So, what you are saying is that you have no qualms about invading someone's privacy and/or destroying them for political gain as long as, technically, no one finds a violation of the law?

That's interesting.

On the thread you started about "probing the White House" and Attorney General Gonzales, you have been very critical of the White House for allegedly trying to destroy the careers of certain US Attorneys even though it is perfectly legal for a President to fire those attorneys for political purposes. You have referred to it as "Improper," a "Gross abuse of power" and

In fact, you explicitly stated that just because something was legal, didn't mean you found it ethical

Quote:

it looks apparent that Bush was having Gonzales use the Justice Department as a tool for the GOP. Legal perhaps but ethical? Nope



Interestingly enough, I agreed with you on most of that. I agreed that Gonzales should go and agreed that Bush was wrong here on several grounds.

However, as soon as a similar situation arises with a Democrat, you flip flop. You suddenly argue that, as long as it was legal, it was okay to attack an innocent person for political gain.

That's a pretty glaring inconsistency on your part.