[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST LETTERS

In the company of liars

Wednesday, July 4 at 12:01 AM

In its July 3 editorial, “Mistake on Libby,” the Rocky Mountain News says that Scooter Libby’s conviction “will damage, if not end, his career.” Yes, let’s all shed a tear for Scooter Libby who will surely join the welfare rolls as he is now unemployable.
Please.
The same Republicans who saved him from a prison term will take good care of him, have no fear. He’s a hero to the right wing in the mold of liars like Ollie North who came before him.
He might not ever again work as a lawyer, but he will be paid handsomely for his service to a corrupt regime that has no regard for the rule of law.

Lawrence Jones, Conifer

READER COMMENTS

And what happend to Sandy Berger after stuffing top secret classified papers down his pants, taking them home, burning them, then lying about it? NOTHING. Not a darn this. Those papers would have revealed how Clinton did nothing to prevent 9.11 and terrorism. As a republican Libby should not have lied under oath (like Clinton did) but he should not get jail either.

Posted by on July 4, 2007 01:17 AM

For those of you who have forgotten, BUSH was President on 9/11/2001. In addition, Bush had been presented evidence by a bipartisan commission frist in January of 2001. In MAY (yep 4 months after getting the evidience - and 4 months before the 9/11 attacks - W must be a really slow reader) "Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh."

SO - just HOW was Bill Clinton responsible for something that happened on Bush's watch - 8 months after he was sworn in & almost 8 months after he was presented evidience for the potential for an attack like 9/11 - and 4 months after Cheney was given the mission to "STUDY" the results of a 2 and a half year study commissioned by the Dept of Defense.

If any administration is directly responsible for preventing the events of 9/11/2001 it is the Bush administration - not the Clinton administration. What would you neo-cons do if Bill had been able to keep his pants zipped for 8 years - or better yet, under questioning, simply responded "Yes - but that's between me, Hillary & Monica & has nothing to do with the scope of this investigation"?

Posted by Mary on July 4, 2007 03:00 AM

Lawrents:
So....you still think it was Libby LOLOLOLOL!
I suppose you think the 3 Trade Towers fell on their own and that Iraq is a justifiable war?
I think you must be part ostrich, as you sure do like keeping your head in the sand.
Also.....why dont you tell us what you think about habeus corpus, stem cells or maybe Katrina?
Shall I continue on blind one??

Posted by RT on July 4, 2007 04:36 AM

As a republican Libby should not have lied under oath (like Clinton did) but he should not get jail either.

Posted by on July 4, 2007 01:17 AM

So lying to FBI agents and a Grand Jury are OK if you are a rich Republican with connections? Glad to see the morally superior conservatives show their true colors. Lying usually means you have something to hide. Since it has been proven in a court of law that Mr. Libby repeatedly lied then it can be assumed that he was hiding something. Does 01:17 want to know the truth of the matter? Apparently not. The truth has ceased to be important to conservatives. Accountability and the Rule of Law has ceased to be important to these lawbreakers.

This action by George Bush will have some positive effects though. It will energize Congress to exercise more oversight and it will fire up progressives throughout the country to work to restore America back to the kind of country that doesn't have one set of laws for rich and powerful Republicans and one set of laws of everyone else. This blatant corruption of the laws of our land is going to motivate a lot of people to work to throw these criminals out of power. George Bush just gave the Democratic Party the gift of an army of citizens committed to restoring our country to a land where the Rule of Law matters again.

Posted by Wes on July 4, 2007 06:11 AM

you are so correct mary good ole bill and maddie got on tv many times and told us how tough they were going to get on terror attacks. you bring up all of the intel that clinton had when your liberal friends say it was all bs. so which is it good or bad, r does that depend on the day and how the wind blows.
yep it could have been different if bill kept his zipper up or just answered yes or knew the meaning of 'is', but he didnt and as a liar, who didnt get jail time, is doing very well and all the libs take very good care of him.
so why are you upset with the way Libby is being treated, is it because he is a Republican ? yep that is it.

Posted by on July 4, 2007 06:19 AM

You might think from reading the opening post that this was about Bush commuting the prison sentence of Libby. But since it is so patently clear that Bush's actions undermine our system of justice, the conservative posters stay away from that mad dog and try to pretend that the opening letter was really about 9/11. But Mary has shown that for them 9/11 is an even madder dog. There's just no way those folks can keep from getting bit.

The horrible thing about the commutation was that Bush relieved Libby of ALL of his prison time. Bush said he thought that thirty months was excessive. So what would not be excessive? According to Bush apparently even one day would be excessive punishment for one of his minions to perjure himself. Once again, Bush gives the people of the United States the finger.

Posted by Truth on July 4, 2007 06:50 AM

Some know nothing sans moniker said:

"Those papers would have revealed how Clinton did nothing to prevent 9.11 and terrorism. As a republican Libby should not have lied under oath (like Clinton did) but he should not get jail either."

"Those papers" were copies. They revealed nothing not already known. Berger was punished.

Oh why do I bother?

Posted by Charles B on July 4, 2007 06:53 AM

Bwahhhhh! Bwahhhhhhhhhh!

Republicans always win

Posted by Colin uber lib J. appeaser. Sanchez on July 4, 2007 07:01 AM

Not to worry. Libby will be just fine. He'll get his own conservative talk show just like all the other republican crooks.

Posted by conservative media on July 4, 2007 07:13 AM

"Who will be the next inductee into the White House Felons Club?"

Hey old grouch. It might be the big H.

Posted by R on July 4, 2007 07:24 AM

But Charles B, was it illegal to remove them or not?

Posted by R on July 4, 2007 07:32 AM

Yep its all about Bush. The facts and truth about how we have been attacked and at war with these camel jockies since the bombing of the Beruit barracks makes no differance. The fact people want to change the meaning of the geneva convention in order to protect murderous thugs who violate the accord. Its all about Bush.

Yep the world is flat, the sun revolves around us, and there is no racist except the white man. Gosh what a wonderful ejumacation pubic shools gives us.

Posted by on July 4, 2007 07:40 AM

Why don't you Lefties and Righties go stick your heads in the sand for a day and celebrtate The United States Of America's birthday and say a kind thing to all our heroes in the military. God Bless America. Have a nice day.

