Kay Bailey's Short-Term Memory

I know I'm not even close to the first person to bring this up, but...



Kay Bailey Hutchinson on her vote to remove then-president Bill Clinton from office for perjury, February 12, 1999:

"The reason that I voted to remove him from office is because I think the overridding issue here is that truth will remain the standard for perjury and obstruction of justice in our criminal justice system and it must not be gray. It must not be muddy."

Bill Clinton was a Democrat.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson on the Valerie Plame case, which may bring indictments for Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby for perjury, October 23, 2005:

"[I hope] that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."

Karl Rove is a Republican. "Scooter" Libby is a Republican.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson is a Republican. Has she gone through a fundamental change in her interpretation of the law? Why was the "technicality" argument okay in 1999, but not now? Has she experienced some sort of post-Millennial epiphany about the nature of United States law? Knowing what she knows now, would she change her vote from the Clinton hearings? Call her up at 202-224-5922 and ask her. Or contact one of her many offices.

Have all of you who voted for Bush a year ago gotten what you wanted? Knowing what you know now, would you change your vote? Did you really think things were gonna get better with this think-tank running the show?

Go Fitz go!