NationStates Jolt Archive

And let's not forget the Lancet Journal report that found around 1/2 million Iraqis have died as a direct result of the war.

Which was about a year ago. The number's much higher now.

You know you're hitting a raw nerve when people start creating puppet accounts just to troll within a thread.
How many accounts with just 1 or 2 posts are there in this thread now?
Well Cornman has admitted to having over 50 puppets ahwile back, and I haven't seen him, or Allegheny County or Lancaster County lately.......hmmmmm.

RO has admitted to having over 20 puppets, and we know that would include DK, Sierra BHTP, and Whispering Legs.

That is a major problem with the debates on NSG lately.....way too many puppets!!

They're only doing this because he's part of their administration. Who knows what would happen if he was a Democrat? (But I'm probably just stating the obvious)

yep, we sure do. and if it were the other way around it would be the same story only the names and faces changed.

yep, we sure do. and if it were the other way around it would be the same story only the names and faces changed.
I think JBGoode meant what if "Scooter" (I can't help but put "Pooper" in front of that) was a Dem.
Would GWB have acted the same way?
Why is the sky blue?
Is there such a thing as an answer to a rhetorical question?

I think JBGoode meant what if "Scooter" (I can't help but put "Pooper" in front of that) was a Dem.
Would GWB have acted the same way?
Why is the sky blue?
Is there such a thing as an answer to a rhetorical question?

i understood that. what i was trying to imply is if it were a completely different situation to the one now (dem president, dem being prosecuted) it would be exactly the same as what is going on now.

There's one other good thing that came out of all this -- aside from any personal benefit to Libby.

I get to read all the Democrats complain endlessly and without recourse.

And that makes me happy.
Translation: I've just had my ass handed back to me and the only recourse now is that I'm going to ignore everything that's been posted in refutation of what I've been saying. Further I'm going to show how childish I can be by making sarky comments about others, rather than being mature and actually admitting I is wrong about something.

Do you have any idea how many pies it takes to kill a man?

I do. To be honest, timing and accuracy are more important than sheer volume. *nod*
Surely type of pie matters as well.
I would hazard that an apple pie has a higher fatality rating than a pumpkin pie for example.
Or am I wrong in this thinking?

Clinton made PLENTY of questionable pardons during his administration. Anyone remember Whitewater?

Bush commuted a sentence. He did NOT pardon Libby. The felony conviction stands.

Sentence commutation is completely within the discretion of the office of the Presidency.

I really think that the media will do anything and everything to continue to paint the President in a negative light. I'm not saying I agree with everything Bush has done, or even most of the things, but when absolutely everything the press has to say about him is completely and utterly negative, I really have to wonder.

i understood that. what i was trying to imply is if it were a completely different situation to the one now (dem president, dem being prosecuted) it would be exactly the same as what is going on now.
Quite possibly.
The "They'd probably do the same if they were in that position" is an even more tenuous defence that the "They did it too!" defence, which has zero credibility anyway.

So your point is....what exactly?

Clinton made PLENTY of questionable pardons during his administration. Anyone remember Whitewater?

Bush commuted a sentence. He did NOT pardon Libby. The felony conviction stands.

Sentence commutation is completely within the discretion of the office of the Presidency.

I really think that the media will do anything and everything to continue to paint the President in a negative light. I'm not saying I agree with everything Bush has done, or even most of the things, but when absolutely everything the press has to say about him is completely and utterly negative, I really have to wonder.
yay. another puppet created just for this thread. How many is that now?

Sorry, not a puppet. Thanks for playing.

Sorry, not a puppet. Thanks for playing.
That sounds exactly like a certain resident NS poster would say.

Uhm


Still not a puppet?

Don't know how to make that clear. Seriously, I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted.

Quite possibly.
The "They'd probably do the same if they were in that position" is an even more tenuous defence that the "They did it too!" defence, which has zero credibility anyway.

So your point is....what exactly?

my point is the "look what the evil republicans did" argument really doesn't hold any weight. there is a lot of attention given to what republicans are doing that is common in politics no matter what party they are affiliated with.

On this thread:
Tiffistan Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1 (stance: proBush)
McGlashan: Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2 (stance: proBush)
The big unsexy Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 10 (stance: proBush) <---last post until yesterday was July 15th 2006

possible puppet:
Brusia Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 64 (stance: proBush)


Interesting that as soon as their Dear Leader is criticised, some peoples on this forum feel the need to create puppet accounts to defend him.

My guess it's a symptom of cognitive dissonace and is done to look as if there's still lots of people out there supporting GWB.


Out of fairness, there's also:
WillowGlen Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1 (stance: antiBush)

my point is the "look what the evil republicans did" argument really doesn't hold any weight.
And why doesn't it hold any weight?
So basically you're saying that as long as someone earlier has done something vaguely similar therefore we shouldn't be outraged by a person's current actions.

Is this how you view all crime - or only crimes committed by republicans?

And why doesn't it hold any weight?
So basically you're saying that as long as someone earlier has done something vaguely similar therefore we shouldn't be outraged by a person's current actions.

Is this how you view all crime - or only crimes committed by republicans?

you're quite good at trying to twist what someone had said. your left wing puppet masters must be proud.

here i was talking about the actions of Bush on this subject and not the actions of Libby. pardoning someone especially of the same political spectrum is widely done in politics if you have the authority to do so. and there isn't anything criminal about pardoning.

but go ahead on your bush is a criminal rant anyway.

Clinton made PLENTY of questionable pardons during his administration. Anyone remember Whitewater?

Bush commuted a sentence. He did NOT pardon Libby. The felony conviction stands.

Sentence commutation is completely within the discretion of the office of the Presidency.

I really think that the media will do anything and everything to continue to paint the President in a negative light. I'm not saying I agree with everything Bush has done, or even most of the things, but when absolutely everything the press has to say about him is completely and utterly negative, I really have to wonder.

Outside of Susan McDougal, who was being held on contempt for refusing to testify, name a single Whitewater person Clinton pardoned. I'll wait. Further, name a single person Clinton pardoned from his administration who was convicted of crimes involving his own administration. Again, I'll wait.

If you're looking for a parallel, the proper one is Poppy Bush, who pardoned pretty much everyone involved in Iran-Contra. Poppy was covering his own ass with that one, since he was in it up to his neck. Like father, like son.

Like father, like son.

Truer words have seldom been spoken.

For fuck's sake. If I see one more "argument from Clinton" I think my head's going to explode.

For fuck's sake. If I see one more "argument from Clinton" I think my head's going to explode.

I'm at that point, too.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff, was convicted of serious crimes pertaining to the CIA Leak investigation. The charges included both obstruction of justice and perjury, crimes considered so serious by Republicans that they impeached a sitting President (Clinton) on those very same charges. Libby released the name of a covert CIA employee in order to discredit her husband, Ambassador J. Wilson, a staunch Iraq-war critic, then lied to federal investigators and tried to cover up this fact. He was found guilty and sentenced to almost three years in federal prison by a judge appointed by President Bush.

But as of two minutes ago, even as I write this, Mr. Libby is receiving word that he will not have to serve a day in jail. President Bush has commuted his sentence.