Posted by Dale on July 4, 2007 08:04 AM

Yes Charles B, why do you bother? Lying is a tough job to keep. Keeping them all straight, etc.

Posted by [good works] on July 4, 2007 08:15 AM

Lying, perjury, obstruction of justice, sounds familiar? Now Mr Dickhead WJC is running around peddling for his wife’s election, and the media treats him like a rockstar. If these are the standards we gonna live by, then I say good for Libby and Bush, Libby should be fully pardoned. May be the Dems should get busy cleaning up their own filth first.

Posted by Uno on July 4, 2007 08:23 AM

You just knew the repugs would use this Libby thing to drag out Clintons history again, since it it easier than dealing with the present and at the same time obfuscates what bush/cheney are up to. But clearly 2 wrongs make a right with repugs, as they have created a terrorist state (where none existed) in Iraq, called it a democracy & left most its inhabitants actually yearning for the days under a butcher named Saddam. Hard to believe anyone could make Saddam look good, but the US pulled it off.

Posted by hikingartist on July 4, 2007 08:25 AM

Enlighten us hikingartist. What are Bush and Cheney up to? They have done some dumb things, and they will probably do some more before their term is up, but I'm not able to follow you into that conspiracy hole. Is that where you talked to all those Iraqis who told you they would rather have Saddam back? Was anyone there representing all those who took a bullet in the back of their head from Saddis' gun? Right. Guess they weren't available for comment. And you know, when Saddam was dragged up from his hidey hole, he didn't look so good to me.

Posted by R on July 4, 2007 08:49 AM

You damn right Clinton is gonna get dragged into this, he is the one who set the new low standard for future White House occupants. Some of us predicted that years ago, Clinton’s actions in the WH will have negative impact for decades to come, no matter who occupies it. Did anyone listen? Hell no, so just sit back and enjoy the circus.

Posted by Uno on July 4, 2007 08:56 AM

Since everybody seems to have their panties in a twist over the Libby pardon, here's a list of convicted criminals who were pardoned by Clinton.

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

Since a lot of you are bashing Bush over this pardon, I'm sure those same people will be equally outraged at the Clinton list and will immediately start bashing him as well. After all, it would be very hypocritical not to.

Posted by andy on July 4, 2007 08:56 AM

Andy. If you spend much time here with our liberal friends, you will soon conclude that hypocrisy is their middle name.

Posted by R on July 4, 2007 09:02 AM

It's not about Cliton or Bush, It's about how the public votes for the candidate, selected from the list of those with the most money, who can tell the most believable lies and who can present him/her self as the best pundit of the accepted party line of choice.

Nobody seems to want to elect the most qualified, knowledgeable and honest candidate. Political affiliation and star quality have become more important than integrity and virtue, it would seem.

That is why all this foolishness, ranting and raving takes place. It is the March hare in pursuit of the Cheshire cat.

Posted by Allen Campbell on July 4, 2007 09:04 AM

Here is what may be a better list yet, including 16 terrorist FALN members Clinton pardoned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy

Posted by Uno on July 4, 2007 09:14 AM

Impeach Bush.

Posted by truthy on July 4, 2007 09:24 AM

The liberals don't care how many felons were pardoned by Clinton. That kind of information is irrelevant to them.

If they dared to acknowledge the far more dangerous people Clinton released, they couldn't sit here and scream bloody murder about Libby.

Bushbashing requires a good poker face and a dose of ingorance if you want to be successful.

Posted by KW on July 4, 2007 09:26 AM

sure is wonderful the libs can forget history to their liking. Libby lied and its jail time for him, clinton lied and how could anyone say he should get any thing for it as it was just about a bj in the oral office with an intern almost the same age as his daughter.

throw Libby under the jail.

Posted by [fish] on July 4, 2007 09:30 AM

It would be interesting to know how andy, R and Uno and their compatriots feel about the Bush commutation of Libby, not compared to anything. But they haven't got the guts to tell us that. As is so often the case, they prefer to turn their attention to other matters. It would be interesting to know if they think like Bush does, for example, that a six month or a three month sentence would have been excessive. But we'll never find out from them what they think, if they do think.

Posted by Truth on July 4, 2007 09:31 AM

WAAH! WAAH! BILLY DID IT FIRST!

Is that the best you can do? Must be naptime. (It's certainly time to give that stale old "Yeah, but Clinton..." a rest.) Whatever happened to that "personal responsibility" that Republicans once claimed to believe in so fervently?

If Kenneth Lay hadn't died, he'd be Fox News Network's business analyst by now. Maybe Scooter can get the job.

And people were complaining about Paris Hilton getting off lightly. At least she did her time, sort of.

Posted by Hans Christian Brando on July 4, 2007 09:38 AM

Well here you go truth. Libby should go to jail. He was convicted, and law says you go to jail. There are my guts, all spread out on the table.

Now let's see yours. You happy with all the pardons granted by all the former presidents, including a certain one you would prefer we not mention or make comparisons with? Seems to me, you might be able to find some really bad dudes in the list of the lucky who walked free because a president used the magic pen. I can think of a whole bunch that received their get out of jail free cards during that incredibly forgiving month of January, 2000.

Now Libby. Guy got caught lying. He's going to suffer for it. Lying is the name of the game in politics. Your guys do, and so do mine. Problem is, some go to jail and others get re-elected. I get the feeling you're behind your guys, right or wrong, as long as their your guys. If not, then lets hear a little indignation over some on your team who walked. Like Sandy Burger maybe, or even Valarie Plame. She lied about her role in this whole deal, so how about her?

Posted by R on July 4, 2007 09:55 AM

Truth says... "It would be interesting to know how andy, R and Uno and their compatriots feel about the Bush commutation of Libby, not compared to anything."

I can't answer for anyone else, but I'm personally against pardons. If someone is convicted of a crime, they should do the time. I don't care if there's an (R) or a (D) next to the president's name, pardons are wrong.

But the point of my post wasn't to discuss the right/wrong of pardons or to defend Bush, it was to point out the hypocrisy of those who are whining about how bad Bush is for letting Libby go. And pretty much as I expected, the hypocrites have started chiming in to defend their hypocrisy.

