The scream and outcry on this will be "they're charging him with something related to the INVESTIGATION, not any specific act yammeryammeryammer". <
>
<
>
They've already been setting up for that actually. It's just much easier to prove perjury. And these may be just be the first charges. Much depends on who rolls over, or if anyone rolls over. Otherwise someone can block the investigation. It's impossible to prove (hypothetically) that Cheney knew anything (for example, hypothetically) if his only contact was via Libby...and Libby lies about it. Unless there's other witnesses or a paper trail, or some other evidence it's dead in the water.<
>
<
>
You can attempt to prove it of course, it would just be nearly impossible to do without that evidence.<
>
<
>
In a bizarre way it reminds me of 'A Few Good Men'. DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED?<
>
<
>
You're goddamn right I did!
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Quote: He was trying to trace back to just where the rumor got started, and it was with Libby. <
>
<
>
Was it really Libby or some other un-named person. Seems to me it was Novack that
oke the story of this CIA Agent and I haven't read or seen his name tied to Libby? <
>
<
>
The only names I find tied to Libby are the NBC guy from Meet the Press, the Newsweek Reporter and the dumb bitch from the New York Times.<
>
<
>
Hell it really doesn't matter what the Grand Jury says anyway it is a one sided secret inquistion that would indite an old potato if they wanted too.<
>
<
>
Lets see what happens in a court of law where evidence has to be produced that is able to stand up to cross examination.<
>
<
>
Besides it is nothing but politics as usual in the Beltway, Wilson was know to go to DC parties and introduce his wife as his CIA agent in residence prior to her so called being outed, like she was a closet lesbian or something. <i></i>

Quote:Besides it is nothing but politics as usual in the Beltway, Wilson was know to go to DC parties and introduce his wife as his CIA agent in residence prior to her so called being outed,<
>
<
>
Source please, because I don't know this to be anything other than a bullshit talking point. Archimonde<
>
Surcam 60 Tauren Druid<
>
Willyo 51 Orc Warlock<
>
Caeldire 35 Troll Warrior<i></i>

Screw Libby, he's the administration's sacrificial lamb, he won't do more than 3 years in prison if that. I will be more interested to listen to the testimony about how Cheney and Rove took revenge on someone who contradicted the administration's baseless sales pitch on the Iraq War.<
>
<
>
The only reason Libby's on trial is because he lied about it, if he had simply told the truth about it, no matter how damning the evidence, he'd have gotten off scott free. Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

Quote:The only reason Libby's on trial is because he lied about it, if he had simply told the truth about it, no matter how damning the evidence, he'd have gotten off scott free.<
>
<
>
Well, not necessarily. If you listened to the Fitzgerald press conference, you heard him give a baseball analogy about a player getting beaned by a pitcher. The umpire needs to know if it was a bad pitch or if it was intentional. But he can't make the call because sand was thrown in his eyes.<
>
<
>
He's saying he can't determine whether or not a law was
oken here in regards to the leak because Libby isn't telling him the truth. As I said before, by all accounts Libby is a very smart lawyer. There is no way he didn't know the legal jeopardy he was putting himself in when he lied. And I don't buy the idea that he just forgot. He actively sought information about this woman before he spoke with reporters about it. I find it very hard to believe he forgot that.<
>
<
>
Now, being the very smart lawyer everyone describes him as, if telling the truth gets him off scott free, why not do that? It doesn't make any sense and I don't think it's nearly that simple. It seems Libby had a reason to lie, and the consequences for lying were less than the consequences for telling the truth. Again, this is not the end of it, it is just the beginning.<
>
<
>
And the biggest thing about all this is that the media seems to have grown some balls. Last night CNN had a very good special about the Bush administration making the case for war, and the many many questions about how they did it. It really made me even angrier at all those fucking Democrats who didn't stand up to this administration and just voted yes. Fucking pussies.<
>
<
>
You are going to now see much more agressive media coverage of this administration. And that's very bad news for Bush. <i></i>

Quote:He's saying he can't determine whether or not a law was
oken here in regards to the leak because Libby isn't telling him the truth.<
>
<
>
The problem is, people are arguing whether or not leaking the name could even be considered illegal. This is why dubya was so quick to say "Anyone who
oke the LAW in my administration will be fired." They knew beforehand, that it could easily be interpreted as a legal act. The only reason Libby probably lied about was to avoid bad press or he thought he'd never get caught with the administration at his side. Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