The legal lesson? If you're a Democrat and you perjure yourself, it's an event worthy of impeachment. But if you're a Republican and you perjure yourself, you are standing heroically, defending the country from its' enemies inside and out. Political cronyism trumps everything for this Republican administration...even the very law of the land must give way in the name of ideology.

How about THIS for a new slogan? Republicans: Soft on crime, supporters of a man who outed a CIA employee and endangered the lives of those agents with whom she consorted.

Remember this outrage in 2008, America. Remember how little the Republican Party respects law and order in this country.


lol...that is the dumbest thing i have ever read..if they are republicans,they are cheaters and bad,lol,how about whitewater and the dead guy with travel gate?
i hate both party's,but to be so naive to think one is better then the other is almost spit my beer on the keyboard funny...hillary is the biggest pos next to bush,lol,but since you hate you go with that demagogue...what a bunch of knee jerk retards.
hitlery is a pos,gwb is a pos,but you cant see it thru your rose colored,influenced by the uni eyeglasses...pathetic

if it wont give you a stroke..check out who billy boy pardoned..could he have pardoned a swindler from switzerland that his wife contributed thousands to his campaign,he is so dirty he still cant come back and he was pardoned..lol...you retards crack me up..take another polysci class and fuck the professor
i dont mean to be mean,but please...grow thwe fuck up,politicians are dirty fucks,and both sides are...wake up..call....sorry to break up the tryst your having with the liberal professor,but the dems are dirty also...sorry to break it to you....go watch a mike moore film and you will feel better,just like the neo cons will watch whatever the fuck they watch

For fuck's sake. If I see one more "argument from Clinton" I think my head's going to explode.

I think that by this time, it's been done enough to warrant a place on the list of logical fallacies. Of course, if HRC winds up the next president, all bets are off. Everything old will be new again.

lol...that is the dumbest thing i have ever read..if they are republicans,they are cheaters and bad,lol,how about whitewater and the dead guy with travel gate?
i hate both party's,but to be so naive to think one is better then the other is almost spit my beer on the keyboard funny...hillary is the biggest pos next to bush,lol,but since you hate you go with that demagogue...what a bunch of knee jerk retards.
hitlery is a pos,gwb is a pos,but you cant see it thru your rose colored,influenced by the uni eyeglasses...pathetic

Ordinarily I like to pick at the points of stupidity in a post like this as one might pick out the offensive anchovies of a pizza. But sadly the stupid here is salient, like trying to pick spoiled cream out of a cup of coffee. But even spoiled cream will have a few solid chunks that I will pick at here.

The beer thing. It shows that you're posting drunk. The fact that you believe the crap you're saying shows that you're living drunk. To refer to Vince Foster as "he dead guy with travel gate," indicates the fuzziness of thinking that typifies conservative voters. Well, that and living drunk.

lol...that is the dumbest thing i have ever read..if they are republicans,they are cheaters and bad,lol,how about whitewater and the dead guy with travel gate?
i hate both party's,but to be so naive to think one is better then the other is almost spit my beer on the keyboard funny...hillary is the biggest pos next to bush,lol,but since you hate you go with that demagogue...what a bunch of knee jerk retards.
hitlery is a pos,gwb is a pos,but you cant see it thru your rose colored,influenced by the uni eyeglasses...pathetic

if it wont give you a stroke..check out who billy boy pardoned..could he have pardoned a swindler from switzerland that his wife contributed thousands to his campaign,he is so dirty he still cant come back and he was pardoned..lol...you retards crack me up..take another polysci class and fuck the professor
i dont mean to be mean,but please...grow thwe fuck up,politicians are dirty fucks,and both sides are...wake up..call....sorry to break up the tryst your having with the liberal professor,but the dems are dirty also...sorry to break it to you....go watch a mike moore film and you will feel better,just like the neo cons will watch whatever the fuck they watch

Shit. Yep, there goes my head.

I mean, come on folks. I don't even like Bill Clinton, but bringing up his indiscretions is not the magical "I Win" card that so many people obviously think it is. Even if two wrongs could somehow make a right, when it comes to sheer disregard for the rule of law, Clinton's administration doesn't even come close to the current one.

P.S.: http://roflcat.com/images/cats/270915355_c8b9ae48e6.jpg

yep, we sure do. and if it were the other way around it would be the same story only the names and faces changed.

Yeah. I meant if Scooter was a Dem. He'd be facing a shitload of prison time.

The character was not called Slim Pickens.I know that. The actors name is Slim Pickens. ;)

http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
low level of losses?
As at July 2, 2007:
3586 US soldiers killed (including 111 from suicide). That's not counting the407 dead in Afghanistan btw
284 Soldiers from other countries killed
7101 Iraqi soldiers and policemen killed
404 "Contractors" (which means everything from truck drivers to mercs) killed
127 Journalists killed
73120 Iraqi civillans killed due to the military action
To date, 84622 perople have been killed from direct military action in Iraq.

And that above list doesn't include the numbers injured.
25830 US soldiers have been wounded (of which 11831 did not return to action) If we extrapolate that ratio (of 7 injuries: 1 fatality), we come up with ~600000 injuries in Iraq from military action.
This figure is open to debate of course - civillan injury: death ratio no doubt being much lower as they don't have the protection of bodyarmour and armoured vehicles. But even if we use 7:1 ratio for the soldiers and, say, 3:1 for civillans, we still end up with ~300 000 wounded as a result of military action.

85000 dead and ~300000 wounded from direct military action.

And let's not forget the Lancet Journal report that found around 1/2 million Iraqis have died as a direct result of the war.

yup. low level losses indeed.

Yes, low level losses.

First, I refer only to US military dead. VERY low level losses.

Second, your "extrapolations" are of no interest or importance.

Third, civilian casualties happen in every war.

Fourth, the responsibility for the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties lies with terrorists who deliberately target them.

Fifth, the Lancet estimate is subject to doubt, to put it far more charitably than it deserves. You and Rosie O'Fat may give that nonsense any credence, but don't expect anyone else to.

when the obsessive right accept and dismiss the killing of tens of thousands of civillans, they do the work of the enemy.

Nice paraphrase. Now go back to your little wheel and spin around for a few days :p

Yes, low level losses.

First, I refer only to US military dead. VERY low level losses.

Second, your "extrapolations" are of no interest or importance.

Third, civilian casualties happen in every war.

Fourth, the responsibility for the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties lies with terrorists who deliberately target them.

Fifth, the Lancet estimate is subject to doubt, to put it far more charitably than it deserves. You and Rosie O'Fat may give that nonsense any credence, but don't expect anyone else to.

Nice paraphrase. Now go back to your little wheel and spin around for a few days :p
I'll give you credit for one thing and one thing only. It doesn't seem to matter to you how low Bush goes, as it appears that you are in lockstep with him, even though he may be paving the way for Mrs. President. :D

I'll give you credit for one thing and one thing only. It doesn't seem to matter to you how low Bush goes, as it appears that you are in lockstep with him, even though he may be paving the way for Mrs. President. :D

I'd rather it be President Obama.

At this point Republicans are risking "Any party but Republicans," it has long passed the time that reasoned Republicans (and there are a few out there) throw Bush under the bus and Cheney along with him and Alberto Gonzales as well.

Take your pick. Party loyalty and lose your asses or doing the right thing. It seems a very simple choice to me.


~S

At this point Republicans are risking "Any party but Republicans," it has long passed the time that reasoned Republicans (and there are a few out there) throw Bush under the bus and Cheney along with him and Alberto Gonzales as well.

Take your pick. Party loyalty and lose your asses or doing the right thing. It seems a very simple choice to me.


~S
Unfortunately, many "public servants" who swore oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution and the national interest will choose to save their own asses rather than do the right thing, in full knowledge that it is the right thing.

The most pathetic part, imo, is how they all seem to lack the vision to figure out how to save their asses by doing the right thing.

Remember this outrage in 2008, America. Remember how little the Republican Party respects law and order in this country.

I wasn't even CLOSE to forgetting about it. It's an ongoing infection.
Worst part is, just about EVERYONE should've seen it coming.
:mad:

Come to think of it, Sumamba Buwhan had an excellent thread a while back about this whole thing, iirc.
Kept track of the goodies.

Unfortunately, many "public servants" who swore oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution and the national interest will choose to save their own asses rather than do the right thing, in full knowledge that it is the right thing.

The most pathetic part, imo, is how they all seem to lack the vision to figure out how to save their asses by doing the right thing.

The whole "party first" mentality pisses me right off. Nixon was an amateur compared to these criminal bastards.

hmmm...if I recall correctly Hillary Clinton had very strong words against Bush's actions in regards to Libby...

...and on the other hand...it was okay for Bill Clinton to pardon a record number of cons?

Polititicians are crooks, liars, for themselves not "For the People"...dems, reps, all of them...

Not to b...b...but Clinton,

BUT

Clinton pardoned people involved with such crimes as racketeering, drug smuggling, and Susan McDougal, a person connected with the Whitewater scandal.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

Both parties can abuse the power.

All those were made by neocon think tanks, you do know right that it was discovered all those were made up by those with connections to GOP.

Yes, low level losses.

First, I refer only to US military dead. VERY low level losses.
Oh, I see. The dead don't matter if they're brown or foreign. gotcha.
Second, your "extrapolations" are of no interest or importance.
Why not? Why are injuries caused by direct military action of no importance? Tell that to the tens of thousands of wounded soldiers and civillans.
Third, civilian casualties happen in every war.
And that makes it ok, does it?
Fifth, the Lancet estimate is subject to doubt, to put it far more charitably than it deserves. You and Rosie O'Fat may give that nonsense any credence, but don't expect anyone else to.
Yeah of course it doesn't have credence sweetie.
Just because the Lancet is one of the most highly regarded journals in the World, and has an outstanding reputation to protect it would publish any shite wouldn't it?
Not forgetting that the methodology they used for their research had been reviewed, vetted and accepted as solid many times over. Even your beloved Dear Leader and GOP had accepted their research when they did exact same methods in the Balkans and in Darfur. Only to happy to use those studies weren't they?
But once a study comes out that makes them look bad...well...suddenly all you dittoheads swear and curse and claim it's all an ebil-Liberal-Leftwing conspiracy instituted by Rosie O'Donnell in order to make your Dear Leader look bad.
Do yourself a favour - actually look up the Lancet article and read it for yourself. Don't just rely on what Fox tells you.

On this thread:
Tiffistan Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1 (stance: proBush)
McGlashan: Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2 (stance: proBush)
The big unsexy Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 10 (stance: proBush) <---last post until yesterday was July 15th 2006

possible puppet:
Brusia Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 64 (stance: proBush)

Interesting that as soon as their Dear Leader is criticised, some peoples on this forum feel the need to create puppet accounts to defend him.

My guess it's a symptom of cognitive dissonace and is done to look as if there's still lots of people out there supporting GWB.
Need to add yet another one:
Sacred Freedoms Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3 (stance: proBush)

This forum desperately needs a "No troll accounts" (they might be "puppets" in an RP setting, but on a discussion forum they are trolls) policy, with deletion on the first offense for all related accounts.

Do you have any idea how many pies it takes to kill a man?

I do. To be honest, timing and accuracy are more important than sheer volume. *nod*

pfft, that's small potatoes. Choking on pretzel as opposed to being shot by a hidden gunman. Pieing to death by mob is the big leagues son.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff, was convicted of serious crimes pertaining to the CIA Leak investigation. The charges included both obstruction of justice and perjury, crimes considered so serious by Republicans that they impeached a sitting President (Clinton) on those very same charges. Libby released the name of a covert CIA employee in order to discredit her husband, Ambassador J. Wilson, a staunch Iraq-war critic, then lied to federal investigators and tried to cover up this fact. He was found guilty and sentenced to almost three years in federal prison by a judge appointed by President Bush.

But as of two minutes ago, even as I write this, Mr. Libby is receiving word that he will not have to serve a day in jail. President Bush has commuted his sentence.

The legal lesson? If you're a Democrat and you perjure yourself, it's an event worthy of impeachment. But if you're a Republican and you perjure yourself, you are standing heroically, defending the country from its' enemies inside and out. Political cronyism trumps everything for this Republican administration...even the very law of the land must give way in the name of ideology.

How about THIS for a new slogan? Republicans: Soft on crime, supporters of a man who outed a CIA employee and endangered the lives of those agents with whom she consorted.

Remember this outrage in 2008, America. Remember how little the Republican Party respects law and order in this country.

and slick willie pardoned people also,the rich embezzler from zurick comes to mind,but his wife contributed a bunch of money,so that makes it ok,cept for the people that got screwed by the guy,when are both sides of this polarized debate gonna stop and smell the fucking coffee...they ARE ALL CROOKS!
blackwater,haliburton,pardons,etc....they all suck and are all whores...whats your argument,my whore is better then your whore..lol,get a grip.
the clintons were just as dirty and greedy as the bushes,you make some distinction on idealogical grounds,but your brain is failing you on this,if they compromise their morals and ethics(which they all do) then how strong are their convictions,long enought to get elected maybe,and everyone buys the stupid little issue sidestep,they are all the same and divide us into camps of us or them,and they pull the strings,laughing their collective asses off at all of you that really believe in your "guy"
what a joke.
on the big thing,they are all on the same page and send us scurrying around for our pet causes that they either do or dont support,it is as pathetic as it is transparent.
your pro abortion...then by god damn it,fuck the republicans..only the dems are good,you dont like paying taxes...then fuck the dems,they want to take my money and give it to crack head moms...neither is true,but it divides us,and divide and conguer is the oldest trick in the book.
i am a fiscal conservative,and i dont like abortion,but i would not presume to make that decision for others,what does that make me?

And the Democrats don't? Ah-hem the Kennedy's...

Yes...Politicians and the like are corrupt BIG SURPRISE there Huh, you must be a hermit living in a cave if you didn't realize that yet. Furthermore it happens on BOTH sides..I do recall a one Mr Clinton pardoning people for things like money laundering and extortion and Racketeering and dealing in narcotics.....this is just some liberal trying to take a cheap shot (and a very bad one at that)...when there are a lot better issues that you could dig at...ones that your own side has at least a tiny level of moral advantage in... instead you choose to dig at this...sadly your side is just and low,dirty and crooked as the other and this entire thread useless..I'm equally appalled at ALL politicians...


