Are you a moron? Where did I say I supported the article. I was commenting on your INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY. If you did not have such a myopic view of politics (or life in general), then you would not have jumped to that conclusion. If the article referred to a republican, you would have made a comment denouncing republicans. How's that for honesty?
Actually, no. I would have waited before commenting. For example, when Bush decided to invade Iraq on the basis of intelligence regarding WMD, I was for the idea. Without additional information, I had given him the benefit of the doubt. It was only in the fullness of time when it became plain that he had cherry-picked intel, effectively to the point of fabrication, that he well and truly lost me. I admit I did not want him to get elected, and wondered if you Americans had lost your collective minds when you voted for him. But, let me repeat, I did not dismiss his BS about WMD until there was cause to do so. And so, against this background, if Hillary Clinton did anything truly unethical and it comes incontrovertibly to light, then I will be as outraged as any of you. But not until then.
Concerns regarding the Clinton conflicts of interest are bipartisan. By default, then, the pro-forma hearing's hardest moments became the nominee's colloquies with Senator Richard Lugar over the status of Bill Clinton's foundation. We discussed in this space yesterday the complications Mr. Clinton's donor list could create for the conduct of an Obama foreign policy. Senator Lugar pressed the disclosure point at the hearing, even proposing a detailed plan for handling future donations to the foundation. "The core of the problem," said Senator Lugar, "is that foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the Secretary of State." Pointedly, Senator John Kerry, the committee chair, leaned in to let Senator Clinton know that Mr. Lugar was "expressing the view of the committee as a whole." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123189590720679675.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
I find it troubling. It's not like there isn't already a documented record of Hillary running errands for big contributors to the Clinton Foundation. And of course, the entire Clinton administration was a non-stop sewage pool of corruption, ending with the apparent selling of pardons for notorious fugitives and even terrorists, done with the assistance of the same Eric Holder who is the nominee for Attorney General. Richardson was already forced to withdraw over corruption issues. Geithner has tax and immigration issues, How did any of them pass vetting? Who did the vetting, Caroline Kennedy? Is this the change, the hope and audacity Obama supporters were sold?