4 ms·

Not surprising at all. Expected actually.

• bluedanieru 15y ago
  That's what's so frustrating about this sort of thing, the perception that you have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before you build up anything approaching ire. This isn't a courtroom, and if you have enough circumstantial evidence that you're 60% sure something shady is going on there is nothing wrong with judging public policy on that basis. Brings to mind the Valerie Plame scandal. We may not know for 20 years what happened and who exactly was involved, but in the meantime the administration at the very least gave the appearance of serious criminal behavior up to the level of the Vice-President and the President, and that's enough. Yet you have people who want proof beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e. a conviction, before they'll even say "Cheney might have been a bad VP".
  • Andrew_Quentin 15y ago
    Who are these people who want proof beyond reasonable doubt? We really did have much of that proof at the time. Millions marched. Sometimes however democracy does not work.
    • nickolai 15y ago
      Marching isn't democracy - it is an attempt to overrule the current regime(be it a democracy or a dictatorship) through mob rule. Democracy is about voting the right people into the right positions.
      • wladimir 15y ago
        It is the most direct form of democracy -- literally rule by the people. Voting for representation is indirect democracy.
      • bluedanieru 15y ago
        Are you sure you're not thinking of rioting?