Yep, just like Fitzgerald did since he knew before the trial who the leaker was. Armitage who is scott free today and not charge with anything. What don't you understand about that?
And i don't understand how someone can assume or read people's minds. Lets just leave it at that, I've never understood you. You want to limit people to talking about a topic such as the Libby thread. You want to take up for William Jefferson who has been indited with his 30 grand. I know its only ok when the left does it. Only liberals think that way.
I know you didn't post the graphic, I was talking to mac. Secondly, yes, it is possible to determine that from the graph, but I just ain't buying it. To me, it was yet another clear shot at Bush. I'm sure you could've found a graph like that anywhere, but he chose one that singled out Bush in the caption. I'm too tired to even attempt to get any deeper into this. All I will say is that the constant Bush bashing is getting boring. He's not going anywhere for another year and a half, whether people like it or not. Sure, he hasn't been great, but I honestly don't believe he's been the worst either, like some people here like to portray. At this point, I'm more concerned with who is going to be taking over in '08 and whether we're going to see the same "politics as usual" or get someone with the best interests of the country in mind.
So is bashing a President who has been gone from office for 7 years. Then you better be prepared to hear about him for another year and a half. I find it interesting that here were 30 people on this forum in 2004 who wanted to talk about how great Bush was. Now that those who opposed him from the start have been proven correct, the few Bush apologists left find the subject boring. I don't blame you, amigo.[/QUOTE]
No argument there. Although it's unfair to criticize Bush for things that other Presidents have done as well and not make mention of them. Too many people here tend to conveniently dismiss the fact that Bush isn't the only offender on certain things. The subject is boring because people like you won't shut up about it. We get it, he hasn't been as cracked up as a lot of us thought he would be. Why do you feel the need to continually remind us of that on a daily basis? It's like being a sore winner. But do you honestly think we'd be any better off right now with John Kerry, or Al Gore for that matter? I say again, he's not going anywhere for a year and a half and continuing to point out his faults isn't going to put him out of office any sooner.
To the original question,,,,, I don't know the answer. What I do know is that during his time in office my life was easy, my pockets were full, and i never said anything about not driving somewhere because it was a waste of gas. I can't say with certainty that it was because of him that things were so much easier. But I can say because of you know who, things are much harder now.
You came after me so lets talk about someone being blind. I have always claimed to be a conservative republican not anything else including a moderate. Republicans and democrats bicker back and forth all the time that is what we do. I have said that I don't like and I don't like politics of today but I do my part because I don't want to be silenced because of it. Ok, now since you only come after me because I'm only one sided. You are just as bad as I because not only do you only tag team with Red but you fail to call him out because he is a moderate who only criticized the right. I asked him to and he has still failed to come up with one post of criticizing corruption or policies of the left. He says that is only because the republicans are in power which is such a crock because the democrats are in control of congress and their is more than enough in the news of their bad dealings and ethics. You are the most confused individual I have ever encountered. You have some views on the right and yet only criticize someone who doesn't pretend to be someone he's not. If I'm a hypocrite your just as bad as I for what its worth. You side with the left quite often in attitude, you have the arrogance to state what people are thinking or what their intentions were in their post and you try and control what they will write in a thread. Did it ever occur to you that Clinton and Libby did the same crime and yet there were two different outcomes? How is that justice? Not to mention Armitage is as free as a bird. Could it be that is why people mentioned it?
Maybe you should take your own advice if you want to be that way about it?:dis: Look at your response to me in your post in this thread. You have yet come up with any proof of how the scandals of the Bush Administration dwarf those of the Clinton Administration. 1) Who is Abamowitz? As far as Libby goes he and Clinton's crime were the exact same. Both committed the same crime, perjured themselves about a case where no crime was committed. Cheney, Please once again, explain what crime he has done that dwarfs the Clinton Administration? Gonzalez, What crime has he done to dwarf the Clinton Administration? He fired some people? This wouldn't have been a big deal if this administration weren't so terrible at pr and it is their own fault becaue they let the left get away with attacking their policy's and agendas without a response. Let's take a little look in the past to Henry Cisneros who was secretary of housing and Urban development. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cisneros In December, 1997, Cisneros was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, giving false statements and obstruction of Justice. Medlar used some of the Cisneros hush money to purchase a house and entered into a bank fraud scheme with her sister and brother-in-law to conceal the source of the money. In January, 1998, Medlar pleaded guilty to 28 charges of bank fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud and obstruction of justice. Now before you attack me about the past and Clinton remember you brought my response by your claim that this administration dwarfs anything from the previous one!:dis:
