Libby indicted

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

Why do you forgive him for those lies?

nimh wrote:

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.

Ticomaya wrote:

nimh wrote:

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>.

Huh? YOU were the one who started the "one lie is different from another" tack: "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".

Ticomaya wrote:

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.

A) Both were accused of perjury, right? So much for the difference in "the position occupied by the liar".

...

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.

From the New York Times editorial on the indictment 10/29/30


As for Mr. Libby's case, the charges suggest that White House officials did, in fact, use Mrs. Wilson's classified C.I.A. job as a weapon against a critic of administration policy - to smear his reputation or to warn off other dissenters. A jury will determine whether Mr. Libby broke the law as a result of that campaign. But it seems clear that he and other officials violated the public trust.
And as absorbing as this criminal investigation has been, the big point Americans need to keep in mind is this: There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/29/opinion/29sat1.html?hp

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.

We conclude that it is very odd indeed that the Government asserts that it was not relying on the evidence which has since been shown to have been forged, but that eight months later it is still reviewing the other evidence.

We recommend that the Government explain on what evidence it relied for its judgment in September 2002 that Iraq had recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. We further recommend that in its response to this Report the Government set out whether it still considers the September dossier to be accurate in what it states about Iraq's attempts to procure uranium from Africa, in the light of subsequent events.

We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

was well-founded.

. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.

Ticomaya wrote:

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.

I had a good laugh at this one Tico. It is worse for Dem president to lie about an ordinary event than it is for a GOPer to lie about a crime. Thanks for clarifying for us.

Acquiunk wrote:

From the New York Times editorial on the indictment 10/29/30


As for Mr. Libby's case, the charges suggest that White House officials did, in fact, use Mrs. Wilson's classified C.I.A. job as a weapon against a critic of administration policy - to smear his reputation or to warn off other dissenters. A jury will determine whether Mr. Libby broke the law as a result of that campaign. But it seems clear that he and other officials violated the public trust.
And as absorbing as this criminal investigation has been, the big point Americans need to keep in mind is this: There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/29/opinion/29sat1.html?hp

Yep, whether there was intimidation and revenge in order to attempt to silence those outing administration lies about "justification" for war is the nubbin, and all the deflection broken wing hooha piping and fluttering of Tico et al does not deter anyone with any sense or integrity from focusing on that as the important issue.

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

Why do you forgive him for those lies?

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

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.

I had a good laugh at this one Tico. It is worse for Dem president to lie about an ordinary event than it is for a GOPer to lie about a crime. Thanks for clarifying for us.

Actually, I could have made the post you quoted completely generic, and instead of saying Clinton, said "the President." I'm not making a distinction between Democrats or Republicans.

Even more important, Vice President Dick Cheney owes the nation an explanation. According to the indictment, he learned from the C.I.A. that Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the agency and told Mr. Libby that on about June 12, 2003. Why?

. . . Mr. Libby is now accused in effect of lying to protect Mr. Cheney. According to the indictment, Mr. Libby insisted under oath that he had heard about Mrs. Wilson from reporters, when he had actually heard about her from his boss. You can't help wondering if this alleged perjury was purely his own idea and whether Mr. Cheney was aware of it.

Since Mr. Libby is joined at the hip to Mr. Cheney, it's reasonable to ask: What did Mr. Cheney know and when did he know it? Did the vice president have any grasp of the criminal behavior allegedly happening in his office? We shouldn't assume the worst, but Mr. Cheney needs to give us a full account.

Instead, Mr. Cheney said in a written statement: "Because this is a pending legal proceeding, in fairness to all those involved, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the charges or on any facts relating to the proceeding."

Balderdash. If Mr. Cheney can't address the questions about his conduct, if he can't be forthcoming about the activities in his office that gave rise to the investigation, then he should resign. And if he won't resign, Mr. Bush should demand his resignation.

JOHN GIBSON: How bad is this damage? And what does the president need to control it, Dick?

DICK MORRIS: Well, it depends on whether we are just talking about Libby. If the prosecutor is happy with an indictment of him, a conviction, and that scalp on the wall is sufficient for him, then it just goes away. It's one bad chapter and it passes.

But it is very possible that the prosecutor looks up the food chain to Vice President Cheney. These investigations have a way of rising. And according to the terms of the indictment, Cheney told Libby about Valerie Plame and then Libby lied to the grand jury about how he found about it, saying that he got it from a reporter. Well, if that's the case, the vice president knew that Libby was lying.