Shalrirorchia you lose my friend...:rolleyes:

hmmm...if I recall correctly Hillary Clinton had very strong words against Bush's actions in regards to Libby...

...and on the other hand...it was okay for Bill Clinton to pardon a record number of cons?

Polititicians are crooks, liars, for themselves not "For the People"...dems, reps, all of them...

It's not the act of pardoning--it's who he commuted and why. I've said this a number of times in this thread, but it bears repeating as long as people keep using this false equivalency.

Clinton never pardoned anyone who could have fingered him or Gore in wrongdoing.

And so far, Bush hasn't either--with good reason. If Libby is actually pardoned, he can be forced to testify before Congress and in court. He's no longer in jeopardy, and so loses his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. By commuting the sentence, he in effect protects Libby and himself and Cheney, and Libby never spends a day in jail. Sounds like a quid pro quo to me.

Are we really doing this "But Clinton..." thing? Really?

If Clinton jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?

Even if what The Nazz points out wasn't true, really...c'mon...this argument wouldn't work on your mom, why do you guys think it flies here?

Are we really doing this "But Clinton..." thing? Really?

If Clinton jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?

Even if what The Nazz points out wasn't true, really...c'mon...this argument wouldn't work on your mom, why do you guys think it flies here?

Well, they come to every other decision like an 8 year old would. Why should this be any different?

Nearly 20 pages of "but they did it too!" I'd really like someome to explain how Clinton (literally) pardoning everybody and his brother makes it ok that Bush pulled this communtation stunt that kept Cheney's aide out of jail, but protected the two of them from investigation. How does previous abuse of power excuse present abuse of power?

Nearly 20 pages of "but they did it too!" I'd really like someome to explain how Clinton (literally) pardoning everybody and his brother makes it ok that Bush pulled this communtation stunt that kept Cheney's aide out of jail, but protected the two of them from investigation. How does previous abuse of power excuse present abuse of power?

It doesn't. They just have heards so far up their butts that it doesn't make one bit of difference to them. It sounds good and they will never admit to any wrongdoing on behalf of their glorious leader.

~S

If Clinton jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?
They might, just so the survivors could blame Clinton for so many Republican deaths and injuries.

"Republican Party Coddles Criminals!"

"In a related story, water is wet!"

"Republican Party Coddles Criminals!"

"In a related story, water is wet!"

Jeez, I bet you got these witticisms written on the backs of your hands. :p

Jeez, I bet you got these witticisms written on the backs of your hands. :p
Right under the math formulas.

Right under the math formulas.

No doubt, but she's gotta have giant hands for that.

"Republican Party Coddles Criminals!"

"In a related story, water is wet!"
In another related story, the water is not only wet, but is also dirty and filled with piranha.

"Even now, at your right hand, until this cursed term is spent, is the one who houses, The Riddler, who questions those who defend the indefensible. Therefore I invoke thee. RIDDLE ME THIS!"

Is "Clinton did it too" a valid excuse for what Bush does?

Riddle me that:

Didn't Clinton "lie" about a blow job rather than about destroying someone's career?

Riddle me this:

Won't what Bush did harm the very Republicans that claim to defend him by giving valuable (and deserved) ammo to the Democrats?

Riddle me that:

Doesn't it sound obvious that Libby got informed that he would not serve a day in jail so that he COULD, in fact, lie through his teeth without fear?

Riddle me this:

When did "Clinton" become an expression meaning "I'll pull something that happened more than 6 years ago as an excuse for whatever the current guy does"?

Riddle me that:

Why do the Bush supporters that cared so much about Clinton lying don't give a damn about Libby doing the same?

Riddle me this:

Didn't the Bush government argue a few days earlier that sentences that fall within Federal Sentencing Guidelines are presumed to be "reasonable", regardless of individual circumstances?

Riddle me that:

So, what changed but the fact that Libby was a friend of Bush?

Riddle me this:

Do you right-wingers care more about Bush than even about your own reelection chances, which he is further harming?

Riddle me that:

Regardless of all else that was said, don't you give a DAMN about the rule of law and the judicial system?

Answer my riddles correctly, right-wingers, or concede this argument and accept your loss. This ends now.

Do you right-wingers care more about Bush than even about your own reelection chances, which he is further harming?
They don't want to be associated with Bush unless it means dragging liberals and democrats through the mud.

They don't want to be associated with Bush unless it means dragging liberals and democrats through the mud.

Of course dragging someone through the mud usually means getting dirty yourself. Then again Busheviks aren't known for realizing irony or hypocrisy.

Nearly 20 pages of "but they did it too!" I'd really like someome to explain how Clinton (literally) pardoning everybody and his brother makes it ok that Bush pulled this communtation stunt that kept Cheney's aide out of jail, but protected the two of them from investigation. How does previous abuse of power excuse present abuse of power?

God, when I actually see a voice of reason it amazes me any more on these forums. It's filled with trolls who make up new accounts so that they can agree with their troll account and appear as though someone else agrees with them.

Also, moderators and the system need to be able to use ip addresses to ban people instead of just their nations. This is how we have multiple occurrences of the same people making new nations and posting around a ban. We get DK, EO, RO, MTAE, F.A.G. etc and it's just downright annoying. Example, a few week back F&G made a comment about he and MTAE having the same political views and stances are a statement of fact. I believe the words he used were "I am not MTAE but we have the same political stances." Fine and good, but check the date F&G was made and when MTAE was banned after multiple warnings. How does F.A.G. know what MTAE's politcal stances are when our old troll o mine was gone before then. My only response to F&G in that thread was "oops, lookie like I made a mistake." I played a little circular logic game with him and baited him into saying they he knew what MTAE's stances were when his nation was created after the ban. It's pure bullshit.

Back on topic, "He did it too" is not an excuse. It never worked with mom and it sure as shit doesn't fly here. Libby was convicted under federal sentencing guidelines that the Bush White House supported the week before. What changed in this case? Clinton was never indicted or convicted of perjury so that argument is dead in the water. Is Clinton a scummy salesman who tried to massage the law? YES! But in order for perjury to be committed you have to lie about something that is "material to the case" at hand. His blowjob was not material to whitewater therefor it doesn't point to the merits of the case. Is that simple enough for the non law degree holding people out there? Get it straight, WJC is a scumbag, but he's not a man who committed perjury. Action was taken against him for violating ethics rules and his law license was suspended for five years. That is the appropriate punishment for someone who committed an offense such as his.

Comparing Libby and Clinton can only be that they both lied during testimony. The difference is Libby lied about information that actually pertained to the investigation at hand. He intentionally lied and withheld evidence and was convicted of four felony counts.

As I had asked a while ago in this thread (I left for lack of someone who was making a valid counterpoint and it appears nothing has changed) please find me the precedent where a President has commuted or pardoned someone while their case was still on appeal. Also, provide me a precedent for a pardon or commutation for someone who could testify to high crimes and misdemeanors committed by that President while the President still sits in office. If it's been done before in history please point it out. I know all I'll get it "But Clinton..." but I'd like to be surprised here.

Outside of Susan McDougal, who was being held on contempt for refusing to testify, name a single Whitewater person Clinton pardoned. I'll wait. Further, name a single person Clinton pardoned from his administration who was convicted of crimes involving his own administration. Again, I'll wait.

