Originally Posted By jonvn "What is it with this predilection lately of bringing up someone else's transgressions as a way of excusing other things?" Yep. It just is ridiculous. When Clinton was in trouble, did people go around talking about Nixon like this? It's actually pretty sad that people can't figure out they are being lied to about a WAR and how it has ruined the lives of thousands of soldiers and their families.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Not to mention tens or hundreds of thousands of iraqis who never asked for any of this.
Originally Posted By DlandJB Lying under oath is despicable. The consequences of the lie may have far different outcomes but that doesn't make the lie unequally weighted. It degrades our democracy when someone operating within the area of public trust vows or affirms to tell the truth and then lies. It doesn't matter why. It's like being "a little bit pregnant" isn't possible. And, just for the record - I voted twice for Clinton and not at all for Bush.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Would it make things better around here if we all agree Clinton shouldn't have lied and the same goes for Libby? But this thread is about Libby, or so I thought.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>And those two things - sex and war - equate with you?<< No, lying equates with lying. That's all.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Wow, it took only 11 posts to bring up Clinton...<< Actually, it took only nine before one of the Usual Suspects on the left brought him up (>>But they'll still wag a finger at clinton over a sex scandal.<<). >>What is it with this predilection lately of bringing up someone else's transgressions as a way of excusing other things?<< It is weird, isn't it? Almost as odd as parsing which lies to the Grand Jury are more lie-like. >>Libby purposely tried to obfuscate the facts as he knew them in order to impede the investigation.<< Which was pretty much what Clinton did, as well. (He also encouraged others to lie and file false afidavits.) The difference is Libby was convicted, and I don't see anyone here trying to make a case that what he did was somehow alright.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>"...we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."<< Noted.
Originally Posted By ElKay "It is weird, isn't it? Almost as odd as parsing which lies to the Grand Jury are more lie-like." OK, I'll bite, Dougie. Let's then both agree to lobby the Admin. to authorized a special investagator in determining whether or not the White House plotted to "swiftboat" a government critic in order to hide false arguments to go to war. If Scooter honestly believes he was a scapegoat for Karl Rove, then I'll bet he'd testify in a New York minute. It appears that Scooter was just carrying out the bidding of his boss, so I think one of the first officials to be brought before a Grand Jury would be Cheney, himself.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >>Wow, it took only 11 posts to bring up Clinton...<< Actually, it took only nine before one of the Usual Suspects on the left brought him up (>>But they'll still wag a finger at clinton over a sex scandal.<<). >>What is it with this predilection lately of bringing up someone else's transgressions as a way of excusing other things?<< It is weird, isn't it? Almost as odd as parsing which lies to the Grand Jury are more lie-like. >>Libby purposely tried to obfuscate the facts as he knew them in order to impede the investigation.<< Which was pretty much what Clinton did, as well. (He also encouraged others to lie and file false afidavits.) The difference is Libby was convicted, and I don't see anyone here trying to make a case that what he did was somehow alright.< Well, no thanks for the non-responsive answers. Again, what does Clinton have to do with Libby's convictions? Answer: Nothing.
Originally Posted By ElKay "Which was pretty much what Clinton did, as well. (He also encouraged others to lie and file false afidavits.) The difference is Libby was convicted, and I don't see anyone here trying to make a case that what he did was somehow alright." If that was so, then why isn't every GOP who voted to impeach Clinton, not elbowing to the floor of both houses with articles of impeachment against either Cheney by himself or together with Bush? The obvious reason is Clinton was a threat to the nation because he was a Democrat and patriotic GOP members were threatened by a tawdry trist. While wasting hundreds of billions of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and thousands of American dead and wounded on countless lies in the "court of public opinion" is nothing to loose sleep over, unless it's around a tough election fight. If the Admin. was so willing to out a vital CIA analyst in the area of nuclear proliferation in these critiical times, just to blunt the truthful correction of their own fabrications for war, then there is potentially no level this Admin. would stoop to lie to the country.
Originally Posted By jonvn I do like how this is now about clinton, and the fact that a major player in this current admin being convicted is being subtlely swept aside. Stop playing into these people's hands and stop talking about clinton. It is not about him.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I do like how this is now about clinton, and the fact that a major player in this current admin being convicted is being subtlely swept aside. Stop playing into these people's hands and stop talking about clinton. It is not about him." Considering Libby was convicted of essentially obfuscation, there is a perfect irony to it when you think about it. There's already noise about Libby seeking a pardon. If Bush does that, he might as well make plans to live out of the country.
Originally Posted By jonvn He's already disgraced. What's one more? I figure him to pardon the guy. I heard someplace that the only reason we're not bothering with impeachment hearings is that he'll be out of office by the time they come to fruition anyway. I think they'd be worth going through at this point in any case.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Again, what does Clinton have to do with Libby's convictions? Answer: Nothing.<< I would be inclined to agree, which is why I didn't bring it up in the first place.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>OK, I'll bite, Dougie.<< Again, it's really not necessary to call someone names when you're trying to make a valid point. >>If that was so, then why isn't every GOP who voted to impeach Clinton, not elbowing to the floor of both houses with articles of impeachment against either Cheney by himself or together with Bush?<< That's rather obvious. Neither of them has been convicted of lying under oath. >>If the Admin. was so willing to out a vital CIA analyst in the area of nuclear proliferation in these critiical times, just to blunt the truthful correction of their own fabrications for war, then there is potentially no level this Admin. would stoop to lie to the country.<< Just as there are no limits to the heights of hyperbole some will scale in a desperate effort to make this anymore than what it is: a conviction for lying to a Grand Jury.
Originally Posted By jonvn No. Again, he was convicted of: obstruction of justice when he intentionally deceived a grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame; making a false statement by intentionally lying to FBI agents about a conversation with NBC newsman Tim Russert; perjury when he lied in court about his conversation with Russert; a second count of perjury when he lied in court about conversations with other reporters
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> There's already noise about Libby seeking a pardon. If Bush does that, he might as well make plans to live out of the country. << He already lives in texas - that's good enough for me.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/06/cia.leak/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/03/06/cia.leak/index.html</a> Libby's lawyer is going to make what amounts to a routie motion for a new trial. Cheney also has expressed "disappointment" about the guilty verdict. As well he should. His boy shouldn't have lied.
Originally Posted By alexbook If I were wearing a hat, I'd take it off right now to Murray Waas and Philip Turner of Union Square Press: >>'Instant book' on Libby trial planned NEW YORK, March 6 (UPI) -- A New York publisher will put out a book on the I. Lewis Libby trial, the publisher said shortly after the former White House aide's guilty verdict Tuesday. Union Square Press plans at least 75,000 paperback copies of "The United States v. I. Lewis Libby" in bookstores next month, Editorial Director Philip Turner said. The book will consist of court transcripts and original reporting by Murray Waas, who covered the trial for the weekly political magazine National Journal.<< ----- If I'm reading the press releases correctly, the book was announced within minutes of the verdict. The audacity of hope pales in comparison to the audacity of publishers. <a href="http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Business/instant_book_on_libby_trial_planned/20070306-051636-3748r/" target="_blank">http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/B usiness/instant_book_on_libby_trial_planned/20070306-051636-3748r/</a> <a href="http://sterlingpub.com/file_download/31" target="_blank">http://sterlingpub.com/file_do wnload/31</a>