Quote:was so quick to say "Anyone who
oke the LAW in my administration will be fired."<
>
<
>
Well, he wasn't exactly quick to say that. Meaning, it wasn't what he said at first.<
>
<
>
Quote:The only reason Libby probably lied about was to avoid bad press<
>
<
>
Hmm, bad press about a no law being
oken. Bad press about indictments, 5 counts. You be the judge.<
>
<
>
Quote: he thought he'd never get caught with the administration at his side.<
>
<
>
He needs the reporters to lie for him here. He clearly didn't get that.<
>
<
>
I hear what you're saying Jug. What I'm saying is, it's not nearly that simple. <i></i>

<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Quote:Yeah perhaps you should. Perhaps you should also try supporting your arguments too. People responded to you previously in this thread, asking you questions and calling your statements into question. You've ignored it. They addressed the issues, but that required thought. So you avoided it.<
>
<
>
You've done the same thing in another thread where I've asked you to support your thoughts there too.<
>
<
>
And you really wonder why people are dismissive of you at this point, or ignoring you?<
>
<
>
Coming from a person whose sole response to my posts in two other threads posting pointless pictures of parrots, I don't think you have much room to speak either. <
>
<
>
What you have to understand is that I have things besides posting in this forum to do in my life. I am sure you do also. I don't always have the time to gather all the supporting documents for a particular argument. Basically for some things the effort simply isn't worth the reward. I could spend several hours putting together a college term paper quality bibliography, but what would be the point when inevitably the response will be that my sources are "biased" regardless of what they are. Assuming I put together a portfolio of sources so powerful as to end all argument, it would all be for naught since within a week it will be forgotten and the same discussion will pop up again, with the same insistence on providing impeccable reference material. <
>
<
>
Really to have a meaningful political debate we ought to set up a li
ary of archived debates complete with summaries of arguments made and sources provided. Until then at least give me some time to get stuff together. I'm not so amazing that I can commit to memory the full text of every article on current events that I have read in the past 10 years and regurgitate them at will. <
>
<
>
For now, I can safely say that I think most of the charges against the Bush administration in this whole Plamegate thing are groundless. Of course, if there was any wrongdoing I fully support the law being applied fully and fairly. -Lord Yunama Dendrobatis: 65 (+6) Lord Protector <Bloodsong> - Lanys T'Vyl<
>
<i></i>

Quote:<
>
What you have to understand is that I have things besides posting in this forum to do in my life.<
>
<
>
<
>
And yet you come back frequently and repeatedly enough to argue that we should take you seriously because you want to make arguments you can't back up.<
>
<
>
Quote:<
>
I could spend several hours putting together a college term paper quality bibliography<
>
<
>
<
>
No, you couldn't. Which is why you make excuses and play the parrot. You just are annoyed that we won't buy it and so have played the "OMG I learned all these important facts that I could really amaze you with the sources, but I don't have time to do it because I have a RL unlike you so you just have to take my word for it" routine.<
>
<
>
And you wonder why no one takes you seriously when you swagger into a debate. <i></i>

Quote:most of the charges against the Bush administration in this whole Plamegate thing are groundlessThe charges aren't against "the Bush administration". They are against Libby, and perhaps Rove - a few members of the administration. Despite the tone of Tarot's Xmas picture, no one is accusing the Executive Branch of the government in titu of a crime and coverup along the likes of Watergate, or the actions during the Grant administration. <
>
Lupic Wulfsib<
>
Khardin, clueless n00b hunter; {Crimson Brigade}, Llane Realm<i></i>

Here are a few things that come across my mind when I hear the name Clinton. The accompanying articles were found quickly via google. Feel free to pick them apart. <
>
<
>
<
>
Clinton and Enron<
>
<
>
Vince Foster, kinda fishy eh?<
>
<
>
Selling sensitive missile technology to china, among other things<
>
<
>
Whitewater ring any bells?<
>
<
>
Here are some statistics on the Clinton admin. Take them as you will.<
>
<
>
Clinton access to confidential FBI files on political opponents<
>
<
>
Sandy Berger destroys evidence before the 9/11 commission can find it<
>
<
>
Also, no need to even corroborate the pretty much undeniable fact that he got a BJ on the job and lied about it in court. <
>
<
>
And of course 8 years of ignoring the writing on the wall, crippling our intelligence agencies, and otherwise not doing his job in the face of repeated attacks by Al Quaeda, end result being 9/11.<
>
<
>
<
>
So yeah, if even a fraction of that is true, Bush & Co have a lot of work to do in a very short amount of time to catch up.<
>
<
>
-Lord Yunama Dendrobatis: 65 (+6) Lord Protector <Bloodsong> - Lanys T'Vyl<
>
<i></i>