If you're looking for a parallel, the proper one is Poppy Bush, who pardoned pretty much everyone involved in Iran-Contra. Poppy was covering his own ass with that one, since he was in it up to his neck. Like father, like son.

QFT

A few very false and very wrong things have been said many times in this thread and at other locations, and although they have been debunked many times, I feel as if I should take one big shot and correct them all at once

1) Libby didn’t commit any crime because there was no underlying crime.

False. Whether or not a crime has occurred is irrelevant to whether the underlying charges of perjury and obstruction of justice are valid. The purpose of such investigation and inquiry is to determine whether or not a crime is likely to have occurred. Perjury is a crime. Obstruction is a crime. Whether or not there was an underlying crime that prompted the investigation that lead to the obstruction and perjury is irrelevant.

2) Libby didn’t lie, he forgot/misspoke/did not recall

False. Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in a court of criminal law. He was convicted by a jury of his peers. As a matter of law, after considering all the evidence, and giving all reasonable inferences in Libby’s favor, a jury concluded that beyond all reasonable doubt, he did not forget. A jury concluded, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he did not misspeak. A jury concluded, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he did not simply fail to recall.

A jury concluded, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he intentionally, deliberately lied. As much as the apologetics try to argue otherwise, try to say that he was just set up, or that he was steamrolled by an inquisition, or that he was an innocent party in an overzealous prosecution and all he did was simply forget, or harmlessly misspeak, that is untrue, and it is time they realize that. It was demonstrated, in a court of law that he perjured himself and obstructed justice. It has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that he lied.

3) 30 months was excessive

False. Each crime Libby committed (see #2, yes, he did in fact commit them) carries a 5 year maximum. He could have been sentenced to the maximum for each count, to be served consecutively. He faced a maximum 120 month prison sentence, he was given a 30 month sentence. His sentence was thus ¼ of the maximum time. This is not excessive, in fact, it is pretty light.

4) Clinton lied under oath too

False, as a matter of law. He was impeached for such, by the House, this is true. However the House is not charged with determining guilt, nor is an impeachment a verdict of guilt. An impeachment by the house functions as an indictment. An indictment indicates that there is sufficient evidence that a crime may have occurred. Not that it did, that it may have. The Senate, however, found him to be not guilty. To date Clinton has not been convicted of any crime. He was, effectively, indicted for one, but that is not a conviction, and as a matter of law, the Senate found him not guilty of the crime for which he was impeached.

5) Clinton did the same things with his pardons

False. Oh, it is true that Clinton made many pardons. However, at no point, did he pardon anyone that was convicted of any crime for acts that may have involved him or his administration (Whitewater). Likewise he never pardoned anyone involved in his administration. Bush, through commuting Libby, effectively did both. No act of Clinton’s is comparable.

QFT

Fuck yeah.

Fuck yeah.
Straughn wooda said it better!! :D

A few very false and very wrong things have been said many times in this thread and at other locations, and although they have been debunked many times, I feel as if I should take one big shot and correct them all at once

1) Libby didn’t commit any crime because there was no underlying crime.

False. Whether or not a crime has occurred is irrelevant to whether the underlying charges of perjury and obstruction of justice are valid. The purpose of such investigation and inquiry is to determine whether or not a crime is likely to have occurred. Perjury is a crime. Obstruction is a crime. Whether or not there was an underlying crime that prompted the investigation that lead to the obstruction and perjury is irrelevant.
I'm only going to add one thing to this point. You are correct that whether there was an underlying crime is irrelevant to the charges as they were brought, but there is no question that there was an underlying crime. Plame was covered under IIPA, and Judge Walton said so in the ruling. The reason charges were not brought for that violation is because Libby obstructed the investigation and perjured himself.

4) Clinton lied under oath too

False, as a matter of law. He was impeached for such, by the House, this is true. However the House is not charged with determining guilt, nor is an impeachment a verdict of guilt. An impeachment by the house functions as an indictment. An indictment indicates that there is sufficient evidence that a crime may have occurred. Not that it did, that it may have. The Senate, however, found him to be not guilty. To date Clinton has not been convicted of any crime. He was, effectively, indicted for one, but that is not a conviction, and as a matter of law, the Senate found him not guilty of the crime for which he was impeached.

5) Clinton did the same things with his pardons

False. Oh, it is true that Clinton made many pardons. However, at no point, did he pardon anyone that was convicted of any crime for acts that may have involved him or his administration (Whitewater). Likewise he never pardoned anyone involved in his administration. Bush, through commuting Libby, effectively did both. No act of Clinton’s is comparable.

You got number 4 wrong, Skippy. Clinton did lie to a Grand Jury, and he admitted it. As Slate reported in 2001...
"President Clinton and Independent Counsel Robert Ray agreed Friday to settle the seven-year Whitewater probe. The president admitted that he gave misleading testimony in the 1998 Paula Jones case about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, accepted a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, and promised to cover $25,000 in legal fees related to disbarment proceedings against him in Arkansas. In exchange, Ray agreed not to indict Clinton on perjury charges."

The only difference between Clinton and Libby is that Libby was indicted.

And number 5 is a little misleading too. Although you seem to be technically correct, Clinton was more apt to pardon for dollars -- Hugh Rodham was paid a lot of money by a few of those that received pardons. Hugh did return the fees, but only after they were disclosed publicly. Hill's little brother, Tony, got into the act on a couple of those, too.

He pardoned his brother Roger for drug-related crimes -- Hey, if you can't pardon your own brother, what good is it to be President, right?

Then there was the little matter of pardoning 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago. These guys were directly responsible for at least 6 deaths and the permanent maiming of many others. One can only wonder what he got out of that deal... All they had to do was renounce their violent ways -- yeah, right, I'll bet that stuck.

I'd say Slick Willy has a pretty shady history with pardons. One I'd not like to defend, if I were him. Or you.

Snip.

Cute. Now answer MY moves or accept my points.

Cute. Now answer MY moves or accept my points.
To what purpose -- so you can ignore it with a flip remark?

To what purpose -- so you can ignore it with a flip remark?

Ah, you can't, then. I see.

You see, Myrm, that's the difference between us - I'm willing to self-impose constraints, such as rhetorical questions only or Shakespeare speech, to show how, even UNDER those constraints, I can win a debate against you. You aren't willing to answer, even unconstrained, due to the fact that you're perfectly aware that you can't win an argument against me.

Ah, you can't, then. I see.
Impeccable logic...
I don't even know what your contentions are ... How about repeating them?

"Even now, at your right hand, until this cursed term is spent, is the one who houses, The Riddler, who questions those who defend the indefensible. Therefore I invoke thee. RIDDLE ME THIS!"

Is "Clinton did it too" a valid excuse for what Bush does?

Riddle me that:

Didn't Clinton "lie" about a blow job rather than about destroying someone's career?

Riddle me this:

Won't what Bush did harm the very Republicans that claim to defend him by giving valuable (and deserved) ammo to the Democrats?

Riddle me that:

Doesn't it sound obvious that Libby got informed that he would not serve a day in jail so that he COULD, in fact, lie through his teeth without fear?

Riddle me this:

When did "Clinton" become an expression meaning "I'll pull something that happened more than 6 years ago as an excuse for whatever the current guy does"?