Posted by andy on July 4, 2007 10:02 AM

Impeachment is too good for the neo-con bastards.
Since rule of law no longer applies ( and you cons can't claim President Clinton ignored our laws to the same extent) Then anarchy is in effect, and nothing is off the table, including removal from office via assassination.
Bring it on. ( to borrow a phrase from King George IV.)

Posted by dmz on July 4, 2007 10:03 AM

I forgot to add that the Mad Hatter wrote the competition rules for the persuit game which Queen Mab signed into law and the ever enterprising Alice, aware that it was only a dream, promptly opened her restaurant so politicians could get anything they want.

Posted by Allen Campbell on July 4, 2007 10:08 AM

'He did it first" is not an effective argument.

Imagine a bank robber standing in front of the judge saying that he shouldn't serve any time because other people have robbed banks before.

Posted by Michael R. on July 4, 2007 10:14 AM

Here is what I said, and Truth didn’t bother to read “If these are the standards we gonna live by, then I say good for Libby and Bush, Libby should be fully pardoned.”
I’m not gonna play games here, either they all go to jail, or none, very simple. That’s one thing liberals are good at, creating double-standards, with the media’s help. Fox News is one of the few media outlets who actually represents both sides. Most other media is so skewed to the left, it makes Fox News look like a right-wing mouthpiece, which it’s not. Naturally liberals can’t stand it when somebody actually has an opposing view. Liberals only support free speech when somebody agrees with them. Talk about burying your head in the sand…

Posted by Uno on July 4, 2007 10:18 AM

Are any of you getting this or are you so intent on casting aspersions and other rotten fruit at your self created enemies that you fail to see that is all--" A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing ".

Posted by Allen Campbell on July 4, 2007 10:21 AM

Dmz, let me make sure I read that right, are you threatening the life of the president?

Posted by Uno on July 4, 2007 10:23 AM

Oh the banter here is so entertaining today on our nation's birthday!

Best line I saw when the Libby commutation news broke....

"If we start putting politicians in jail for lying, we'll have no government!"

Happy 4th everybody!

Posted by RU Serious on July 4, 2007 10:32 AM

“Imagine a bank robber standing in front of the judge saying that he shouldn't serve any time because other people have robbed banks before.” It’s actually very common in the court of law to use prior rulings by other courts and cases, especially Supreme Court cases.

Posted by Uno on July 4, 2007 10:32 AM

Truth Good Morning.

Here goes. You set a challenge I will answer. But you can answer back in the timeframe of this forum or your choosing. Making sure I qualify so as not to get on the wrong track with you. Dont want you dissappearing again. :-)

Tired of the name calling and half truths on here.

Libby Lied under oath - Conviction given and needs to go to jail

Now lets be fair

--Foley R-Fl - No proof but do we all think he is guilty of child harrassment and other child crimes. Sure
--Nixon Enough said
--Cheney - No proof but do we think he is guilty of multiple charges. I do
--Bush - Most likely. But again no real proof or Impeachment would be under way...... But DMZ nice job of taking things to murder.....Very adult
--Dick Army - Yes to campaign violations and other felony acts pertaining to campaign. But again it is Texas and that is business as usual

Not naming D names here so as not to be labeled partisan. This is a R bashing thread.
God forbid we work on bipartisan solutions. Hell we cant even discuss them without name calling and half assed statistical information and when asked to clarify, cry foul based upon complexity and abuse of research time and requests...

Now do you Progressives feel better, or did I not go far enough? Arguing on here about 1 politician and calling each other names is the way to fix these problems.

And for you Progressives, the list is just as long and the cronyism is just as bad with politicians with a D behind their name. Not comparing one against another. Just stating both sides are equally bad. We are proving this from the 06 election and will be proved out in the 08 election.

If it is stress relief, carry on. Have fun. But the politicians and their inner workings thank you. Gives them the leverage they need

Posted by bwr on July 4, 2007 10:36 AM

It's true Uno that courts frequently use prior rulings for sentencing guidelines. My point was only that claiming someone else did it first and presumably got away with it is not an appropriate defense. I'm thinking most judges would not be swayed by that argument. (I know my mom wasn't when I tried it on her decades ago.)

Posted by Michael R. on July 4, 2007 10:38 AM

Here is your brain on 'conservativism' in 2007:

Amnesty for Libby = good
Amensty for Mexicans = bad

Any questions?

Posted by on July 4, 2007 10:56 AM

From what I understand, Libby was just the fall guy for Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, anyway - so I don't really care if he got his sentence commuted or not. The real crooks still got away.

Posted by mytwosense on July 4, 2007 11:14 AM

So R and andy think Libby should have gone to jail for the full thirty months. Funny they didn't mention that before since that is what this thread is about. It sure sounded like they thought that Libby should go free because they think that other people should not have gone free. Allen Campbell prefers to read Alice in Wonderland than say what he thinks should have happened to Libby.

One of the worst ways in the world to solve a problem is the way R, andy and allen campbell suggest, that is, instead of trying to solve the problem, ignore it and instead talk about other matters. As other posters have pointed out, it's a children's game.

Clinton was tried for perjury by the US Senate and acquitted, with nine Republican senators voting acquittal. Libby was tried and convicted by a unanimous jury. I personally believe that Clinton did perjure himself, but it is clear that my opinion about Clinton is not grounds for relieving Libby of all jail time. I also believe that Libby's perjury was much more serious than Clinton's.

As to Berger, no one with a brain will deny that the Wall Street Journal is no friend of Clinton's or Berger's. Yet, on April 6, 2005, it published this:

"We've never been considered soft on the Clinton Administration or its leading personalities. So we hope we'll have some credibility, especially with our friends on the right, when we say that the misdemeanor plea bargain struck by the Justice Department last week with former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger looks to be a reasonable outcome."

Then, a couple of days later, this;

"Some people won't let a bad conspiracy theory go. We're referring to those who loudly assert that former NSC adviser Sandy Berger was trying to protect the Clinton Administration when he illegally removed copies of sensitive documents from the National Archives in late 2003."

