Sure, it's all up in the air until the trial. But there does seem to be at least some evidence that Libby did in fact dissemble; reports to date relating to his possible defense seem to revolve around his poor memory and greymail, more than any actual evidence that he didn't lie or that the timeline was different than described.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:And do you honestly believe if Bush had an equivalent Monica Lewinsky, would the man last a month in office? I seriously doubt it.
As do I. But this has more to do with the 'moral high ground' claimed by Bush than anything else. That and the fact that his own party would be forced to turn against him.
Cycloptichorn
Thanks for the admission, cyclops. You are correct, Republicans place value in morality, so when one of their own stray from the standard, their own party turns against them. Strangely, the Democratic Party does not seem to place much value in personal morality, unless of course someone in the opposing party screws up so they can make political hay out of it. But scandals by Democrats do not seem to phase the party a bit. I've noticed this for years. Rape charges, illegal campaign contributions, personal scandals, you name it, it has to be so blatant that public pressure makes the party put pressure on the official to resign a postion or something, but the pressure to do this does not seem to be self imposed at all, as they do not seem to care. This is one of the big reasons I've lost all respect for the party. Corruption, yes it is in both parties, but Democrats protect their own almost at all cost if at all possible, but Republicans eat their own. Thank you Republicans for at least having a conscience.
As a side note, Democrats morality is measured by how much of our money they can collect in taxes to give away to the poor, to the children, blah, blah, blah. It is public morality that is morality to them. Private morality does not matter a whit.
Here is what Clinton said in an interview on ABC.
CLINTON: Because we had $100 million spent against us and all these inspections. One person in my administration was convicted of doing something that violated his job responsibilities while we were in the White House. Twenty-nine in the Reagan/Bush years. I'll bet those historians didn't even know that. They have no idea what I was subject to and what a lot of people supported. No other President ever had to endure someone like Ken Starr indicting innocent people because they wouldn't lie, in a systematic way. No one ever had to try to save people from ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and the people in Haiti from a military dictator who was murdering them. And all of the other problems I dealt with, while everyday, an entire apparatus was devoted to destroying him. And still, not any example of where I ever disgraced this country, publicly. I made a terrible public/personal mistake. But I paid for it. Many times over. And in spite of it all, you don't have any example where I ever lied to the American people about my job, where I ever let the American people down. And I had more support from the world, and world leaders and people around the world, when I quit than when I started. And I will go to my grave being at peace about it. And I don't really care what they think.
The convictions had no relationship to Clinton's activities. Clinton was convicted of nothing.
For Fox to say that morality is the big thing with the Republicans fails to meet the straight-face test. Let's look at DeLay, Hastert, Blunt, et al., who have enriched themselves in ways related to their jobs. Look at Bush's many lies leading us into a war. The silence of the Republicans is deafening.
For anyone to say partisan political wrangling - which, BTW, effectively is the greatest part of the sum and substance of politics as they are practiced - is anything other than pot-kettle-black back-and-forthing is, at the very most charitable, disingenuous.
So is this where this pathetic investigation ended up!
http://levin.nationalreview.com/
To summarize, Richard Armitage was the original leaker, and Fitzgerald knew this almost from the very start, but tried in vain to nab people like Karl Rove and Libby for something he surely knew they did not do. Fitzgerald ought to be asked some very tough questions, and if this was turned around the other way, the press would be asking those tough questions, but because it did not turn out the way they wanted, they don't care. I predicted this almost from the very start, as did many other people. A pathetic investigation over absolutely nothing..
Okay libs, where are you and your stupid predictions about the indictments that would happen any day, any hour? This investigation was a total waste of time and money about nothing.
Armitrage was possibly the first to release information on Plame to the media (Woodward), but Rove and others were the first to release the information to other reporters. Moreover, they, not Armitrage, were the ones out to punish Wilson for telling the truth about yellow cake.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608290009?src=other
Okie, your attack on the Dems regarding personal immorality is a joke. How can you say this in light of the personal behavior of Gingrich, Livingston, Cunningham, Burton, Hyde, et al., all Republicans. You have no hesitation on winging it to make your point. That makes a mockery of any decent debate.
Advocate, you conveniently forget that Rove did not set out to damage Wilson. He was called, not the other way around, as I recall, and Plame was mentioned by Woodward first, not Rove, and Rove simply said, yes I heard that too, or some such answer, and he did not mention Plame by name. Advocate, this whole thing has been spun to make it look like Rove engineered some kind of an orchestrated program to get Wilson, and I think the facts are clearly showing that is total hogwash. In fact, read the article I posted and it looks more like Chuckee Schumer, Wilson, and others were involved in some kind of a program to get members of the administration they don't like. When you hang your hopes on the likes of Joe Wilson, Advocate, it never was going to work out for you.
I never defended Cunningham, and neither did the Republicans. As for Burton, Hyde, and Gingrich, tell me their crimes. I heard Gingrich told his wife in the hospital he was divorcing her. Hey, does not sound too nice, I am not defending that, but at least he didn't run his wife off a bridge and let her drown. I don't know who Livingston is. The whole point is that Republicans turn on their own when they see that crimes clearly have been committed by their own. Democrats do not do that so quickly, and in fact they defend them to the bitter end. How many legitimate rape charges would Bush survive? Answer = probably none. How many did Clinton survive, and how many apologists did he have? Answer = the whole Democratic Party, except maybe of the senators, one, guess who, Joe Lieberman, the man they are dumping overboard right now.