What does Clinton have to do with Libby and other members of the Bush administration being such fuckwits, that they found it perfectly OK to "out" a CIA operative? "I bed your dad...while singing Mmmbop"~ Arkayn<i></i>

The comparison comes about from hypocracy. The thing is,
ing it up says "Yeah we did it, but they were worse"<
>
<
>
I am embarassed if half of the things conservatives are accused of are true. I also think that it is the same on both ends.<
>
<
>
Bottom line... you lose the right (or at least any credibility) to criticize the opposition for what they do, when you can't admit when the people you back screw things up. While
inging up how utterly corrupt the Clinton administration was is true, it doesn't make what people in the Bush administration any less bad. <i></i>

Quote:Bottom line... you lose the right (or at least any credibility) to criticize the opposition for what they do, when you can't admit when the people you back screw things up.<
>
<
>
I see so when the Democrats regain power you will have no problems with them using illegal means to run the administration. Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

Sweet, lib's to run amok in 06! <i></i>

I
ought up clinton because of the following posts:<
>
<
>
Fribur said<
>
Quote:When you have as much corruption in your ranks as this administration, everything is a cooincidence.<
>
<
>
To which I replied <
>
<
>
Quote: Yes, this definitely is the most corrupt administration in the last 10 years not counting the Clinton administration. <
>
<
>
After which he replied<
>
<
>
Quote:hahahaha you have got to be kidding. This from the guy that says he gets his news from a "variety" of sources .<
>
<
>
You're completely out of touch with reality, sir. Call the white coats, they can help you.<
>
<
>
Which I took as a challenge to present some evidence that there was corruption during the Clinton era. <
>
<
>
Which I did. Clinton was the absolutely worst president in the history of this country. He committed outright treason. He should have been shot. -Kylahn Dy'Nar - 51 Paladin <Hex> EQ2.Mistmoore<i></i>

OK<
>
This fucking guy must be a minor whose been drinking the Kool-Aid. Nobody can be this fucking stupid <i></i>

Jugg where did you get the idea we'd have to whole-heartedly support party politics on either side? Annastaszia made a very good point... that being, if you're going to attack either party for their corrupt/stupid/illegal actions you'd better be willing to acknowledge that "your side" has been just as bad, historically and in the present day.<
>
<
>
Where in this statement do you draw the conclusion that acknowledging past and present fault means you have to say you LIKE it?<
>
<
>
What is funny to me is that both sides of this debate are getting all riled up on the boards... but how many of either of you would ever tolerate behavior like that exhibited WITH BOTH PARTIES in your bosses? In your coworkers? God help us, in your subordinates?<
>
<
>
What we should be doing is sending all our mass-murderers to DC to kill them all in the most spectacularly gruesome way imaginable, heh. We need a clean slate.<
>
<
>
As to the indictment of Libby... can someone post a link to the official report Fitzgerald gave? I haven't seen one yet. Or if it's already posted lemme know and I'll go look for it ;p<
>
<
>
Obv from above I haven't read it yet, but I'm wondering, where in an indictment for lying to prosecutors (I think) do you come to the conclusion that this is all about Iraq and the conspiracy to... to whatever it is people have supposedly done? <i></i>

The full indictment: news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/b...ctment.pdf<
>
<
>
I think Fitzgerald is really trying to distance the whole thing from being about the war in Iraq and just about
eaches of the law. However it does raise questions to the general public about the war in Iraq.<
>
<
>
Also, the documents which were given to the CIA about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger was actually distributed from faulty intelligence by Italy's intelligence agencies. Berlusconi claims (not that he's any more trustworthy than Bush and Co) that he found this out prior to the invasion and tried to tell Bush. Bush was also told by Wilson that it was bogus. Then somebody in the Bush administration, "supposedly" outed an undercover CIA operative to discredit Wilson, whether or not it was known she was undercover and that information was disclosed on purpose from the administration to the press is the big question we're left on.<
>
<
>
But as you can see by the FACTUAL events above, even though the investigation is about whether anyone has
oken the law, it does raise major questions about the justification for invading Iraq.<
>
<
>
--Dar <
>DARWINAIN: E1V1M1 Since June 2003<i></i>

