Libby Indicted, Resigns

[What the Heck]

Let me see if I get this. According to you, a **** job was one of the reasons for 9/11?



Here's where you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Viking has been a good friend to all of us and loves vacationing here. He loves Americans and what Americans used to stand for before the vision was perverted by the Bush administration.

Viking's country changed their constitution so could they fight along side Americans Afghanistan. Several of Viking's countryman died fighting in Afghanistan.

A good friend doesn't just tell you what you want to hear or what makes you comfortable. A good friend tells you the truth.

I thnk you owe Viking an apology and I'm sure a decent gentleman like yourself will come to understand you crossed over the line.

I don't think so. I don't think I crossed the line. The BS that Clinton's lies had nothing to do with how our country was percieved by our enemies is scary and dangerous. Yes, I do believe that Clinton's morality did have an effect on 9/11, if nothing else because he did not listen to the intelligence he was getting because he was too busy defending himself from the consequences of his actions. It is now coming out that we knew many of the hijackers a year before the attacks (Clinton was president then). A lie is a lie, perjury is perjury, they are two different things. There isn't any "well this perjury is ok, and this one isn't". It wasn't that Clinton lied, it was that Clinton committed perjury, plain and simple - he finally admitted it later on (to his credit, and I don't say that lightly - I could add that he pretty much had no choice at that point, but that would be cynical and I wouldn't want to be that).

Yes the group from Al Queda saw us a morally corrupt, but they also saw us as weak. We should have known (and we did) about the attack on the Cole but we did nothing. We should have done more about the first attack on the WTC (we did caputure the local people, what about those who were afar?) but he was distracted. He should never have allowed Les Aspin into his administration, especially in a department that had to do with the defense of our country.

Viking's country has done all that - great. How does that dispute what I brought forth? His country did not dispute the facts, they disputed whether the facts were enough to go to war. The bs that "Clinton lied and no one died" is really upsetting. It assumes that we live in a vacuum, that the actions we take only affect that situation. It isn't very realistic, yet it's the best we hear from the left and from overseas in regards to Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. I can handle him telling the truth, but I get tired of hearing the same regurgitations about how terrible Bush is and how great Clinton was.

I firmly believe that when all is said and done, Clinton will come off as a worse president than Carter in many respects. Carter was incompetant for the office, twice as bad as Bush is, but he cared and he tried. Clinton was competant, but he got caught in his own character shortcomings - he was however a great politician. Bush is competant, but an extremely bad politician. He has allowed his staff to do some really dumb things - like saying that the "16 words" shouldn't have been in the state of the union. British Intelligence to this day still stands by it.

 

[bsnyder]

The faked outrage here continues to be amusing!

Too bad the CIA can't fake it as well as you guys! This little snippet of information in the Washington Post is very telling:

The CIA will not conduct a formal damage assessment until legal proceedings are complete.

Tom Maguire makes this assessment:

Is that how it works when our national security is threatened and lives are on the line - the CIA waits a few years until the trials are over, then assesses the damage?

Come on, we see through this - if the CIA prepared a formal report, it would be subpoenaed as evidence, and the jury would laugh out loud at the "no damage" assessment. So the CIA filed a criminal referral in 2003, got the White House tied up in a two year investigation, and now they are laughing out loud. Well played, especially if you like a spy service that shrugs off executive oversight by inventing crimes and playing dirty tricks.

 

[DawnCt1]

Let me see if I get this. According to you, a **** job was one of the reasons for 9/11?



Here's where you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Viking has been a good friend to all of us and loves vacationing here. He loves Americans and what Americans used to stand for before the vision was perverted by the Bush administration.

Viking's country changed their constitution so could they fight along side Americans Afghanistan. Several of Viking's countryman died fighting in Afghanistan.

A good friend doesn't just tell you what you want to hear or what makes you comfortable. A good friend tells you the truth.

I thnk you owe Viking an apology and I'm sure a decent gentleman like yourself will come to understand you crossed over the line.

Is this a joke??? I wonder if Viking is wringing his hands over the "oil for food" scandal? That's much bigger than anything that the USA is involved in?

 

[bimshire]

I don't think so. I don't think I crossed the line. The BS that Clinton's lies had nothing to do with how our country was percieved by our enemies is scary and dangerous. Yes, I do believe that Clinton's morality did have an effect on 9/11, if nothing else because he did not listen to the intelligence he was getting because he was too busy defending himself from the consequences of his actions. It is now coming out that we knew many of the hijackers a year before the attacks (Clinton was president then). A lie is a lie, perjury is perjury, they are two different things. There isn't any "well this perjury is ok, and this one isn't". It wasn't that Clinton lied, it was that Clinton committed perjury, plain and simple - he finally admitted it later on (to his credit, and I don't say that lightly - I could add that he pretty much had no choice at that point, but that would be cynical and I wouldn't want to be that).