Quote:Advocate, you conveniently forget that Rove did not set out to damage Wilson.
You don't know that this is true, other than Rove's word.
The entire reason Fitz continued on with the case this long is to establish whether or not orders to put a hit on Wilson came from the top. It still remains to be seen whether or not he will do so.
Cycloptichorn
All speculation and wants by Democrats, no evidence. What is it now, 2 or 3 years for this investigation? Enough is enough.
Read this carefully cyclops:
http://levin.nationalreview.com/
I read it the first time you posted it.
Levin's (and your) indignation doesn't change the facts at all.
The whole reason that Rove et al were in trouble is because they changed their testimony about what happened in different interviews. They lied at some point. That's the sort of sh*t that will get a prosecutor on your ass.
Don't report Rove's assertions as if they were facts, because they have not been established as such as of yet.
Cycloptichorn
Cheney made notations in a newspaper reporting Wilson's charges to the effect that action should be taken against Wilson. Rove and the others took it from there.
Okie, Livingston is the guy who succeeded Gingrich as Speaker, and who resigned when it came out that he was a serial user of prostitutes.
Good riddance then to Livingston. Advocate, my belief is that moral principles should come before party, thats all, and it frustrates me when this is not practiced by both parties. Both parties have crooks, and when the crooks are found out, they should be booted by both parties.
In my mind, Hillary is a proven crook for taking kickbacks, one good example being $100,000 for a $1,000 investment. Yes it was a few years ago, but politicians, specifically Democrats don't care. My question is, why? So here we are with her the front running Democrat for 2008. I think we should expect better than that. I personally do not trust her any further than I can throw her, and that is not far at all. Surely there are some honest Democrats somewhere. If a Republican is a crook, they should be booted as well, and they have been.
The standard should be right and wrong, not good and bad, whereas if my party does it, its good, and if your party does it, its bad. Somehow, we need to go back to a higher standard, but I don't see it happening.
What Hillary did is nothing compared to what was done by about half the Republicans in office. Where is your outrage about Abramoff's bribes to so many Republicans, who sold out the American public? I imagine that we will hear a lot more about this.
You should also be outraged by the Republican swift-boating of many decent people, some wounded combat vets.
Advocate wrote:What Hillary did is nothing compared to what was done by about half the Republicans in office. Where is your outrage about Abramoff's bribes to so many Republicans, who sold out the American public? I imagine that we will hear a lot more about this.
You should also be outraged by the Republican swift-boating of many decent people, some wounded combat vets.
Advocate, you must have a poor understanding of the Abramoff scandal. Personal bribes, as Hillary apparently received, are totally different than campaign contributions, which are totally legal. Also, you ignore the campaign contributions to Democrats and Republicans alike and seem to not include Democrats. For example, Harry Reid has been involved in some very shady looking deals connected to legislation. To make a campaign contribution illegal, a quid pro quo situation needs to be demonstrated. The problem arises because legislators tend to vote for what they believe, and the organizations that agree with them tend to donate to their campaigns. This can be spun as a kickback, when in reality it may not be. You need to demonstrate a meeting of the parties involved where a congressman verbally agrees to vote for something in return for something, such as a campaign contribution. You need to prove a definite quid quo pro has occurred for any crime to be substantiated. Campaign contributions are totally legal, and in fact necessary for people to fund their campaigns.
okie wrote:Good riddance then to Livingston. Advocate, my belief is that moral principles should come before party, thats all, and it frustrates me when this is not practiced by both parties. Both parties have crooks, and when the crooks are found out, they should be booted by both parties.
In my mind, Hillary is a proven crook for taking kickbacks, one good example being $100,000 for a $1,000 investment. Yes it was a few years ago, but politicians, specifically Democrats don't care. My question is, why? So here we are with her the front running Democrat for 2008. I think we should expect better than that. I personally do not trust her any further than I can throw her, and that is not far at all. Surely there are some honest Democrats somewhere. If a Republican is a crook, they should be booted as well, and they have been.
The standard should be right and wrong, not good and bad, whereas if my party does it, its good, and if your party does it, its bad. Somehow, we need to go back to a higher standard, but I don't see it happening.
Now, you see, I would never support Hillary as a candidate. I will fight tooth and nail to see it from happening, and if she won the candidacy, I wouldn't vote for her (I might even vote for a McCain or Gulliani over her!).
Quote:
Advocate, you must have a poor understanding of the Abramoff scandal.... etc
Um, I think you may want to wait before you claim that there wasn't a whole lot of quid pro quo going on, as well as
illegal campaign finance contributions (there are both legal and illegal ones, yaknow).
Cycloptichorn
Yeah
- what can I say? Gotta learn to use Preview - been sayin' that for years
Okie, to follow your logic, what Hillary did with options was perfectly acceptable because she has not been even charged with anything.
What you are saying about lobbyists payments doesn't meet the straight-face test. I think you know damn well the payments are for future support. Moreover, DeLay and others essentially demanded payments for votes and other support for lobbyists' clients.