On Wednesday, we quoted Justice Department prosecutor Noel Hillman that no original documents were destroyed, and that the contents of all five at issue still exist and were made available to the 9/11 Commission."

People like R, andy, and campbell are not interested in facts, only propaganda. None of them have familiarized themselves with the Berger facts because they are either too lazy or too stupid to try to know what they are talking about, and they completely ignore Clinton's acquittal. They truly are charlatans who feed themselves on specious arguments.

Some posters have ridiculously gone to the extent of referring to the many pardons Clinton issued. My God, they are addicted to the proposition that we mustn't judge the black eye Bush gave to our system of justice. They will go to any lengths to deflect attention away from that. That is hardly the way to deal with the gross miscarriage of justice, the gross insult to the American people, that Bush committed. Of course, listing a bunch of pardons hardly provides any evidence from which to judge the propriety of the pardons, but, as I said, these people are allergic to facts because facts take time whereas specious propaganda doesn't.

Posted by Truth on July 4, 2007 11:21 AM

Michael, well said! I like your reference to your mom, I know exactly what you mean. :) My point was that for a change I like to see equal treatment of all sides, both by the law and by the media. Something tells me that’s not gonna happen.

Happy 4th all.

Posted by Uno on July 4, 2007 11:26 AM

Well that's a new one. I answered the question truth asked, but it wasn't fast enough? Try another strategy truthy. This one didn't work.

Posted by R on July 4, 2007 11:55 AM

Truth says... "So R and andy think Libby should have gone to jail for the full thirty months. Funny they didn't mention that before since that is what this thread is about. It sure sounded like they thought that Libby should go free because they think that other people should not have gone free."

Wow. Do you get a good workout jumping to conclusions like that? Where in my first post did I say anything about how Libby should go free?

Again, and I'll try to explain this in very simple terms. My post wasn't about the pros or cons of Libby going free. My post was pointing out the hypocrisy of those who squeal with outrage over Bush pardoning someone, but turn a blind eye to the Clinton pardons.

If you're still having trouble, I can explain it a third time. Just let me know.

Posted by andy on July 4, 2007 12:08 PM

Uno,
That's really a howler you have there sir; the one about Clinton being the one who set the low standard for future occupants of the White House.

Now Billy didn't keep his zipper up, true. But how does one get "lower", or "set a lower standard" than having one's self named as an unindicted CRIMINAL co-conspirator - for about 9 or 10 counts of felonies - while occupying the White House? And trading the Oval Office for a pardon in advance, to avoid prosecution, thrown in?

Just in case you have forgotten, that was the Republican, Richard Nixon, setting the example there.

Posted by Old Grouch on July 4, 2007 12:34 PM

Uno,bwr and others of your ilk,
If our system of justice is comprimised and/ or ignored by those in power, we have anarchy.
They'(and you hard-core cons by extention) have created this condition. Don't try to deny it. It's too late.
Live with the fruits of your actions, or die by them. ( Oh, I forgot that we're dealing with cowards who only let others die for their decisions).
Welcome to hell. Our troops have been there for almost 5 years.

Posted by dmz on July 4, 2007 12:35 PM

mary,you are another victim of child left behind.bin laden was part of the first trade center attack,he was well know financiar of terror attacks against the U.S and the west during the 90's which the corrupted,incompetent clinton did nothing.It is a documentrd fact that clinton gutted the C.I.A. and refused to let them get islamic translaters.It is also a documented fact fact that bin laten started the planning for 9/11 in 96'.It is a documented fact that clinton had 13 chances to take bin laden but he personnally refuse to even though he knew bin laden took Americans lives.It is documented fact that clinton blocked news reports about Al Qaeda killing Americans through cnn and other anti-american liberial media outlets.The Americans who have died before 9/11 and after 9/11 ,in Iraq are because clinton lied,mary look up the facts and don't be a village idiot like old grouch,drew,sharon b. and every other un-educated liberial.

Posted by bart on July 4, 2007 12:55 PM

------So when Alice opened her restaurant the politicians could get anything they wanted except Alice because her mentor and bodyguard was non other than Robinhood, who took the job having no other gig at the time because he had been taken to the cleaners by his exwife Maid Marian who found out he was not just merry but also gay and a wanted man. It was a very messy divorce. But that's all beside the point.

What counts is that because the politicians could not have their way with her, they enacted a ban against the anything they could get there forcing the hapless Alice to run off with the merry and gay Robinhood into the real world.

She and Robinhood wandered for quite some time, lost and no future in sight until they met Donald Trump who suggested they open a bar, he fronted the money, that catered to gay midget communist tag team wrestlers. And, they lived happily, if some what weirdly, ever after.

Don't try to read anything into this. There isn't anything there. Just like the ad nauseam drivel I've read in this forum.

Posted by Allen Campbell on July 4, 2007 01:06 PM

dmz you are the one that recommended assassination. My ILK? Blame game at your best DMZ. You can fantasize and believe that the Progressives will be your devine intervention. That is wrong. For those in the R camp.....Same damn story. You have blasted me for not liking democrats....hell i dont like Reps either. But the one fact that I dont fall into your direct line of thinking makes me an ILKER......LOL Pretty damn funny that the peace and love that is proposed by you and your party turns to murder and attacks when you dont get your way..........Until you realize that your party is not in it for you either you can stay in lala land. Both sides want exactly what you put out. Thanks

Posted by bwr on July 4, 2007 01:26 PM

Sorry to make you mad DMZ dont shoot me too.......oh no

Uno, Dont worry they will hammer on all information you put forth with half truths and partial statistics to back them up. When they dont like your statistics they call you names or if you ask them to clarify, they say they dont have time or just run. But we are the cowards

Posted by bwr on July 4, 2007 01:39 PM

Sorry to make you mad DMZ dont shoot me too.......oh no

Posted by bwr on July 4, 2007 01:39 PM

[you can't call yourself "RMN" anything because readers will misunderstand.]

Happy Fourth of July, usual pack of rabid left- and right- wingnuts and "moderate" idiots!!! It is stupid forums like this one that makes this infinitely frustrating country great!! Go out and celebrate the independence of the colonies from Great Britain!! Just watch those fingers, kiddos!

