A matter of interpretation? Someone may disagree and think Bush's virtues outweigh his mistakes while Clinton's do not. Or are you the standard barrier? I'm not saying that Bush's virtues outweigh his mistakes either for the record. I like him as a person but I don't really like him as a leader.
You people who are ok with this are probably the same ones who wanted the book thrown at Paris Hilton. Talk about hypocrisy. To think that she did more time than Libby will is mind boggling.
So you're saying she shouldn't have served the time she did? Correct me if I'm wrong, but jail time is the standard punishment for getting subsequent DUIs and driving with a suspended license - while on probation, no less. That chick got what was comign to her. And for the record, I'm not really okay with this whole thing either, but I'm also not surprised. Political cronyism at it's best and as I said before, Bush is not the only President to have done something like this.
So would you rather not have her serve at all while the average American has to serve their sentence? We should distinguish a difference between real justice and political justice. Proves my point I've said for years. Yes we have problems with healthcare, govt, ss, etc but our justice system has just as many holes in it as anything else. I laugh now days at our justice system especially when it turns 100 percent into politics of personal destruction.
Well, in her case, she served MORE time than the average person who commits the same crime. LINK Plus, I think Libby's crime was just a tad more serious. Nevermind if you agree/disagree with the decision. He was convicted. As for political crony-ism, one thing that all the people who bring Clinton's pardons up fail to mention is; at least the people he pardoned actually served some time in jail. Libby will serve none.
I honestly have not been interested in following this case, so excuse me if I sound ignorant but: Was anyone else found guilty in this matter? Seems logical that if it was determined in a court of law that the original crime never occurred in the first place, does what Libby did seem so bad anymore? I mean, if the direct parties involved weren't found guilty, how can Libby have committed a crime by talking about a noncrime?
Clearly indicated by every point you made in your last post. Fast Eddie couldn't spin as well as you just did.