Quote:Where in this statement do you draw the conclusion that acknowledging past and present fault means you have to say you LIKE it?<
>
<
>
Who said I did? Nothing in my post came close to saying that. <
>
<
>
Anna said <
>
<
>
Quote: The comparison comes about from hypocracy. The thing is,
ing it up says "Yeah we did it, but they were worse"<
>
<
>
I am embarassed if half of the things conservatives are accused of are true. I also think that it is the same on both ends.<
>
<
>
Bottom line... you lose the right (or at least any credibility) to criticize the opposition for what they do, when you can't admit when the people you back screw things up. While
inging up how utterly corrupt the Clinton administration was is true, it doesn't make what people in the Bush administration any less bad.<
>
<
>
Her own acknowledgement was lacking, if it even existed. She was attacking a hypocrisy in which she herself was participating.<
>
<
>
If you want to talk hypocrisy talk about those who were so eager to impeach a president for obstruction of justice, while 7 years later talking out the other side of their ass saying how it is now a "technicality".<
>
<
>
Oh and btw, Bill Clinton? Fuck him too, he tarnished the office of President of the United States because he couldn't keep his wick dry and then wouldn't fess up about it. But he lied about getting a blowjob, he sure as shit didn't lie about revealing the name of a classified CIA Agent with malice aforethought. There's a BIG difference between the two, and it's called intent. Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

Quote:So yeah, if even a fraction of that is true, Bush & Co have a lot of work to do in a very short amount of time to catch up.<
>
<
>
Hmm, let's see..<
>
<
>
Bush steals Florida, and the presidency<
>
<
>
WMD's and Iraq? What? No WMDs? <
>
<
>
Rumsfeld a boardmember of company that sells nuclear equipment to North Korea<
>
<
>
Bush Donars benefit from Medicare & energy bills<
>
<
>
Cheney's links to Haliburton and Iraq<
>
<
>
Saddam Tried To Kill My Daddie<
>
<
>
Bush Campaign uses churchs to register voters<
>
<
>
Bush scuttles crackdown on offshore tax havens<
>
<
>
The Amazing, Dissapearing Budget Surplus<
>
<
>
Offshore companies make billions, pay no taxes<
>
<
>
The Jessica Lynch Photo Op<
>
<
>
GOP tries to pin Enron/Worldcom on Clinton<
>
<
>
Bush's Corporate Fraud Task Force leader directed a company that paid $400 million in fraud penalties<
>
<
>
Links to a secret Tiawanese slush fund reach into Bush White House<
>
<
>
EPA Ruling on hazardous waste favors major GOP contributor<
>
<
>
Vanity Fair pays Bush Adviser for access to White House<
>
<
>
Bush appoints 22 of 27 ambassadorial positions to donars within first 5 months of presidency<
>
<
>
In political apointments, Bush administration leaves no family member behind<
>
<
>
Bush makes millions from possible insider trading<
>
<
>
FBI wants workers to take longer on translating intercepted text so they appear 'overworked and understaffed'<
>
<
>
3 leaks in 8 months from Loas Alamos involving nuclear secrets<
>
<
>
Iraq not linked to Al Queda<
>
<
>
Purging 'Future Felons' off the voting registry<
>
<
>
Republican's Hack Democratic computer files for over a year<
>
<
>
Didn't take long to find either. Now, shut the fuck up you hack. <i></i>

I should qualify that I'm telling Kylahn to STFU with his NeoCon bullshit.<
>
<
>
The bush administration is rife with Graft, Cronism, and having the hands of big business stuck up the ass of each and every member of his administration like the massive puppet army of oil and energy concerns that they are. <i></i>

Quote:Coming from a person whose sole response to my posts in two other threads posting pointless pictures of parrots, I don't think you have much room to speak either.<
>
<
>
I don't do subtle, and you still don't get it. You're not worth responding to. It's like talking back to the radio, or the television. Which is why you get parrot pictures.<
>
<
>
I'm a sucker though, I thought perhaps if your nose was rubbed in it enough, you'd get pissed off enough to actually start thinking on your own.<
>
<
>
When YOU have something to offer that's your opinion, that you can back up, let us know. Like why Janice Brown is a ideal choice beyond "smart, woman, black", which you posted. Or is your sole reasoning "the yammerheads said so and I think she's good 'cause um she's smart and um black and uhh a woman too, which the yammerheads said was important"?<
>
<
>
You might also try reading the Baloney Detection Kit.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

I also made a new emoticon, since I don't have time to make more funny parrot pictures. That and they're getting old.<
>
<
>