Posted by [Paolo] not "RMNSA" on July 4, 2007 02:25 PM

Uno, brw, et al,
Blame President Clinton all you like, but when the WTC was attacked in '93, he saw to it that the perpetrators were hunted down, tried, convicted, and jailed, all according to our laws and conforming with our Constitution, as well as the Geneva convention.
He didn't use it as an excuse to lie , cheat , steal (oil) and use our Constitution as toilet paper .
Not to mention 3900 ,and counting,dead United States GIs , and the blood of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians on his (and your ) hands.
Put THAT in your bong and smoke it.

Posted by dmz on July 4, 2007 03:22 PM

If Libby got 30 months for lying about a cirme he did not commit...the outing of Valerie Plame as a non operative CIA employee....then Ted Kennedy should at least get 30 days for his involvement in the murder of Mary Jo

Posted by tim on July 4, 2007 07:50 PM

Uno 10:18-So liberals only support free speech when they agree with it? What about the whole neo-con attitude of treating any speech critical of Bush as being pro-terrorist? That's not exactly the picture of support for free speech, either.

Posted by Bo on July 4, 2007 08:41 PM

C'mon Tim, playing the Kennedy card? What on earth does Ted Kennedy's driving and Scooter's lying have in common?

Posted by Michael R. on July 4, 2007 08:52 PM

"Clinton made me do it".

I think that ranks right up there with the dog eating the homework.

Oh the humor of watching the radical extremists of the right offer up as an excuse that their behavior is no worse than Clintons. "We're no better than Clinton so we don't have to accept any personal accountability for our actions".

Whatever happened to restoring honor and dignity to government boys? I guess you're too busy licking the boots of the rich to notice that this outfit consorts with criminals and condones dishonest behavior. Get back to peeling that gum off of Dick's boots. You're loyal to a bunch of criminals but traitors to this country. I wouldn't call that either honorable or dignified.

Posted by Wes on July 4, 2007 09:54 PM

DMZ where in this thread have I even mentioned Clinton's name other than in this sentence? Get your facts straight. Actually have not named 1 damn Dem on this thread. My point is that both parties are to blame. Focusing on 1 without the other is pointless, other than to make partisan hacks happy

Posted by bwr on July 4, 2007 11:04 PM

"Oh the humor of watching the radical extremists of the right offer up as an excuse that their behavior is no worse than Clintons. "We're no better than Clinton so we don't have to accept any personal accountability for our actions".

Wes is essentially saying the Reps screwed up and have now stooped to the level of the Dems. Is it just me, or is he flat out admitting to the low standards of the Dems? Apparently they never had high standards to begin with and even their own supporters don’t expect much from them.

Posted by on July 5, 2007 12:05 AM

Well, would one month be excessive? How about one week or one day? Sorry to intrude, but I got the impression that this thread was supposed to be about whether Libby should have to serve any time. However, I see that the conservative posters don't see it that way. And sure it was OK for Bush to get us into the quagmire in Iraq. After all, didn't Clinton lie about sex? And sure it's OK for Libby to lie under oath; after all, didn't Clinton lie about sex? And sure it's OK for Bush to mess up on Katrina; after all, didn't Clinton lie about sex? And sure it's OK for Bush to ignore laws which Congress passed; after all, didn't Clinton lie about sex? I mean, since Clinton lied about sex, there isn't any such thing any more as doing something wrong, is there? What a powerful guy, eliminating morality entirely from our society. Not to mention that Gore said something or other about the internet, and then there was Ted Kennedy. Why the hell are people criticizing Bush for screwing up when we could be spending our time criticiziing things that happened some time ago?

Posted by Truth on July 5, 2007 07:06 AM

Truth, just looking at this thread, it certainly looks like you're a bit worked up and upset over Bush's pardon of Libby. Is that a fair assessment?

Now, a very simple question, were you this worked up and upset when Clinton pardon Marc Rich or any of the other people he pardoned?

I'm not asking about the the right or wrong of the pardons, the Lewinsky incident, Katrina, Iraq, or presidential performance in general. I just want to know, did you get this upset when Clinton handed out mass pardons?

Posted by andy on July 5, 2007 09:04 AM

Well now, I find this very interesting, dmz wants to assassinate the president and not one liberal disagreed with him (or her) on that. And you liberals dare to call conservatives extremist? I’ve always thought of Clinton as a lowlife bottomfeeder not fit for the office, but never advocated his assignation. And for that you Old Grouch, who was talking about Bill’s zipper? The subject was pardoning terrorists, may be you can show me where you discovered info on Nixon pardoning terrorists, in context to Libby’s jail sentence commutation.

Posted by Uno on July 5, 2007 09:29 AM

Hey Uno...

Forget Libby's commuation.

Let's talk about Bush's biggest commutation.

Osama bin Laden.

Why is he still free?

Posted by Thomas on July 5, 2007 09:49 AM

OK, by popular demand let’s talk about Bill C’s zipper.
The feminist movement’s inconsistency and double standard is despicable when it comes to the conduct of high ranking Dem man, are you listening Sharon B? Yes, I am talking about Bill C’s groping, sexual assault and rape of a number of woman. It’s only about sex, right people? Is rape sex? You may want to clarify that, Sharon. Or, did all these woman simply lied about it, and if they did, what was the motivation, just to embarrass the president (these where Democrats)? The vast right-wing conspiracy? And why do the Kennedys get a free pass too, are they above the law? So, why is this and issue now? Because Bill Clinton’s wife is running for president, that’s why. Where is your feminist movement, Sharon? Are these rape victims liars?

Posted by Uno on July 5, 2007 10:08 AM

Thomas, because your hero Osama is hiding in a cave somewhere like a rat, or already dead.

Posted by Uno on July 5, 2007 10:11 AM

Bo said “What about the whole neo-con attitude of treating any speech critical of Bush as being pro-terrorist?” last time I checked you are free to be critical of Bush all you want. And in turn some people will be critical of you, that’s free speech, do you have a problem with that?

Posted by Uno on July 5, 2007 10:19 AM

Oh, enough with the "Clinton did it too" rhetoric! Wrong is wrong, period. If Clinton perjured himself and was proven guilty in a court of law, then yes he should have been punished. Just as Scooter Libby should have been punished. And stuff the "harsh sentence" rhetoric too-- three out of four obstruction verdicts lead to sentences at least as harsh as Libby's.

