Well, I'm honored to be mentioned in the same sentence as my hero Rush Limbaugh!:lol: :grin: Just like the clintons because its ok if they do it and hey you have superfan on your side, you can't lose. About all those false charges. Armitage was never arrested or convicted so that tells me everything I need to know. The problem with the hypocrites defending clinton is that it is ok when democrats do it but its not ok when a republican does it. Thats the bottom line in this thread! Good for Bush and Libby! I hate it when our poor justice system is used for political destruction. BTW Bill Clinton did the crime and didn't serve any time so why should Libby. There was no law in either case that was broken outside of perjury. Why not? You and other liberals don't want it to be brought up because its a no win situation. BTW, yea we know all that already.
Bill Clinton was never arrested or convicted. Does that tell you everything you need to know. You were calling for the head of William Jefferson long before he had been charged with anything. Does your political bias overstep your logic? How can you call someone else out for doing what you do all the time? Sourdough, in this very post that you are doing the making the same hypocritical arguments you are complaining about. Why bother bringing it up here. This is a discussion about Bush and Scooter Libby. Nothing that Bill Clinton, GHW Bush, Gerald Ford, or Jimmy Carter did in the past has any bearing what so ever as to what Bush does in the here and now. How you fail to see it is mind bottling. And just what liberal positions do I support?
The complaint was driven by Plame and her husband who are democrats. You think the CIA is made up of only Republicans? That's one of the dumbest posts I have ever seen. That Bush appointees following the law as directed, is no surprise but it does not change the origin or drive of this witch hunt. You need to check your own sanity. I hear the air is thin up there in the cheap seats.
Good one Red. Clinton did it so there is a possibility that it is ok. Why exactly is that? Libby did take a fall. Prove that his superiors knew about this. I guess his prosecutor is stupid since nobody went after Armitage or Robert Novak, since it has been proven that they leaked her name. Interesting that the government did not go after Libby for leaking her name, isn't it? Just never from you. You continue to apologize for your superboy Clinton, and hide behind your criticisms of Bush, with arguments like, "He is in the White House now, Clinton isn't." You give a more sweeping pardon than any president. The legal status is the only thing you said that was true and can be proven. The rest is speculation. Go ahead, prove it.
Actually it only tells me that the country lacked the political will to prosecute the president over lying about an illicit affair. He lied to us and to investigators. Being impeached and disbarred for charges of perjury and obstruction of justice are pretty clear indicators. But by all means, keep your blinders on. The reason people continue to bring Clinton and other past presidents up is to show a pattern of behavior in our leaders. What does that matter? Because people on here continually throw their bombs out at Bush and evoke outrage as if everything he does has happened in a void. His actions can be compared to other presidents on most occasions, and arguments can be made that he is not as bad as some on this board would love to portray. However, it is popular to bash Bush right now, therefor, people that come to his defense will get heat for it. This is a perfect example. Instead of acknowledging behavior in a former president that was grossly immoral(his pardons), we are not allowed to talk about it. We are only talking about Bush, so the level of outrage cannot be mitigated. That is ridiculous.
Dude, I am no Clinton apologist. I was pointing out the logical fallacies of Sourdough's argument. Please do not take my statement out of context, If that were the case it would be cool, but in truth it is a bash on the other guy to divert attention away from their own guy's mis-dealings. This all may be true, but doesn't it tell you something about the guy you support if you have to justify his actions against a sleaze ball like Clinton's? And for that matter, why hasn't anyone brought up the Pardons GHW Bush did over Iran-Contra, Carters amnesty for draft dodgers, or Ford's pardon of Nixon?
I didn't take your statement out of context. You stated that Clinton was neither arrested or convicted and asked if that told us everything we needed to know. I showed that it did not. I don't point to Clinton to divert from Bush. There is no diverting from Bush as he is a sitting president and in the news every day. Pointing out Clinton failings is relevant as perspective when liberals come here and act holier than thou. It's called hypocrisy. I was not a big fan of Bush 41 either, and can point to plenty of his mistakes. However Bush's detractors do so on an ideological viewpoint, not from real world arguments. Most of them don't give a damn about what Bush is doing, merely that it is Bush doing it. They are merely motivated by politics so the easiest way to counter them is to hold up the poster boy for the other side. I can admit when Bush is wrong and think he has made plenty of mistakes. I don't see this as one of them. That's a good question. Why don't you ask the people on here bashing Bush? Seems he is the only one allowed to catch Hell on this board. Wait, let me answer for Red here: "Bush is in the White House, now. The buck stops here.":hihi::hihi:
I said "probably" because I really don't know the details of the matter, not to make a value judgement. You focus on one word and completely miss the point I made. Don't you think it is a bit more serious for the White House to commute the sentence of a subordinate who was legally convicted in an investigation of illegal leaks from the White House? We know that Cheney did, because he didn't lie under oath. Cheney may be the ultimate Machievelian schemer, but he is sharp as a tack. No force on the planet would make him reveal the President's involvement. But he will never lie. He simply won't recall and the documents were inadvertently lost. Suspiciously interesting don't you think? Remember that this was not a special independent prosecutor as in Watergate or Whitewater or Monica. This was a Justice Department prosecutor who works for a Bush appointee. An employee of the executive branch prosecuting another one who just happens to be one of The President's Men. Where have you been hiding? I never apologize for Clinton, I point out in detail, all of the things that made him a good president. Things which you haven't disproved. Neither do I hide behind Bush. I have pointed out Bush's failures and faults loud, long, and repeatedly around here and I haven't ducked a single issue. I only tire of Sourdough's same, lame response to every Bush blunder and outrage that I comment on. Crying "Bill Clinton" and making up history that he can't back up instead of resonding to the comment. Prove what? My opinion is my opinion, obviously! I'm the world's acknowledged friggin' expert on my opinions. And I back them up with my reasoning and with any citations that seem appropriate.