<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Clinton Administration:<
>
<
>
- HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros – Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for misstating to the FBI the amount of money he gave his girlfriend.<
>
<
>
- President Bill Clinton – Impeached on perjury and obstruction of justice for lying about having oral sex with a woman in the White House - never indicted<
>
<
>
- Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy – acquitted on all charges of illegally accepting gifts<
>
<
>
<
>
That's the sum-total of the ACTUAL legal troubles of the Clinton Administration, as opposed to all of the smoke-and-mirrors accusations made much the same way Kyl is backing up his posts.<
>
<
>
Let's compare these to the number of indicted/convicted Republicans under the Bush Administration in three years, shall we? <i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

You left a hell of lot out CD.<
>
<
>
They may not have been indicted, but there was plenty of shady shit during their 8 years too.<
>
<
>
Lets see, if memory serves I can think of 4 off the top<
>
Hillary making a killing overnight in cattle futures<
>
The land boondogle in Arkansas<
>
Gore collecting bags of money in what, buddist temples?<
>
Travelgate!<
>
<
>
Granted, none of these put our troops in harm's way. <i></i>

Here's a great article that summarizes the entire process from known information now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...components if anyone is interested in getting the whole story.<
>
<
>
--Dar <
>DARWINAIN: E1V1M1 Since June 2003<i></i>

This just in... Those that are the most easily corrupted by power are most often attracted to it.<
>
<
>
Anyone who thinks that there is MORE corruption in government now than ever before really needs to get a grip. Having said that, I think the corruption that this administration has exhibited need to be remedied. Getting as worked up about it as some of you folks do is not only a colossal joke; it’s a waste of serious intellectual effort. Fixing the problem <> getting rid of whomever is in power now. It only creates a vacuum to be filled by someone who is corrupt in a different way. <
>
<
>
Every time these threads get this far spun out of control, I can’t help but think of the “Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics� picture. <i></i>

Hahah.<
>
<
>
CD, just out of curiosity, what was the reasoning behind Clinton not being charged?<
>
<
>
I already know the answer to this question but I'm just wanting to see if you do ;p <i></i>

After reading the article in the Washington Post about Libby, it's clear that my opinion of him from other sources was biased. It's puzzling that he has ended up where he is. The writer in the Post has added in some sheer speculations, but they seem reasonable. Perhaps we shall learn more, but there is no guarantee of that.<
>
<i></i>

Watch me!<
>
<
>
Discuss.<
>
<
>
Archimonde<
>
Surcam 60 Tauren Druid<
>
Willyo 51 Orc Warlock<
>
Caeldire 35 Troll Warrior<i></i>

That video should have ended with the slogan.<
>
<
>
"Help us
ing integrity back to your nations government, vote Democrat 2006".<
>
<
>
It worked great for the republicans in 1998, was just too bad they didn't do it. Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

How about them Senate Democrats today! Forcing a closed door session to force the issue of how the Bush White House selectively used national intelligence to make the case for war. <
>
<
>
This is what I'm fucking talking about boys, cahones! <i></i>

Bah only took them how many years? That's not cahones, that's smelling blood in the water.
<i></i>

true, but I'll take it! Archimonde<
>
Surcam 60 Tauren Druid<
>
Willyo 51 Orc Warlock<
>
Caeldire 35 Troll Warrior<i></i>

Best quote of the day:<
>
<
>
CNN Hill reporter Ed Henry: <
>
Quote:...it also is gonna lead, as it already is, to some more Republican charges that the Democrats are just obstructing the nation's business.<
>
CNN's Lou Dobbs response:<
>
Quote:Ed, a couple of points if I may. One, you suggested the Senate melted down today. There are those who would argue that the Senate began doing its job today.<
>
Go, Lou!!!!!<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

Wow...if Trent Lott is being less-than-supportive...<
>
<
>
Chris Matthews: <
>
<
>
Quote:...is he (Karl Rove) good for American politics? Should he stay at the White House?<
>
Trent Lott: <
>
Quote:Well, the question is, that you asked, is he good for American politics? Look, he has been very successful, very effective in the political arena. The question is should he be the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy under the current circumstances? I don't know all that's going on, so I can't make that final conclusion. But, you know, how many times has the top political person become also the top policy advisor? Maybe you can make that transition, but it's a real challenge, and I think they have to – I do think they need to look at
inging in some more people, you know, old gray beards that have been around this town for a while, help them out a little bit at the White House.<
>
Chris Matthews:<
>
Quote:...do you think he should go?<
>
Trent Lott:<
>
Quote:Well, I didn't say that. I mean, I said, you know, is he in the right position? I mean, a lot of political advisors, in fact, most presidents in recent years have a political adviser in the White House. The question is, should they be making, you know, policy decisions. That's the question you've got to evaluate. <i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