Libby is a criminal. Period. He broke the law and was proven guilty in a court of law. Period. His appeal was rejected. Period. There is not an excuse anywhere in the world that will alter the truth of what happened, no matter how hard you Bush apologists want to spin this. Bush exonerated Libby to protect his administration's posterior, and avoid any dealmaking between Fitzgerald and Libby.

The whole "he did it too" partisan rhetoric we've been hearing particularly out of the right-wing is infantile, immature, and pathetic. Your party is supposed to be the "Party of Ethics"-- start showing it already and quit making excuses.

Posted by Dan on July 5, 2007 10:20 AM

Dmz,
“Blame President Clinton all you like” –it’s not you decision, this is a free country.

“but when the WTC was attacked in '93, he saw to it that the perpetrators were hunted down, tried, convicted, and jailed, all according to our laws and conforming with our Constitution, as well as the Geneva convention.” – you forgot to continue with “and failed to prevent future terrorist attacks after ‘93”.
And that is what Bush didn’t fail in after 9/11. And if the Clinton administration knew how dangerous al Quaida is, why didn’t they do something about it for years?

Posted by Uno on July 5, 2007 10:41 AM

Dan you are correct with Wrong is Wrong. This coming from a person that thinks both parties are crap and the cronyism is rampant. Completely agree. Both sides are just as guilty as the other. Both parties are corrupt. Lets not look into the past. (I referenced a few of many Reps in past and present that I think are corrupt)

Lets not look at past lets look current. How many Dems have been or are under investigation in the Congress? How many of those were in process of being put in positions of power within Congress? (Damn conservative press) Less than 20% favorable for current Congress? Why is that? Hell they lied to us all. The Reps that retained seats and Dems that gained and retained seats. BOTH parties
Libby needs to go to jail. He was convicted. Big or small he was convicted.

What the heck are you meaning by the phrase.
"The whole "he did it too" partisan rhetoric we've been hearing particularly out of the right-wing is infantile, immature, and pathetic. Your party is supposed to be the "Party of Ethics"-- start showing it already and quit making excuses." Does this not happen in Dem Administration times either. It most certainly does. We can agree to disagree and be civil. But to call names and make back handed references is uncalled for. So if the Reps are to be the "Party of Ethics" as you state, is this not a loophole for saying that only the Reps are to be held accountable? Please clarify as I hear this all the time also but trying to get your clarification without name calling.

Thanks

Posted by bwr on July 5, 2007 10:57 AM

Uno,

bin Laden isn't "my hero" and not only is that an incredibly stupid statement but a pathetic comeback worthy of a 5 year old.

bin Laden like Libby, must be a good buddy of Bush and Cheney that he's gotten away...literally, with murder.

Just like a conservative...you throw the book at a guy for getting an extramartial BJ, but the real criminals like bin Laden are running around free.

The reason bin Laden is not in prison is because Bush stopped looking for him a long time ago. Don't the famiies of the 3,000 people whose murders he planned deserve to know if he's dead or alive. Don't they deserve to see the murderer of their loved ones be punished.

Answer my question, Uno...with a mature response, please....why is bin Laden not paying for his crimes? Why did Bush stop looking for him?

As ordinary citizens we have paid significant consequences for bin Laden's actions (security measures and fees, higher taxes for homeland security, etc)...and bin Laden has never been brought to trial.

They can put a moron in the White House, why can't they find a 7 foot tall Saudi walking around in the desert?

Posted by Thomas on July 5, 2007 11:02 AM

There is lying, and then there is lying to a Grand Jury.

Even that one Commandment says not to bear false witness against a neighbor, nothing about lying in general.

Uno dear, I think Clinton is a horn dog. But we elected him President, not moral leader.

remember he was somewhat stuck in the White House so Monica had to keep after him or nothing would have happened. Feminists don`t tell our grown sisters how to act.

Damn glad she had the dress, made him look small .

don`t know about the other women, but this points up the problem women have with sexual aggression and proving It In court.

Someone should frame Monica's dress and put it on public display as vindication to all women who accused a man, and he got off for lack of evidence..

Uno this has nothing to do with Libby, just once I would like to see a forum that sticks to the subject at hand. However, I am just as guilty as the others for answering Little points in fellow posters work and straying from the subject.

Your description of women, on another forum, was almost pornographic, but damn good writing.

Later

Posted by Sharon B. on July 5, 2007 11:17 AM

Sharon,

With all due respect, I think it bears mentioning that Monica was as much the aggressor in that whole scenario as Clinton was.

He absolutely had the duty as a married man and person in a position of authority to use better judgement and say no.

Lewinsky was not only a willing participantm, she actively pursued Clinton.

It also should be noted that Lewinsky wasn't the one who pressed the issue. If you recall, the whole impeachment proceedings for lying about his consensual affair with Lewinsky came out of the 8-year long GOP witch hunt to try to stick anything him.

And we paid for it all to the tune of more than $50 million dollars. Good old conservatives watching out for our money.

Imagine what $50 million could have done for some farmers, school districts, etc.

Historians in the future will have a hard time explaining, without laughing at the sheer ridiculuousness of it all, how an investigation into a 20 year old failed land deal in which the "suspect" was a minor player and lost money somehow became a case about him having an extramartial affair..20+ years later.

Posted by Thomas on July 5, 2007 11:30 AM

Thomas, Since you are still on the Clinton kick, please answer this. How long has been bin Laden been accused of terrorism and how long have we been looking for him? How many opportunities have we had to capture him in the past? Actual opportunities with location timing and resources in place? Who put the knix on those opportunities/operations?

Posted by bwr on July 5, 2007 11:41 AM

One thing here needs clarification. I haven't read where anyone has stated "well Clinton did it too" trying to justify Bush. What I DO see is people questioning the outrage from the left when they were never outraged when Clinton pardoned others, including terrorists.

Dan, etc, can you see the difference between double standards and the "he did it too" argument?

BTW - Andy has posed a very simple and important question to Truth. I'll be interested to see his answer.