Yes the group from Al Queda saw us a morally corrupt, but they also saw us as weak. We should have known (and we did) about the attack on the Cole but we did nothing. We should have done more about the first attack on the WTC (we did caputure the local people, what about those who were afar?) but he was distracted. He should never have allowed Les Aspin into his administration, especially in a department that had to do with the defense of our country.

Viking's country has done all that - great. How does that dispute what I brought forth? His country did not dispute the facts, they disputed whether the facts were enough to go to war. The bs that "Clinton lied and no one died" is really upsetting. It assumes that we live in a vacuum, that the actions we take only affect that situation. It isn't very realistic, yet it's the best we hear from the left and from overseas in regards to Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. I can handle him telling the truth, but I get tired of hearing the same regurgitations about how terrible Bush is and how great Clinton was.

I firmly believe that when all is said and done, Clinton will come off as a worse president than Carter in many respects. Carter was incompetant for the office, twice as bad as Bush is, but he cared and he tried. Clinton was competant, but he got caught in his own character shortcomings - he was however a great politician. Bush is competant, but an extremely bad politician. He has allowed his staff to do some really dumb things - like saying that the "16 words" shouldn't have been in the state of the union. British Intelligence to this day still stands by it.

Well, if bu$h is competent, it sure says a heck of a lot about those who voted for him.

 

[MizBlu]

I don't think so. I don't think I crossed the line. The BS that Clinton's lies had nothing to do with how our country was percieved by our enemies is scary and dangerous. Yes, I do believe that Clinton's morality did have an effect on 9/11, if nothing else because he did not listen to the intelligence he was getting because he was too busy defending himself from the consequences of his actions. It is now coming out that we knew many of the hijackers a year before the attacks (Clinton was president then). A lie is a lie, perjury is perjury, they are two different things. There isn't any "well this perjury is ok, and this one isn't". It wasn't that Clinton lied, it was that Clinton committed perjury, plain and simple - he finally admitted it later on (to his credit, and I don't say that lightly - I could add that he pretty much had no choice at that point, but that would be cynical and I wouldn't want to be that).

Yes the group from Al Queda saw us a morally corrupt, but they also saw us as weak. We should have known (and we did) about the attack on the Cole but we did nothing. We should have done more about the first attack on the WTC (we did caputure the local people, what about those who were afar?) but he was distracted. He should never have allowed Les Aspin into his administration, especially in a department that had to do with the defense of our country.

Viking's country has done all that - great. How does that dispute what I brought forth? His country did not dispute the facts, they disputed whether the facts were enough to go to war. The bs that "Clinton lied and no one died" is really upsetting. It assumes that we live in a vacuum, that the actions we take only affect that situation. It isn't very realistic, yet it's the best we hear from the left and from overseas in regards to Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. I can handle him telling the truth, but I get tired of hearing the same regurgitations about how terrible Bush is and how great Clinton was.

I firmly believe that when all is said and done, Clinton will come off as a worse president than Carter in many respects. Carter was incompetant for the office, twice as bad as Bush is, but he cared and he tried. Clinton was competant, but he got caught in his own character shortcomings - he was however a great politician. Bush is competant, but an extremely bad politician. He has allowed his staff to do some really dumb things - like saying that the "16 words" shouldn't have been in the state of the union. British Intelligence to this day still stands by it.

You've not only crossed the line, you've gone over the edge.

 

[marybet]

"Come on, we see through this - if the CIA prepared a formal report, it would be subpoenaed as evidence, and the jury would laugh out loud at the "no damage" assessment. So the CIA filed a criminal referral in 2003, got the White House tied up in a two year investigation, and now they are laughing out loud. Well played, especially if you like a spy service that shrugs off executive oversight by inventing crimes and playing dirty tricks. "

Let's see if "no damage" was done than it's not a crime? What damage did Clinton's lying cause? It always amazes me how the double standard applies to Republicans and Democrats.

It is to bad that "dirty tricks' are not illegal because then we could put Rove away for a very long time and he would no longer be able to ruin lives.

At least the Deomcrats admitted that what Clinton did was wrong, I have yet to hear anything put praise coming from the White House for Libby. Again there's that double standard.

 

[bsnyder]

At least the Deomcrats admitted that what Clinton did was wrong,

They did? Who and when?

 

[RobinMarie]

They did? Who and when?

Joe Lieberman publically requested an apology from Clinton during the whole hunt.

 

[MizBlu]

Things I've learned today:

1) Al-Qaeda flew planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania because Clinton got a **** job.