Lou was probably playing Devil's Advocate to see what the response of the obstructionists will be to that charge.<
>
<
>
And Lott is still bitter over losing the Senate Leaders position to Frist. This is a well known fact. I still think he was treated unfairly considering some of the other things that are said all the time and ignored, but he should not take out his bitterness in making silly statements like removing someone who has not even been indicted for anything yet.<
>
<
>
If they removed Rove for people saying to remove him, then that would just be the signal to any Democrat and literally anyone to say, "I don't like this guy" and expect that person to be removed.<
>
<
>
Rove has not been indicted. The Democrats are all over saying Hussein should get a fair trial. But Rove is already tried and convicted?<
>
<
>
This move will backfire, I bet.<
>
<
>
I gotta go to work. <i></i>

Rove is never going to get a fair trial because Rove is never going to trial. IMHO, the reason so many people talk the way they are is because all of those in power in Washington know that a deal was cut to save Rove, and officer Scooter up as a sacrificial lamb. Scooter, at worst, will do 3 years max at Club Fed living a life of removed luxary in what doesn't even equate to a prison in the traditional "if the common man
oke a law" sense. Then, he gets out, get's a lucrative book deal, does a speaking tour, and cashes out Martha Stewart rich.<
>
<
>
I chose the wrong profession.<
>
<
>
However, I have some serious hopes that Tom Delay is going down, hard. He's as corrupt as they come, and I'm glad it's finally come out. Sucks that all this Rove/Libby shit is coming out now to difuse the press on the Delay shit.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Extra-marital affair, crucify him! Impeach him!<
>
<
>
Leak classified information, hurt national security. A-OK<
>
<
>
That's the moral values crowd for ya! Everyday I live in shame that they are morally superior to me. <i></i>

I find that same thought funny as well, because personally I'm in favor of crucifying anyone involved in this.<
>
<
>
But I also find humor in your defense of National Security. I'm enjoying the attitude of "things matter when it suits my needs" coming from both sides when it comes to legal matters. Hypocrisy in full swing, from both sides. <i></i>

Quote:But I also find humor in your defense of National Security. I'm enjoying the attitude of "things matter when it suits my needs" coming from both sides when it comes to legal matters. Hypocrisy in full swing, from both sides.<
>
<
>
I'm sorry, I'm stupid and didn't quite understand this part. Archimonde<
>
Surcam 60 Tauren Druid<
>
Willyo 51 Orc Warlock<
>
Caeldire 35 Troll Warrior<i></i>

extra marital affair by President = no big deal<
>
<
>
commiting perjury by LYING about it UNDER OATH = untrustworthy person to be President<
>
<
>
Jesman <i></i>

Quote:Lou was probably playing Devil's Advocate to see what the response of the obstructionists will be to that charge.<
>
If that makes you feel better...<
>
Quote:And Lott is still bitter over losing the Senate Leaders position to Frist. This is a well known fact.<
>
Yes and it makes perfect sense to take out his alleged bitterness at the Senate by being non-supportive of the White House and Karl Rove.<
>
<
>
Oh, wait, maybe not!<
>
<
>
Talk about reaching! <i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

I'm assuming you're responding to me Jesman.<
>
<
>
My reply would be that I agree. Clinton should not have lied under oath. No one should be above the law, he
ought the scandal on himself and quite frankly deserved it. But I would also argue that he shouldn't have been questioned about it under oath.<
>
<
>
Notice the narrow scope of Fitzgerald's investigation and the very wide scope of Starr's investigation.<
>
<
>
Fitzgerald = a man doing his job.<
>
<
>
Starr = a man trying to get the dirt to push his agenda which was to take the President down. Clinton should have never been questioned under oath about Lewinsky.<
>
<
>
Again, that doesn't make Clinton right. That doesn't mean Clinton shouldn't have been punished for lying under oath. It does mean, at least for me personally, that this current scandal is a much bigger deal. <i></i>

OH SURCAM WHY OH WHY MUST EVERYTHING BE ABOUT YOU BEING BLACK! WE GET IT!<
>
<
>
oh sorry, I just thought I'd throw out that non sequitur before someone else did. <
>
<
>
I also completely agree with your post, and this is from someone who loathed Clinton.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

We could also get into the fact that Ken Starr spent $60 Million while Fitzgerald, as of today, has spent $1 Million.<
>
<
>
/shrug, if you want to. Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