Posted by KW on July 5, 2007 12:02 PM

No KW you can use Clinton when "well Clinton did it too" format if it was something he did well. It is only dissention that is beaten down.
If Truth wont answer Yes/No questions and have a healthy debate on healthcare unless you agree with him, then Andy is sure as hell not going to get a multi sentence response to a direct answer. Truth is not on here to do our research. To think so we should all grow up. Questions are to be only asked not answered from him.
Waiting for the Cut/Paste of something I did not Clarify here.............

Posted by bwr on July 5, 2007 12:13 PM

bwr,
My point about "he did it too", and why I narrowed in particularly on the right-wingers here who say it, is because the majority of that type of rhetoric lately has been coming from the right. Now, of course I realize that's inherit since the administration under fire is Republican. I also realize that the Democrats have had their share of corruption and lies and deceptive practices.

But here's the issue: The Republicans DID run on the "Party of Ethics" platform, in both 2000 and 2004. The Democrats did not. I have a HUGE issue with a party claiming it is the "ethical" party when all evidence the last few months has pointed in the opposite direction. I am not insinuating that Democrats are any more ethical than Republicans. What I am doing is challenging those who are Republicans, and who voted for their party on the belief that it IS the party of ethics, to hold their party accountable to the slogan.

And my use of the words "infantile" and "pathetic" is not name-calling. I am not calling Republicans infantile or pathetic-- I am saying that Bush apologists who use the "he did it too" argument are using talking points that are infantile and pathetic. Those words are a descriptive, not a noun, focusing on the childish immaturity of such arguments.

There are values and morals we should stand behind no matter which party is in charge. We should be Americans first and party second, not vice versa. Hearing about Clinton reminds me of a ten-year-old who smacked his sister and then whines to his mother that she did it first when he's sent to his room. Let's be adults here, for crying out loud.

I have not heard a valid argument for Libby's commutation from the typical Bush apologists on this or any other forum. The talking points that are common are "Clinton did it too", "the sentence was too severe", and "there was no underlying crime".

My points are-- Clinton: see above. Severity: typical of many obstruction sentences. No underlying crime: he was not convicted of an underlying crime. He was convicted of obstruction and perjury, which are crimes all by themselves.

The greater issue is there is little to no trust with our leadership, both in the executive, legislative, and to a point our judicial branches. In such a tumultuous time where our sovereignty is threatened, we should be united as a people. Instead, we have corrupt leaders incapable of leading, talk show vermin who polarize us for profit, a president who seems to be ignoring the American citizenry's wishes on many issues, and groups of people who hold their own party above their country.

bwr, does this not make you very, very sad?

Posted by Dan on July 5, 2007 12:20 PM

Sharon, thanks for your candor. I thought you may want to know that, although I do not support many of the radical feminist stance (like calling all man rapists), I do condemn wife beaters, rapists, honor killing, forced mutilations of girls, I don’t care what culture it originates in. I do support the death penalty for most of these, especially brutal raping, even if the victim survives.

This is a good example (must warn you you’ll get upset if you watch the video, I was):

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.honorkilling/index.html

This is just not right!

Posted by Uno on July 5, 2007 12:27 PM

So true bwr. I saw your excahnge with Truth the other day. Very, um... interesting if you will.

I noticed even Hillary has gotten into the double standard circus we have afoot. Here's a couple of excerpts from recent statements she's made:

"Nonviolent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system."--Sen. Hillary Clinton, Democratic debate, June 28

"Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. . . . This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."--Sen. Hillary Clinton, press release, July 2

Maybe she's just confused and thinks Libby's crime was violent.

Posted by KW on July 5, 2007 12:35 PM

Good one, KW

Posted by Uno on July 5, 2007 12:43 PM

Dan have you not read all of my posts on this thread? Hell yes it makes me sad. The whold damn thing. Congress, Senate, Judicial. All of them. Both sides are guilty, not just one as the Pundits try to keep us fighting over. I despise both parties!!!! Both corrupt,cronies, etc. Not in it for the people, in it for themselves.
To say either side is better is "putting blinders on" in my mind. It is proven out daily in our political world, we just choose to "accomodate" the side that we "believe" in.

I see this forum for the most part as "amateur" talkshow hosts in a miniature forum. Blast others before they blast you. If they beat you to the punch, throw a bigger one than they did.............

I try not to mention past admins unless asked. Even when asked directly in past get smashed by the questioner by bringing it up!!!!^&&^%$%.

Dan as stated earlier.......Libby to jail....Libby to jail....He committed perjury.

Posted by bwr on July 5, 2007 12:44 PM

bwr, I am in 100% agreement.

Posted by Dan on July 5, 2007 12:47 PM

In reality, there is very little, if any, difference between "double standards" and the "he did it too" form of argument. They are both based on the fallacy that a particular wrongdoing is "justified", and/or "should not be criticized" because of prior action or inaction in the case of previous wrongdoing..

The question "andy" asked called for a personal reply, which is never a "very simple and important question", when dealing with present statements of position. Any individual's response concerning prior behavior, in and of itself, does not serve to validate, or invalidate, current behavior. And it is simply another form of argumentum ad hominum.

The exercise of Executive Clemency, on any level, will always be open to criticisms. Those criticisms will, themselves, always be open to criticisms from others as well. Which only serves to illustrate the fact Executive Clemency, as such, probably should be - and generally most often is - exercised with great care and caution; since no one will ever be completely satisfied with its exercise at all.

Extending numerous Pardons - either during one's term of office, or at the end of such term - is probably going to be criticized at about the same rate, and level, as would be a rare, or sinngle, act of Executive Clemency - including Commutation - extended to someone identified as a "political crony" during one's term of office. The principal difference here being, simply, that however numerous be acts of clemency at the end of one's term, the criticisms, coming as they do ex post facto, are more likely to be both less in number and less "publicized".

Here, it is a matter of the "grand old tradition" of the "Grand Old Party" - a la Nixon - that is the object of contention. It sort of boils down to: "Of course, he's a crook. But, he shouldn't be punished, because he's OUR crook"; which has pretty much become the hallmark of Republican politcs. So, what's all the fuss about?

Posted by Old Grouch on July 5, 2007 12:57 PM

OG By your words no justification / clarification of words nor statements are needed here?

