ill who oversees the page program who then talked directly to Foley. Foley told Shimkus it was an innocent exchange,and Shimkus told him to not have any further contact with the family. Now keep in mind the family of the boy DID NOT WANT THIS PURSUED LEGALLY, and also only they,and Foley knew at the time the exact conversations that had taken place. "Congressman Reynolds inaction in the face of such a serious situation is very troubling, and raises important questions about whether there was an attempt to cover up criminal activity involving a minor to keep it from coming to light before Election Day, said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney, again the family did not want this pursued. Also there has not been one Republican who has supported Foley during this time. The only thing that maybe could have done differently is someone could have asked Foley to resign at that time, and it's possible that someone did, I don't know for sure. But I doubt he would have resigned at the time, but when ABC news confronted Foley publicly he had no choice but to resign, and don't get me wrong I'm glad ABC confronted him,and I'm glad Foley resigned, but I do wish there were criminal charges against him. That's the difference between the Republicans, and Democrats we will turn our back on someone within our party who breaks the law they won't. Maybe the Democrats will now stop bashing ABC for their film "The Path to 9-11" from last month. A film that put the Democrats into an uproar because it dared to make the hint that Bill Clinton could have done more to stop 9-11. Not Bill Clinton! He's the greatest President since John F. Kennedy, he was shining example of truth so if he says he did everything he could to capture Bin Laden then he must have, because he's honest! Damn ABC for suggesting otherwise. So before I make my next point let's look at the honesty of Bill Clinton. Let's start with the first, and most well known in march of 1992 Clinton while running for office said "When I was in England I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn't inhale and never tried it again." Did anyone ever really buy that story? he tried it a couple times, but never inhaled why the hell not just say I smoked pot a couple times in college, but I'm not proud of it. Don't give me this crap about I never inhaled. How about this one? Mine will be the most ethical administration in the history of the republic!" -- President-Elect Bill Clinton, November 1992. That makes me laugh until my stomach hurts, how's this for ethics "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" -- Bill Clinton on Monica Lewinsky. Or "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"-- Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair. I couldn't care less what Clinton got Lewinsky to do to him,and most Republicans feel the same way. What I care about is the fact that as the President of The United States of America he lied under oath in a court of law. Look at Nixon He didn'tnt authorize the Watergate break in, but when he found out about it he tried to cover it up, and when he got caught he resigned, and many republicans wanted him to, but not one democrat asked Clinton to resign after he lied under oath in a court of law. Then they tried to paint it as a witch hunt, and that he was being impeached because he had an affair. His affair had little to do with it. He wasn't being investigated for an affair it came up during the investigation, and when asked about it under oath he lied, it's really that simple. Now let's talk about Clinton's path to 9-11 The first World Trade Center bombing happened 30 days after Clinton took office, most of the individuals involved in that attack were captured, and imprissioned. The one who actually planted the explosives was Ramzi Yousef he is the nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who was considered the mastermind behind both WTC bombings. Clinton did not catch Mohammad, Bush did. It was also known that the head of Al-Qaeda was Osamma Bin Laden, and Mohammad was a top member in Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden himself was linked to attacks on U.S. interest himself as early as 1992 with the bombing of a hotel in Yemen Clinton tried to Kill Bin Laden in August of 1998, and in November of 1998 is when an indictment was issued for Bin Laden. Now here is Clinton's biggest, and most dangerous lie that he did everything he did to get Bin Laden. Clinton and the 9-11 commission both deny it, but according to both the Sudanese Government, and former U.S. Ambassador to Sudan Tim Carney the Sudanese Government offered to extradite Bin Laden to the U.S. in 1996 and that Clinton turned them down,and stated that we'll get him later on down the road. Why would the Sudanese government lie about that offer? They have no reason to, they wanted to get rid of him, and after Clinton turned down the offer they asked Bin Laden to leave their country, and he headed for Afghanistan. After getting to Afghanistan Bin Laden stepped up his attacks against U.S. interests,and in 1999 three years after the offer by Sudan Clinton tried to force Afghanistan to extradite Bin Laden. So for 8 years Clinton stumbled ,and bumbled after Bin Laden, and he doesn't have the balls to admit that he made mistakes instead he points the finger completely at the Bush administration for the 8 months prior to 9-11, but his 8 years were spent trying to get Bin Laden. Give me a break, as much as Clinton would like to change history he can't. In Clinton's interview he acted like a complete Jackass, and lied like a two dollar whore, but the Democratic party stands there, and talks about ethics. When was the last time a Democrat has stood against another member of their party who has done wrong? To be honest I can't remember when it happened. Ted Kennedy with a bottle of scotch in one hand, and a Chappaquiddick tourism guide in the other is their role model. Democratic congressmen from Louisianana William Jefferson had $90,000 in his freezer,and was video taped by the F.B.Ireceivingng $100,000 in cash, and not one Democrat has asked him to resign. All they did was strip Jefferson of his committie memberships. The F.B.I claims to have uncovered at least 8 different schemes that Jefferson was involved in. Also during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina Jefferson asked members of the National Guard to give him a tour of his area he then had them stop at his house, and he started to take personal items from his home. The National Guards then got stuck in the mud, and had to have another truck come to pull them out. The only time the democrats will turn their back on someone in their own party is when that person doesn't follow the party blindly, Joe Lieberman said we needed to stay in Iraq until the job is done, and they turned on him in a heartbeat. This was a guy who for the past eight years or so had been one of their biggest names, but he dared to go against the party, and they cut his throat in a political sense, and then had the balls to say he shouldn't run for re-election without the parties nomination. They turned their backs on him not the other way around. How dare he not follow like a sheep! So if they want to talk about ethics, and cover ups I suggest they clean up their own backyard first. The Republican party does not support criminals, and holds their party members to be responsible for their own actions,and if they screw up someone will ask them to step down, but if you're in the Democratic party as long as you follow, and vote the way you're told they will never ask you to hold yourself responsible for anything. The Angry American