2) Damn those countries involved in the Oil-for-Food scandal who were right about the weapons capabilities of Saddam Hussein all along. Why couldn't they be corrupt and wrong? Oh, the luck.

3) Perjury isn't perjury, obstruction of justice isn't obstruction of justice, and making false statement isn't making false statements until the CIA assesses how much damage was done by outting a CIA agent. Huh?

Once more, with feeling, the smoke-blowing, spin-meister, Bush apologist anthem:

http://www.internetweekly.org/iwr/parody_dubya_scarecrow.html

 

[Laura]

According to the indictment, it wasn't about outing a CIA agent and covering it up, otherwise that charge would have been listed. That is the charge they were specificially investigating, and they didn't find anything there.

That's not completely true. Scooter wasn't indicted for outing a CIA officer because he would have had to know:
A. she was an undercover operative
and
B. that leaking that information would have harmed the USA.
Someone would have had to testify against Libby (namely Rove or Cheney) for the grand jury to have enough evidence to issue that indictment. Not bloody likely, is it?

Just because Scooter wasn't indicted on that one specific charge doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong.

 

[bsnyder]

Joe Lieberman publically requested an apology from Clinton during the whole hunt.

You mean the Joe Lieberman that most Democrats consider to be too much like a Repubilcan?

 

[Deb & Bill]

Who is this guy? Never heard of him

I was hoping for someone more high profile.

He's the fall guy. Sacrificial lamb.

 

[RobinMarie]

You mean the Joe Lieberman that most Democrats consider to be too much like a Repubilcan?

I mean the Democratic Senator from the blue state of Connecticut. I was unaware Joe was considering crossing the aisle.

 

[Brainhammer]

Clinton lied about sex with an intern - Bush and his aides lied about reasons for going to war.
Obviously the average rightwinger thinks screwing an intern is worse than screwing a country

Lyjing to a grand jury is a crime, regardless of what is being investigated. What don't you understand about that?

 

[Brainhammer]

And Reagan lied to Congress and The American People. Nixon lied, JFK lied, etc. etc. etc. So Clinton having sex with a intern caused 9/11? I think it's more American arrogance than America's lack of morals. According to them, the entire world is immoral (except for them, of course). Why did they pick the Pentagon and our financial institutions to destroy instead of Las Vegas's brothels? Regarding Iraq, there was plenty of credible intellegence telling Bush and Blair that WMD's in Iraq just didn't add up. We went into Iraq to get Saddam out because we didn't like him. Plain and simple.

I don't recall JFK, Nixon or Reagan lying to a grand jury. When did that happen?

 

[DawnCt1]

I mean the Democratic Senator from the blue state of Connecticut. I was unaware Joe was considering crossing the aisle.

Joe Lieberman has supported the war in Iraq and the president on more issues than not. He is too conservative to win the nomination from the Dems as you may have already noticed. He didn't even carry our own state.

 

[lyeag]

Joe Lieberman has supported the war in Iraq and the president on more issues than not. He is too conservative to win the nomination from the Dems as you may have already noticed. He didn't even carry our own state.[/QUOTE


Gee, now they want to claim him...

 

[marybet]

They did? Who and when?

I guess I could do some research and get a list of all the Democrats that said what Clinton did was wrong but why should I? Unless you weren't paying attention during that scandal you already know that Democrats spoke out against what he did. The Republicans are saying it is all Joe Wilson's fault about poor Scooter. The Mobile Register actually had an editorial yesterday with the headline "Libby's Plight Began with Joe Wilson's Lies". Yeah it's tough being a liberal in a red state with a newspaper that is so biased for Bush, I am surprised that it is not required reading for all his supporters.

 

[eclectics]

I don't recall JFK, Nixon or Reagan lying to a grand jury. When did that happen?

It never did. If you read the post you will note I never said they lied to a grand jury. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. I was speaking of Presidential lying in general, and I personally think lying to Congress isn't exactly a step nicer on the lie meter than lying to a GJ.

 

[bsnyder]

Unless you weren't paying attention during that scandal you already know that Democrats spoke out against what he did. The Republicans are saying it is all Joe Wilson's fault about poor Scooter. The Mobile Register actually had an editorial yesterday with the headline "Libby's Plight Began with Joe Wilson's Lies". Yeah it's tough being a liberal in a red state with a newspaper that is so biased for Bush, I am surprised that it is not required reading for all his supporters.

I was paying attention, and the relative silence was pretty deafening.

You do realize that Joe Wilson DID lie, right? Or if you would rather use his own words, he "misspoke".

And many Republicans, myself included, are not saying "poor Scooter" at all. I think lying to the Grand Jury and the investigators is seriously wrong. If he is indeed guilty of that, he should pay the price.