My point there Surcam was that this is one of those rare occassions where liberal thinking people are more interested in National Security over the freedom of the press and a reporters right to conceal their source(liberties/rights/freedom). I find it unfortunate it's not done more often. It's like me coming out in the defense of anything that's socialist.<
>
<
>
To be clear, it's not just you. <i></i>

To be clear, it's not me at all. Archimonde<
>
Surcam 60 Tauren Druid<
>
Willyo 51 Orc Warlock<
>
Caeldire 35 Troll Warrior<i></i>

I see, well then my sincere and deepest apologies for misjudging you and assuming you cared more for Liberties than you did National Security. I am sorry. <i></i>

Well yes and no Surcam. Yes in the fact your post caused my response and no in the fact I'm replying more to the general population who likes to frame the Clinton impeachment along the lines of "he was impeached for having an affair" which is nothing more then spin to try and confuse the real issue of his impeachment.<
>
<
>
As far as whether or not the line of questioning was appropriate obviously its not up to the person being question to determine that, it is up to the judge of the trial. The hearing in which the question was asked was the Paula Jones sexual harrassment case and questioning him on whether or not he has/is sexually permisscuious appears to be a valid and reasonable question. So I'll have to disagree with you again on that point Surcam. It was a valid question that requires, by law, a valid answer.<
>
<
>
Finally as to your point of whether Clinton or Bush "scandals" is the worst I'll have to agree with you partly. I think that both are equally as bad. <
>
<
>
We (Americans) should DEMAND that our Presidents and Legislatures be held to a higher standard of trust and responsiblilities that a "normal" American. Our Presidents should have a higher moral character then the aveage American. Why? Simple, they are given enormous power and control. The U.S. can't simply give the American public all the details in regards to why a decision is made or how it is reach because of National Security. That is a valid concern so sometimes the American public has to "TRUST" the President that what he is saying IS the truth even thou he can't always produce the evidence to convince us because of National Security concerns. If a President clearly
eaks the law or lies about important facts then he should be removed from office.<
>
<
>
Both are equally wrong because they have proven themselves to be lairs. The fallout from Bush's lie is clearly worst then from Clintons'. Bush has killed many, many Americans and Iraqis, more then any terrorist attack has, in pushing his agenda forward thru his lies then Clinton and I'm sure history will not look favorablly upon Bush when it is all said and done.<
>
<
>
Jesman <
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:liberal thinking people are more interested in National Security over the freedom of the press and a reporters right to conceal their source(liberties/rights/freedom). I find it unfortunate it's not done more often. It's like me coming out in the defense of anything that's socialist<
>
<
>
Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972. That was decided a long time before the current debate. To be quite frank, the idea of protecting sources is to protect whistle blowers from attack from the parties in power. Abusing that to cover up the commission of a crime for 2 years is something Miller should be ashamed of.
<i></i>

Quote:one of those rare occassions where liberal thinking people are more interested in National Security over the freedom of the press and a reporters right to conceal their source(liberties/rights/freedom). I find it unfortunate it's not done more often. It's like me coming out in the defense of anything that's socialist<
>
<
>
6 extra words. Cute though! <i></i>

The 6 words change nothing on my comments
<i></i>

They do when my intent was to say it doesn't happen that often and I find humor in it. I agree with the ruling. <i></i>

I don't see it so much as the defense of National Security as aversion to the malicious outting of an agent, and all that which goes along with it, for political purposes. I don't see how that is in any way hypocritical.<
>
<
>
I don't really fault Miller for keeping her source to herself either. She should enjoy more freely given information for her suffering. This will better insure that we will be informed about things we should know about. The identity of CIA agents is not one of those things however. "I am not a ranger, but I have played <
>
one on the internet."<i></i>

Quote:this is one of those rare occassions where liberal thinking people are more interested in National Security over the freedom of the pressJust a note. It's more accurate to say, "this is one of those rare occassions where liberTARIAN thinking people are more interested in National Security over the freedom of the press". This is a similar logical error in equating the ACLU with liberals, where they more often are pushing a libertarian philosophy.<
>
<
>
Lupic Wulfsib<
>
Khardin, clueless n00b hunter; {Crimson Brigade}, Llane Realm<i></i>

New CBS poll has president approval rating down to 33%<
>
<
>
That's pretty damn low. <i></i>