Riddle me that:

Why do the Bush supporters that cared so much about Clinton lying don't give a damn about Libby doing the same?

Riddle me this:

Didn't the Bush government argue a few days earlier that sentences that fall within Federal Sentencing Guidelines are presumed to be "reasonable", regardless of individual circumstances?

Riddle me that:

So, what changed but the fact that Libby was a friend of Bush?

Riddle me this:

Do you right-wingers care more about Bush than even about your own reelection chances, which he is further harming?

Riddle me that:

Regardless of all else that was said, don't you give a DAMN about the rule of law and the judicial system?

Answer my riddles correctly, right-wingers, or concede this argument and accept your loss. This ends now.

For your benefit, Myrmi, because I'm a nice guy.

For your benefit, Myrmi, because I'm a nice guy.
Don't kid yourself, you and nice don't mix. Not in print, anyway.

I don't see where I made any of those claims, or anything remotely similar. I was correcting some misleading statements. With this exception, I don't see any point in bringing up Clinton's malfeasance.

So I don't have a dog in this fight. If you want satisfaction, look somewhere else.

Don't kid yourself, you and nice don't mix. Not in print, anyway.

Awww, did I hurt the feelings of the very humane guy that supports torture and genocide in all threads in which either issue comes up? Awwww...

I don't see where I made any of those claims, or anything remotely similar. I was correcting some misleading statements. With this exception, I don't see any point in bringing up Clinton's malfeasance.

So I don't have a dog in this fight. If you want satisfaction, look somewhere else.

What "misleading statements" would that be? You DID, yes, bring up Clinton quite a lot. You have showed yourself as standing against many legal experts that believe the sentence Libby had gotten was a just one. You acted, yes, as if Libby was a martyr.

What "misleading statements" would that be? You DID, yes, bring up Clinton quite a lot. You have showed yourself as standing against many legal experts that believe the sentence Libby had gotten was a just one. You acted, yes, as if Libby was a martyr.
This is like arguing with my wife. She may bring up a past comment that is 10 years past, or she may make one up completely.

There are any number of legal experts that stand on my side. None of them frequent NSG, so I doubt you've seen their opinions. Martyr, no, forgetful -- absolutely. Although the jury disagreed, a reasonable person listening to the faulty memories of the witnesses who testified could have concluded that Libby simply had things mixed up. Additionally, Fitzgerald argued that the judge should sentence Libby as if Libby had been convicted leaking Mrs. Wilson’s identity. The prosecutor wanted to throw the book at Libby for a crime for which Libby was never charged.

There were so many things wrong with the conviction and sentencing that Libby should have been allowed to remain free on an appeal bond. I suspect that one act would have obviated the need for a commutation of the jail time.

This is like arguing with my wife. She may bring up a past comment that is 10 years past, or she may make one up completely.

1- There are several differences between me and your wife, the main one being that she is somehow able to be willing to spend time with you for God knows what reason. The resemblance is probably that she wins 99 out of 99 arguments in your household.

2- Your side is CONSTANTLY using the Clinton Did It Too argument. So... "bringing up a past comment"... Doesn't quite work.

3- And yet Bush refused to show that clemency to a retarded woman that was bound to get executed. Indeed, he laughed at her.

3- And yet Bush refused to show that clemency to a retarded woman that was bound to get executed. Indeed, he laughed at her.

Please tell me he didn't.

1- There are several differences between me and your wife, the main one being that she is somehow able to be willing to spend time with you for God knows what reason. The resemblance is probably that she wins 99 out of 99 arguments in your household.

2- Your side is CONSTANTLY using the Clinton Did It Too argument. So... "bringing up a past comment"... Doesn't quite work.

3- And yet Bush refused to show that clemency to a retarded woman that was bound to get executed. Indeed, he laughed at her.
You have overgeneralized. I am not on anyone's side but my own. And I'm not familiar with #3, except to say that clemency in Texas is not a gubernatorial privilege, it's granted by a board of pardons and paroles. I don't see how any governor of that state can be held accountable for individual actions of the members. I don't believe we're talking about Libby anymore are we? Too hard?

I've got some pressing work in the barn. Think hard and I'll see you in a couple hours.

Please tell me he didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker#Karla_Tucker_and_George_W._Bush

"He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking."

You have overgeneralized. I am not on anyone's side but my own. And I'm not familiar with #3, except to say that clemency in Texas is not a gubernatorial privilege, it's granted by a board of pardons and paroles. I don't see how any governor of that state can be held accountable for individual actions of the members. I don't believe we're talking about Libby anymore are we? Too hard?

I've got some pressing work in the barn. Think hard and I'll see you in a couple hours.

Well, we are talking about Bush's "commute or not" record. You're free to escape the debate at any time, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker#Karla_Tucker_and_George_W._Bush

"He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking."

I couldn't resist the link, so I delayed my foray into the muck... The first paragraph is much more interesting, though. Don't you think?


... At one point, a witness entered the bedroom to find Tucker attempting to pull the axe out of Dean by using her foot on him as leverage. After she pulled the axe from his body, she lifted it above her head, smiled at the witness, and swung it into Dean again. Tucker and Garrett then used the axe on Deborah until, when Deborah begged for the end to her pain, Garrett embedded the axe in her throat. Tucker later expressed satisfaction about her actions when news of the case was broadcast on TV and boasted to others of her actions. Garrett and Tucker were convicted of committing murder with a pickaxe.

I'm not so sure she deserved any clemency, either, regardless of how true a jailhouse conversion she experienced.

So here we are... A wrong righted in Libby's case and a lawful conviction and sentence carried out in Tucker's case. Nope, I don't see any contradiction there.

I couldn't resist the link, so I delayed my foray into the muck... The first paragraph is much more interesting, though. Don't you think?


... At one point, a witness entered the bedroom to find Tucker attempting to pull the axe out of Dean by using her foot on him as leverage. After she pulled the axe from his body, she lifted it above her head, smiled at the witness, and swung it into Dean again. Tucker and Garrett then used the axe on Deborah until, when Deborah begged for the end to her pain, Garrett embedded the axe in her throat. Tucker later expressed satisfaction about her actions when news of the case was broadcast on TV and boasted to others of her actions. Garrett and Tucker were convicted of committing murder with a pickaxe.

I'm not so sure she deserved any clemency, either, regardless of how true a jailhouse conversion she experienced.

So here we are... A wrong righted in Libby's case and a lawful conviction and sentence carried out in Tucker's case. Nope, I don't see any contradiction there.

Libby's case wasn't a "wrong righted", it was a lawful conviction you happen to disagree with. Him denying clemency in KFT's case isn't half as showing as him mocking her while doing so.

Libby's case wasn't a "wrong righted", it was a lawful conviction you happen to disagree with. Him denying clemency in KFT's case isn't half as showing as him mocking her while doing so.
We're stuck with a difference in opinion. I do think Libby was inappropriately charged, tried and convicted. Bush did nothing to change that. Libby is still a felon, pending his lawful appeal.

We're stuck with a difference in opinion. I do think Libby was inappropriately charged, tried and convicted. Bush did nothing to change that. Libby is still a felon, pending his lawful appeal.

