For example. George Will's column cited on CE. Came to exactly the same conclusion I have regarding the culpability of the political folks.

And, his column is pure opinion, too.

But, this time anyway, he was not willing to disregard the mass of independent information to buy into the thinnest of excuses.

Are we both using reason to evaluate the information, in spite of our previous prejudices, and coming to a R & P conclusion, or is one or both of us grinding axes in spite of the accumulating evidence?

Is it R & P to believe, for instance, that Clinton's lies were heinous, and Bushes harmless, or not lies?

I think the reasonable and prudent person would have to regard parties as liars, and unworthy of trust. I do not believe it is R & P to simply regard one or the other as a liar, and a truly reasonable and prudent person couldn't and wouldn't do that.

Anyway, your thoughts are well taken, and that post was on the Flame Board because it was clearly opinion, and controversial opinion at that.

Arf