I watch Hardball everyday after work. For awhile now I've kind of lost my love for Chris Matthews. I've often times found myself screaming at him for letting people spew bullshit. <
>
<
>
But lately, as Huffington's latest post lays out, he's been hammering home a very important point. <
>
<
>
Some Hardball quotes from her post:<
>
<
>
Quote:MATTHEWS: One of the things we learned in this long investigation regarding the CIA leak was the way in which the Vice President’s office, Scooter Libby, in particular, was able to use the press. He leaked to the New York Times the story that there were aluminum tubes; there was, in fact, a case for a nuclear weapons program by Saddam Hussein.<
>
<
>
And then the three major figures in the administration, the Vice President, Secretaries of State and Defense, went on Sunday television, all pointed to that story that had been planted there by Scooter Libby.<
>
<
>
Quote:One of the stories that struck me was the way in which we all learned about the WMD. We learned it through the New York Times, and we find out now that it was the Vice President’s office that had fed the story to the Times.<
>
<
>
Quote:What I suspect here Frank, is an alley-oop play like in the NBA, where one player throws the ball near the net and the other puts it in. So someone from the Vice President’s office leaks to the Times. And the vice president goes on Sunday television and puts the ball in.<
>
<
>
<
>
And really this is a huge deal for me. Our media becomes less and less independent every day. It's one of the biggest threats to our democracy, and I want the issue on front street. It
ings me back to a great Al Gore speech that you can read the transcript of here, via TMPCafe. It's a long speech, but I really encourage you to read the whole thing because as I said, I think it's critical to our democracy. But here's some quotes that stand out to me. (And I had to trim it down, because he makes so many great points I wanted to quote them all!)<
>
<
>
Quote: On the eve of the nation's decision to invade Iraq, our longest serving senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor asked: "Why is this chamber empty? Why are these halls silent?"<
>
<
>
The decision that was then being considered by the Senate with virtually no meaningful debate turned out to be a fateful one. A few days ago, the former head of the National Security Agency, Retired Lt. General William Odom, said, "The invasion of Iraq, I believe, will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history."<
>
<
>
Quote:Those of us who have served in the Senate and watched it change over time, could volunteer an answer to Senator Byrd's two questions: the Senate was silent on the eve of war because Senators don't feel that what they say on the floor of the Senate really matters that much any more. And the chamber was empty because the Senators were somewhere else: they were in fundraisers collecting money from special interests in order to buy 30-second TVcommercials for their next re-election campaign.<
>
<
>
Quote: In fact there was a time when America's public discourse was consistently much more vivid, focused and clear. Our Founders, probably the most literate generation in all of history, used words with astonishing precision and believed in the Rule of Reason.<
>
<
>
Their faith in the viability of Representative Democracy rested on their trust in the wisdom of a well-informed citizenry. But they placed particular emphasis on insuring that the public could be well-informed. And they took great care to protect the openness of the marketplace of ideas in order to ensure the free-flow of knowledge. <
>
Quote:<
>
The news divisions - which used to be seen as serving a public interest and were subsidized by the rest of the network - are now seen as profit centers designed to generate revenue and, more importantly, to advance the larger agenda of the corporation of which they are a small part. They have fewer reporters, fewer stories, smaller budgets, less travel, fewer bureaus, less independent judgment, more vulnerability to influence by management, and more dependence on government sources and canned public relations hand-outs. This tragedy is compounded by the ironic fact that this generation of journalists is the best trained and most highly skilled in the history of their profession. But they are usually not allowed to do the job they have been trained to do.<
>
<
>
Quote: In fact, one of the few things that Red state and Blue state America agree on is that they don't trust the news media anymore.<
>
<
>
Clearly, the purpose of television news is no longer to inform the American people or serve the public interest. It is to "glue eyeballs to the screen" in order to build ratings and sell advertising. If you have any doubt, just look at what's on: The Robert Blake trial. The Laci Peterson tragedy. The Michael Jackson trial. The Runaway Bride. The search in Aruba. The latest twist in various cele
ity couplings, and on and on and on.<
>
<
>
And more importantly, notice what is not on: the global climate crisis, the nation's fiscal catastrophe, the hollowing out of America's industrial base, and a long list of other serious public questions that need to be addressed by the American people. <
>
<
>
The point of my post is the role of the news media in Democracy is a critical role. Democracy just does not work without an informed public. And with all the distractions we have today, we as a whole are less and less informed. I worry about this, because we have a ton of shit we need to deal with. There's a rapidly changing world out there, and our seat as the top dawg doesn't seem as secure. We've got to get our shit together, and that starts with being informed. Actually giving a fuck about government. <i></i>