I contend that there is a big difference between someone who chooses

get high, and someone who gets hooked following surdery.

So, choosing a glass of wine, a legal drug, with dinner, and choosing
a ciggy, a legal drug, after sex, are different from choosing to take
a substance controlled by a physician to alleviate pain is different
in what way?

I seem to remeber Clinton doing his part to
wage the stupid "War on Drugs." No hypocrisy there, right?

I warrant that such hypocrisy was based on the political reality

the majority of the voting public still supports this War on

Drugs for some insane reason. The fact that he continued the

to me, just demonstrated yet once more his lack of political

to stick his neck out, lest he lose pollitical power.

So hypocrisy in the execise of Pres power is A-OK.

As so many have said, I wrote no such thing. Not even close. I
called him a political coward. No doubt his actual views on drugs
are/were a tad mroe forgiving than his predecessor's (you know, George
I, who made a huge cause of the War On (some) Drugs). He likely saw
how popular to the m(asses) this "war" was and kept his views to
himself. He was hypocritical, all right, no question. But he was
half the blowhard about drug use that Rush has been, and is therefore
less fat (pardon the pun) a target.

Keep on making excuses for him, we never tire of hearing them.

I'm waiting for person one to actually make an excuse for him. I
HATED his drug policy as much as I did Bush, Sr.'s and Bush, Jr.'s. I
laughed along with everyone at his line about not inhaling... though
part of me believes him. What else would one who wants to get along
with the "cool" crowd do, if he doesn't want to actually get high?
He's just craven enoug to make such a half-step to stay with the right
crowd. I know *I* was tempted to fake it when my friends were passing
around a joint at a concert. But instead, I just passed. A similar
thing happened when asked about his affair. It was easier then to lie
(leading him to be caught) than to just say "I will not answer that."

WTF is it with you guys? Offering an explanation is not "making
excuses"! Do you think people do things for no reason? Glen
acknowledged Clinton's hypocrisy in this respect, and called him a
political coward, and you accuse him of making excuses! Did you read
this, or did your dittohead autopilot just see [liberal + explanation
= excuses] for a demonized liberal politician?

Look, frog, he admitted that Clinton was a hypocrite, but didn't explain

Rush should be the drug poster-boy rather than another who earned the

I sure did, uh, 'dog.' For one, the Rush story is news to most of the
public. Clinton is old, old hat, except for those who still have
conniption fits, their guy being in the White House nonetheless. Bet
you and your buddies still laugh at those tired, stale
semen-stained-dress jokes, don't you? Doesn't it just kill you that
eight years of a president you just love to hate are all you get,
especially since it's *your* bumbling chimp in the hot seat now.

For another, Rush is a bigger and badder blowhard who hurls out slabs
of judgement in loud, certain, simple, and unwavering tones like
bloody meat for his rabid, whooping dog pound. As a mainstream (and
not particularly liberal) politician, Clinton could not stray far from
a moderate tone. I dare you to find aa single quote about drug users
from Clinton that's half as judgmental as Rush's.

Considering only *these* differences, who makes for a better target?