Don't you find telling, though, that the same man who laughed at a mentally handicapped person begging for her life went on to commute a legal sentence for one of his non-mentally-handicapped friends?

Don't you find telling, though, that the same man who laughed at a mentally handicapped person begging for her life went on to commute a legal sentence for one of his non-mentally-handicapped friends?

Of course he doesn't find it telling. After all, as God's official represntative on earth Bush can do anything he wants and it automatically becomes right. Myrimi would defend that sick bastard if he killed and ate a child on national TV.

We're stuck with a difference in opinion. I do think Libby was inappropriately charged, tried and convicted. Bush did nothing to change that. Libby is still a felon, pending his lawful appeal.

Based on what? The prosecutor was Republican-appointed, the judge was appointed by George W. Bush, so it can hardly be partisanship that brought this about. The fact that no charges against the targets of the enquiry came up is immaterial to the fact that Scooter himself lied in the course of that investigation, evidence of which this same Bush-appointed judge found overwhelming.


Of course he doesn't find it telling. After all, as God's official represntative on earth Bush can do anything he wants and it automatically becomes right. Myrimi would defend that sick bastard if he killed and ate a child on national TV.

I myself use the example of a television crew filming Bush sodomizing his daughters on the White House lawn; Myrmi would be the first to point out the similarities between this case and that of the Jewish holy man Lott, who impregnated his daughters after the fall of Sodom "accidentally". But I suppose your example is a tad less vulgar.

Based on what? The prosecutor was Republican-appointed, the judge was appointed by George W. Bush, so it can hardly be partisanship that brought this about. The fact that no charges against the targets of the enquiry came up is immaterial to the fact that Scooter himself lied in the course of that investigation, evidence of which this same Bush-appointed judge found overwhelming.



I myself use the example of a television crew filming Bush sodomizing his daughters on the White House lawn; Myrmi would be the first to point out the similarities between this case and that of the Jewish holy man Lott, who impregnated his daughters after the fall of Sodom "accidentally". But I suppose your example is a tad less vulgar.

The thought of Dubya naked made me throw up things I haven't even eaten yet.

You got number 4 wrong, Skippy. Clinton did lie to a Grand Jury, and he admitted it. As Slate reported in 2001...
"President Clinton and Independent Counsel Robert Ray agreed Friday to settle the seven-year Whitewater probe. The president admitted that he gave misleading testimony in the 1998 Paula Jones case about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, accepted a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, and promised to cover $25,000 in legal fees related to disbarment proceedings against him in Arkansas. In exchange, Ray agreed not to indict Clinton on perjury charges."

The only difference between Clinton and Libby is that Libby was indicted.

Lied about getting a blowjob, which had absolutely nothing to do with the Whitewater dealings. Unlike Scooter who lied to cover his bosses' ass in the Plame exposure.

Yes Myrmi, there's a difference.

And number 5 is a little misleading too. Although you seem to be technically correct, Clinton was more apt to pardon for dollars -- Hugh Rodham was paid a lot of money by a few of those that received pardons. Hugh did return the fees, but only after they were disclosed publicly. Hill's little brother, Tony, got into the act on a couple of those, too.

He pardoned his brother Roger for drug-related crimes -- Hey, if you can't pardon your own brother, what good is it to be President, right?

Then there was the little matter of pardoning 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago. These guys were directly responsible for at least 6 deaths and the permanent maiming of many others. One can only wonder what he got out of that deal... All they had to do was renounce their violent ways -- yeah, right, I'll bet that stuck.

I'd say Slick Willy has a pretty shady history with pardons. One I'd not like to defend, if I were him. Or you.

Unlike Scooter's commutation and future pardon, none of Clinton's were ever connected to his administration, or to any Machiavellian intrigue connected to his administration.

And on FALN? Here's a link to the exact same response your Bushevik Brother in Arms Kimchi received for trying to throw that exact same Drudge Ball:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12851984&postcount=57

But since you're probably too lazy to read that link, here's a synopsis:

The FALN members were given clemencies, not pardons.

None of the members offered clemency were convicted of the actual bombings.

Unlike Scooter, these people actually served time in prison before receving clemencies. Not all of them accepted the clemency offer.

And also unlike Scooter's Get Out of Jail Free Card, these clemencies were conditional. The people who took them signed papers swearing to renounce terrorism and avoid contact with FALN or each other. Violation meant they would have their clemencies revoked, the charges reinstated and have their asses thrown back in prison. And since it's been eight years since we heard of them, obviously they kept to their agreement.

Really, can you try something a lot more creative than "8ut ©|1n70n!!" to try and defend Your Beloved Dear Leader and his Inner Circle?

Drudge Ball:


Hehe...Drudge Ball. I usually don't like that kind of thing no matter what 'side' it's on (Faux News, Communist News Network, etc.) don't like it. Drags down the debate no matter who does it. But the uncited Drudge parroting drags things down and is used as a vague dodge so often that in this case it made me laugh.

Looks like Prez had a craving for steamed liberals this July 4th. Mmmmm.

Don't you find telling, though, that the same man who laughed at a mentally handicapped person begging for her life went on to commute a legal sentence for one of his non-mentally-handicapped friends?
In the linked description of the way she hacked a man to death with a pick-axe, I didn't see any description of her mental illness. Unless, of course, you're referring to her belief that a jail-house conversion to Christ should exempt her from execution.

I'll give you that any levity regarding life-and-death decisions is uncalled for, but that levity certainly doesn't make the sentence any less valid.

We're stuck with a difference in opinion. I do think Libby was inappropriately charged, tried and convicted. Bush did nothing to change that. Libby is still a felon, pending his lawful appeal.

The problem is you've done nothing to actually substantiate that opinion. You've done nothing to explain why you hold it.

You haven't pointed out any evidence you feel was improperly considered. You haven't shown any violation of libby's rights. You haven't demonstrated any evidence of bias to substantiate any claims of malicious prosecution.

You have not demonstrated one single solid reason for you to believe that his conviction was wrong in spite of a lawful finding of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. You have given us no reason to believe, even for a moment, that this conviction was wrong. You have done nothing to substantiate that belief other than to cross your arms, pout, and when called on that clammer "well, we'll have to agree to disagree".

Sure, you can have your differing opinion, but, given your past posting history and your total and utter failure to demonstrate, in any way, why we too should think that, we are left to conclude that you only believe it because George Bush said so. And given that man's priorly demonstrated inability to remain honest, you will forgive us if we don't take such things as gospel, and that we are still rather shocked that 6 years later, you continue to do so.

The problem is you've done nothing to actually substantiate that opinion. You've done nothing to explain why you hold it.

You haven't pointed out any evidence you feel was improperly considered. You haven't shown any violation of libby's rights. You haven't demonstrated any evidence of bias to substantiate any claims of malicious prosecution.

You have not demonstrated one single solid reason for you to believe that his conviction was wrong in spite of a lawful finding of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. You have given us no reason to believe, even for a moment, that this conviction was wrong. You have done nothing to substantiate that belief other than to cross your arms, pout, and when called on that clammer "well, we'll have to agree to disagree".

