Libby indicted

Amen to that! :wink:

0 Replies

It's okay Finn - we also rely on the rule of law and we adhere to the separation of powers - well so far anyway, our current federal government is doing its best to trample on both and our PM is afflicted by a very severe case of hubrism I think he feels a bit Imperial actually.

We too inherited English common law and legal precepts such as trial by jury, habeas corpus (please see my earlier remarks about the behaviour of the incumbent federal government though), presumption of innocence and all the other hallmarks of the great legal system. So, be assured, the US isn't alone.

And you know sitting up there snuggled against you on the 49th parallel is another great democracy - Canada. And don't forget New Zealand, the little buggers have a fine democracy over there still. Oh and the UK is hanging on to it for dear life (some might say it has strengthened its democracy by becoming part of Europe). And of course the Europeans too, can't leave them out. They may have inherited Roman law but they know about democratic ideals.

I don't know about you Finn but I feel better now.

Look, all of us have got skeletons in the closet when it comes to politics. You had the Senator from Minnesota but heck one of past Prime Ministers even tried to band the Communist Party. But what you do have over us and which I am entirely peeved about is a Constitution that is your own and which is of inestimable value and a Bill of Rights built into your constitution (thank you Debra_Law for my continuing education) which I am bloody bright green with envy over. Any greener I'd be a dollar bill (exept I don't look much like George Washington).

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:
Want to know the difference between Libby and Clinton?

Didn't you forget the biggest difference? Clinton was the President of the United States when he lied under oath.

a lie is a lie is a lie.

0 Replies

well, I heard Rush begin the "GOP spin dry cycle" yesterday by bringing up the fact that Clinton was president at the time, so Im really not surprised that this is burned into the dittohead cortex as a suitable response.

0 Replies

Moral relativism...it's destroying the ability of young people (tico) to think.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Didn't you forget the biggest difference? Clinton was the President of the United States when he lied under oath.

I don't see where that is a particularly big difference at all, in this context.

The questions Fitzgerald asks have completely to do with the stated purpose of his investigation-the Plame affair.

Starr's investigation turned out to be about Clinton's sex life, which had nothing to do with what he was hired to investigate.

Tell me Tico, what is YOUR version of the significance of the fact that immediately after Starr's investigation ended, the Republican controlled House got rid of the special prosecutor law so that nothing remotely like Starr's investigation can ever happen again?

0 Replies

roverroad wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

As opposed to the Grand Liberal Regime of the Clinton years?

I miss those years. We had it so good then. Hillary in 2008!

Hillary is an enthusiastic supporter of the WOT and the war in Iraq. Many on the left believe she helped Dubya lure America into the quagmire that is Iraq (just mosey over to dailykos.com or DU if you need proof) Smile

0 Replies

It would seem that the republican fallback position to justify all the wrongdoing and blunders of this administration is Clinton. Let me remind you that Clinton is no longer the president the clown prince is. And he is solely responsible for his and his administrations lies, and blunders.
He came to office with a vow to clean up the moral deficiencies in government and all his administration has done is magnify them.
His is a true definition of a failed presidency

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
kelticwizard wrote:
Want to know the difference between Libby and Clinton?

Didn't you forget the biggest difference? Clinton was the President of the United States when he lied under oath.

a lie is a lie is a lie.

The statement below is alie
The statement above is the truth

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Moral relativism...it's destroying the ability of young people (tico) to think.

Wrong. If Libby lied, it is just as wrong an act as when Clinton lied. But Clinton was the President of the US at the time, and the fact of his lying sent a bigger message to the young people of our country than the message sent if it turns out that Libby lied.

BTW: If Libby did in fact lie, he deserves what he gets.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

It would seem that the republican fallback position to justify all the wrongdoing and blunders of this administration is Clinton.

I continue to remind you folks about Clinton in order to provide perspective, and to point out your hypocrisy.

0 Replies

The show is on the other foot in this case. It's as obvious as the foot in your mouth.

0 Replies

Tico
Why not make an attempt to defend the present administration, which you are enamored with, instead of falling back on the BS look at Clinton. Clinton is now a private citizen while the clown prince is now president and must answer for his own mistakes and fumbles.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Wrong. If Libby lied, it is just as wrong an act as when Clinton lied. But Clinton was the President of the US at the time, and the fact of his lying sent a bigger message to the young people of our country than the message sent if it turns out that Libby lied.

What's worse an example to the young: a really important person who lied about something small, or a less important person who lied about something big?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Wrong. If Libby lied, it is just as wrong an act as when Clinton lied. But Clinton was the President of the US at the time, and the fact of his lying sent a bigger message to the young people of our country than the message sent if it turns out that Libby lied.

What's worse an example to the young: a really important person who lied about something small, or a less important person who lied about something big?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I continue to remind you folks about Clinton in order to provide perspective, and to point out your hypocrisy.

And I continue to remind folks that Clinton lied about personal questions that had nothing to do with what Starr was charged with investigating.

Starr was charged with investigating a land deal, he turned it into an investigation of Clinton's sex life.

Clinton never should have been asked those questions in the first place.

That is why Clinton gets forgiven. It is also why Starr's own Republicans in Congress got rid of the special prosecutor law as soon as his cockamamie "investigation" was over. They wanted to make sure that nothing-nothing-like a Starr investigaton can ever happen again.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Wrong. If Libby lied, it is just as wrong an act as when Clinton lied. But Clinton was the President of the US at the time, and the fact of his lying sent a bigger message to the young people of our country than the message sent if it turns out that Libby lied.

What's worse an example to the young: a really important person who lied about something small, or a less important person who lied about something big?

Now THAT appears to be moral relativism bernie was talking about. It doesn't matter whether the lie is big or small -- a lie is a lie is a lie <nods to BVT>.

What is more important is the position occupied by the liar. I submit that Clinton lying under oath about whether a fly landed on his nose is more impactful than a US Congressman lying about receiving illegal kickbacks.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
I continue to remind you folks about Clinton in order to provide perspective, and to point out your hypocrisy.

And I continue to remind folks that Clinton lied about personal questions that had nothing to do with what Starr was charged with investigating.

Starr was charged with investigating a land deal, he turned it into an investigation of Clinton's sex life.

Clinton never should have been asked those questions in the first place.

That is why Clinton gets forgiven. It is also why Starr's own Republicans in Congress got rid of the special prosecutor law as soon as his cockamamie "investigation" was over. They wanted to make sure that nothing-nothing-like a Starr investigaton can ever happen again.

Clinton lied in his deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harrassment lawsuit.

Why do you forgive him for those lies?

0 Replies

Tico
So Clinton lied about having sex. Does that in any way mitigate the lies and misdeeds of this administration? Again can you defend Bush and his cronies without saying look what Clinton did?
Could one defend Hitler by saying look what Stalin did. Of course not each had his own culpability.

0 Replies

Well, while we're on the subject of lying liars.....

LET THEM EAT YELLOWCAKEIt was once said that history is a lie agreed upon. Joe Wilson has told enough lies. He doesn't need any help from the media.

0 Replies

Libby indicted

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know