And it wasn't like his grand jury was secret. It was all over the place, you could read it in any newspaper. So my question is, why didn't the vice president say anything? Why didn't he speak up? And when you're out there committing perjury and your boss is silent, and your boss knows that you're doing that, it's [the silence is] a subtle signal from your boss to say, "I appreciate it."

As it stands now, Fitzgerald has Libby on 30 years worth of counts and he's got him cold. No wiggle room. Libby may not do 30 years, but he ain't doing 6 months. Scooter's screwed. It was the Vice President's boon companion himself, David Gergen, who said on MSNBC today that this is squeeze time. John Dean reiterated it later on. It really matters little to a man of 55 whether he is looking at 30 years or 60 -- he'd rather have 60 thrown at him if some of them were shaky and he thought he could use the wobbly ones to get out of the rest.

There is no wobble in the indictments handed down today. It's pretty clear. Libby can cut a deal with Fitzgerald or swing.

Which brings us to David Radler. Who is David Radler? David Radler was the number two man at Hollinger International. The day after he was indicted by the US Attorney for Northern Illinois Patrick J. Fitzgerald for liberating large sums of cash from the stockholders of Hollinger, he announced he'd rather "cooperate with investigators" (read: rat out his boss, Conrad Black) than spend the rest of his life perfecting the ultimate starch job in the prison laundry. Radler decided he would take door number three and do twenty-nine unpleasant months and pay a fine when the prospect of life in prison became a reality.

That's just the way Patrick Fitzgerald works. If the Hollinger case, and the Ryan case, and the Daley Case, and the Al Quaeda case and the Gambino case are any indication, Fitzgerald will now use what he's got to get more.

So if I were Dick Cheney, I wouldn't be sleeping very easy tonight. At the very best, his chief of staff was just popped for lying to protect him, and he can now look forward to being questioned in open court. Do you think Andrea Mitchell could spare some TV time from mewling over what a loss it will be not to have Scooter in the Hamptons during the summer season to discuss the serious implications of the Vice President's role in this highly dubious affair? Well probably not, but if there's a God in his heaven tonight the tightly-stretched skin of her face will soon snap and whiplash her into inactivity.

Do not make this mistake of thinking a presidential pardon will be a panacea for those involved. Fitzgerald's honorable and straightforward presentation today made it nigh impossible for the Rovians to fall back on their old tricks and launch a smear campaign -- Chris Matthews pretty near crowned him Pope this afternoon, and any attempt at a pardon will just make Bush look like an impeachment-worthy crook out to thwart the efforts of an honest public servant.

All the solutions that have worked so well for Team Bush in the past only serve to complicate things now. The only successful strategy to use with an honest prosecutor is honesty. I wonder how long it will take them to think of it?

Not only that, but it is former Ambassador Wilson, whose statements have been cited as "proof" Bush lied us into war, who has been found to have contradicted himself and possibly given false testimony to Congress. In an addendum to the report, Sen. Pat Roberts and two other Republicans said Wilson provided "inaccurate, unsubstantiated and misleading" information.

Ticomaya wrote:

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

Why do you forgive him for those lies?

Because Starr had no business asking Clinton those questions in the first place. That is not what he was hired to do, that is not what the investigation was supposed to be about.

Starr was hired to look into a land deal where people lost money. This is a real issue. When he needlessly went into Clinton's sex life, he lost all validity not only in the eyes of the public, but in the eyes of the Republican Congress who hired him.

Do not forget that after the impeachment proceedings were over, the first thing the Republican Congress did was to repeal the Independent Counsel statute which created Starr's investigation. The Republican Congress wanted to make sure that nothing-nothing-like Starr's investigation was ever able to happen again.

Whether you wish to face the fact or not, that repeal by the Republican Congress went a long way towards vindicating Clinton.

Fitzgerald, on the other hand, asked only questions that were clearly pertinent to what he was hired to investigate. That is the difference between lying to Starr's travesty and lying to Fitzgerald's investigation.

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

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.

I had a good laugh at this one Tico. It is worse for Dem president to lie about an ordinary event than it is for a GOPer to lie about a crime. Thanks for clarifying for us.

Actually, I could have made the post you quoted completely generic, and instead of saying Clinton, said "the President." I'm not making a distinction between Democrats or Republicans.

So then you feel the same way about Bush as you do about Clinton?

Nah, I know you don't. You don't really care about the misleading statements from Bush This forum is filled with your support for Bush, defending him and his statements.