Sure, you can have your differing opinion, but, given your past posting history and your total and utter failure to demonstrate, in any way, why we too should think that, we are left to conclude that you only believe it because George Bush said so. And given that man's priorly demonstrated inability to remain honest, you will forgive us if we don't take such things as gospel, and that we are still rather shocked that 6 years later, you continue to do so.It hurts too much to let go, to admit. One of those steps that the addicts have to hear about during the intervention.
You know, the conservative creed: change and admit as little as possible.

Please tell me he didn't.

Ayup, he did.
:(

Ref: "Culture of Life", circa Bush '05:
We will not sanction the creation of life only to destroy it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32959-2005Jan24.html

The problem is you've done nothing to actually substantiate that opinion. You've done nothing to explain why you hold it.

You haven't pointed out any evidence you feel was improperly considered. You haven't shown any violation of libby's rights. You haven't demonstrated any evidence of bias to substantiate any claims of malicious prosecution.

You have not demonstrated one single solid reason for you to believe that his conviction was wrong in spite of a lawful finding of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. You have given us no reason to believe, even for a moment, that this conviction was wrong. You have done nothing to substantiate that belief other than to cross your arms, pout, and when called on that clammer "well, we'll have to agree to disagree".

Sure, you can have your differing opinion, but, given your past posting history and your total and utter failure to demonstrate, in any way, why we too should think that, we are left to conclude that you only believe it because George Bush said so. And given that man's priorly demonstrated inability to remain honest, you will forgive us if we don't take such things as gospel, and that we are still rather shocked that 6 years later, you continue to do so.
This discussion has served my purposes. That doesn't include convincing you that a jury verdict is incorrect. An Appellate court will sort that out.

My contention is that a man shouldn't be held criminally accountable for remembering or failing to remember details of who or what made up a conversation three years ago. If I was asked what I discussed with my colleagues in early July of 2004, I'd probably have some general idea, but not any details.

Libby's appeal says much the same thing. Expert testimony regarding memory was disallowed. As were defense witnesses that could corroborate his version of at least part of the story, i.e. Andrea Mitchell. Last, there is some concern by Libby's attorneys, as well as by other constitutional scholars that the special prosecutor did not have the authority to serve in that office, due to a lack of accountability. If you want the details, I suggest you go look up the appeal and the Amici Curiae brief that was filed on his behalf.

There are some close questions that need to be put to rest. An appeal will do just that. I firmly believe the conviction will be overturned -- FLASH it has happened before! and that Libby will be exonerated. Time will tell on that one.

Libby isn't a flight risk, nor is there any other reason for making him serve his sentence before the appeal is heard. That's the wrong that has been righted in this case -- it's the best that can be done, short of a full pardon.

And that's the last I have to say about Scooter Libby -- at least until the day comes when it's "I told you so."

If you really want to get worked up over something important, worry about how Martial Law could be invoked if the conditions of NSPD-51/ HSPD 20 are ever met. That's something that should get a lot more concern than it has received.

My contention is that a man shouldn't be held criminally accountable for remembering or failing to remember details of who or what made up a conversation three years ago.

http://members.fortunecity.com/editor_oj/Special_Reports/Reagan/reagan.html
"It's like I wasn't president at all," Reagan said in response to one inquiry.

Asked if George Shultz was secretary of state in Reagan's second term, Reagan answered, "I think so, but I can't swear anymore."

"During your second term was Bud McFarlane the national security adviser?" asked a prosecutor.

"I can't tell you or remember when Bud left that job," Reagan responded. Robert "Bud" McFarlane resigned on Dec. 5, 1985, nearly a year into Reagan's second term.

Walsh asked about a Feb. 26, 1985, entry in which Reagan wrote, "Assad seems to be making effort to get four kidnap victims back from Hezbollah."

Reagan answered, "You know something? I'm trying to remember now who was Assad." Hafez Assad, of course, was the president of Syria.

At another point, Reagan was reminded that "you had a task force on counter-terrorism. Do you remember? I think Vice President Bush headed it."

Reagan answered, "I had forgotten about that."

When asked a question about a late July 1985 diary entry about "P.M. Nakasone sending emissary, very hush hush," Reagan needed to be reminded that Yasuhiro Nakasone was then prime minister of Japan.

"I don't know what that would have been about," Reagan said.

"All right, sir," Walsh said.

"I'm sorry. … It's like I wasn't president at all."

:(

I'll give you that any levity regarding life-and-death decisions is uncalled for, but that levity certainly doesn't make the sentence any less valid.

Trust me, I shall inform you when I'm discussing whether or not she deserved that sentence (with the added point that she would suffer much more, if you want punishment, by being left alive and in prison). The question here is: Why has the man that laughed at a woman begging for her life become soooooo merciful all of a sudden towards a friend?

The question here is: Why has the man that laughed at a woman begging for her life become soooooo merciful all of a sudden towards a friend?
Isn't that the oft-unfortunate consequence of exchanging bodily fluids?
"Com-passionate conservativism" :rolleyes:

Trust me, I shall inform you when I'm discussing whether or not she deserved that sentence (with the added point that she would suffer much more, if you want punishment, by being left alive and in prison). The question here is: Why has the man that laughed at a woman begging for her life become soooooo merciful all of a sudden towards a friend?
I don't know the man. I could only speculate. I think I agreed that it was inappropriate.

But what's the good of being President if you can't pardon your brother, or commute a pal's sentence?

But what's the good of being President if you can't pardon your brother, or commute a pal's sentence?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Like a typical republican, get distracted into your own meddlesome and avaricious ends and means right from the get-go, that's "what good being President" is.

Isn't that the oft-unfortunate consequence of exchanging bodily fluids?
"Com-passionate conservativism" :rolleyes:

Are you trying to make me into a sea cucumber by any chance? One more instance of thinking about Dubya having sex will make me puke my internal organs.

Are you trying to make me into a sea cucumber by any chance?This reminds me of Jackass. :eek:
One more instance of thinking about Dubya having sex will make me puke my internal organs.
Well, i'll not insuinuate so much that he's the dominant in the pair.
I'll abstain from further sexual connotation regarding Shrubya in this particular thread, out of respect for you. *seriously*

This reminds me of Jackass. :eek:

Well, i'll not insuinuate so much that he's the dominant in the pair.
I'll abstain from further sexual connotation regarding Shrubya in this particular thread, out of respect for you. *seriously*

Too late. *Hopes his internal organs grow again like it happens with sea cucumbers*

Like a typical republican, get distracted into your own meddlesome and avaricious ends and means right from the get-go, that's "what good being President" is.

Ah the idealism of youth. It makes me glad I grew out of it...

One day, you'll grow up and realize that the difference between a Democratic President and a Republican President is very insignificant.

And I think you need to look back a few posts and find out who pardoned their brother...

Ah the idealism of youth. It makes me glad I grew out of it...Ah, the pathetic appeal to false paternalism.


One day, you'll grow up and realize that the difference between a Democratic President and a Republican President is very insignificant.One day you'll realize i'm an independent, as noted in several of my posts in history, and further, the buck stops on who makes the decisions, which means you don't give a bait&switch like "but Clinton butbutbut 7 YEARS after he's not in control ... even more years since the dems had the Congress, so pathetic yet again.


And I think you need to look back a few posts and find out who pardoned their brother...Nah. I don't need to do as much work as other posters on this particular forum, thanks. Get your own affairs in order first, perhaps?