You have, at times, asked for clarification or personal stands on subjects within this forum. Of each question or clarification, I have tried to answer correctly and with as much honesty /sincerety as possible for you. On some of those discussions, we have come to an agreement and others we honorably agree to disagree.

Answering a Yes/No question is not a difficult thing to do in this situation. I will try to put forth that answer in both ways to see how much it "hurts" ANDY please correct me if I interpret your question incorrectly or ask for clarification............
Q: I'm not asking about the the right or wrong of the pardons, the Lewinsky incident, Katrina, Iraq, or presidential performance in general. I just want to know, did you get this upset when Clinton handed out mass pardons?

BWR Answer of Yes: Yes I have difficulty of Presidential pardons, especially at the end of a term of which they will not run again. This goes for all previous administrations.

BWR Answer of NO: No I did not have a problem with Clinton providing pardons during and at the end of his term.

I then would hope that I would get a followup question from Andy such as, will you have a problem if Bush pardons people at the end of his term? A NO by BWR would most likely indicate a consistant view of the pardoning process from Presidential Admin (past, present and future)
A No on first question followed by a Yes to followup would most likely be viewed as a PARTISAN view in the mind of BWR.
That is called making a personal stand on your politics. While I disagree with Partisanship, it is still making a statement and I can respect that without agreeing.
And bonus points for me not taking weeks of research to answer a yes no question with minimal clarification.

Posted by bwr on July 5, 2007 01:22 PM

Thomas, “bin Laden isn't "my hero" and not only is that an incredibly stupid statement but a pathetic comeback worthy of a 5 year old.” Are you kidding? Look who’s talking, are you always preoccupied with other man’s penis size?
Do you know where Osama is? If you do let me know, I could sure use reward money.

Posted by Uno on July 5, 2007 01:25 PM

About andy's "very 'simple' and important question":

Do I think that Libby should have served some prison time? Yes.

Does that mean I am upset and worked up over it? No.

Is andy worked up and upset by the Clinton perjury and pardons and the Berger matter? I'll leave that to andy. But he certainly seems more concerned with what happened seven years ago than he is about what is happening today.

Do I think that Clinton's perjuring himself about his sex life is as serious as Libby's perjuring himself about an inquiry into a national security matter? No.

Do I think that Marc Rich should have been pardoned? No.

Was this thread opened to discuss the Libby pardon? Yes.

Did andy even offer an opinion on the Libby pardon until I goaded him into doing so? No.

Is it fair to bring up Clinton's history? Yes, but only in the context of how it compares with the Libby case. As I said, andy did not even mention his opinion about the Libby case until I goaded him.

Have I addressed my opinion about the Clinton perjury and the Berger matter? Yes, with facts and in some detail.

Did andy respond to my comments about the Clinton and Berger? No.

If andy had asked me back in the days of the Clinton perjury and pardons and the Berger matter how I felt about them, how would I have responded? I would have been critical of them, just as I am now.

Is it a good idea to ask posters to evaluate the amount of concern they have about a current matter with the amount of concern they might have felt about matters several years ago? Not in my opinion. I think that Old Grouch explained that better than can:

“The question "andy" asked called for a personal reply, which is never a "very simple and important question", when dealing with present statements of position. Any individual's response concerning prior behavior, in and of itself, does not serve to validate, or invalidate, current behavior. And it is simply another form of argumentum ad holmium.”

If we start asking each other to measure the amount of concern we have now with what we had at some past time, it would get ridiculous

Otherwise, I would ask andy to measure the concern he feels today about the Libby matter with the amount of concern he felt about the Clinton perjury and pardons and the Berger matter of several years ago since his posts do suggest more concern about them than about the Libby commutation.

In an earlier post, andy falsely accuses me of concluding that he thought that Libby should not serve prison time. What I said was that it sounded that way since the thread is about whether Libby should serve prison time and since andy chose not to address that question (until I goaded him).

Andy asked me if I had a good workout doing the above post. No, but I did go bike riding afterwards for a good workout. Thanks for asking.

Posted by Truth on July 5, 2007 02:09 PM

Old Grouch says... "Here, it is a matter of the "grand old tradition" of the "Grand Old Party" - a la Nixon - that is the object of contention. It sort of boils down to: "Of course, he's a crook. But, he shouldn't be punished, because he's OUR crook"; which has pretty much become the hallmark of Republican politcs."

You almost got it right. But the R's hardly have a monopoly on it, it's standard procedure for the D's as well.

That's what I'm getting at with my posts. I'd be willing to bet that of all the people here who are crying in outrage at how Bush pardoned Libby, most of them didn't bat an eye when Clinton pardoned 140 people in a single day. Of course, no one is going to fess up to it so there's no way to know for sure, but that would be my guess.

But you're right about the "When the guy from the other party does it, it's an outrage. When the guy from my party does it, we'll let it slide" mentality that is prevalent in politics today.

Posted by andy on July 5, 2007 02:16 PM

Truth says... "Did andy respond to my comments about the Clinton and Berger? No."

Truth baby, I love ya. To be honest, I don't remember your comments and I'm too lazy to go back and look for them. But if you want, go ahead and ask me anything now.

Posted by andy on July 5, 2007 02:30 PM

Goading? I would think goading would be put into play if a person does not answer a direct question with a direct answer. The question to Andy was asked Once and with negative terms and conditions. To Goad in an initial question seems to be disrespectful to people. Plain and simple. Why? for Partisan reasons. Andy answered immediately. Within 29 minutes actually (give or take a minute or 2 with server time) I dont accept that from anyone.

But this question was OK? Why was this question critical to answer........"through goading" and a question to paraphrase.......asked if Truth approved of the Pardons by Clinton.......was he upset with the pardons................... If you needed clarification or understanding with the meaning of the question, why not ask for that clarification? or is that goading?

Posted by bwr on July 5, 2007 02:40 PM

TRUTH

OK Dude I am through giving you crap on here. Why? Feel bad

Why did i "goad" you?
Even on partial to mostly coming to agreement on subject, you chose to call me insincere based upon my post. Even after clarification via Old Grouch. It was not what you wanted to hear, so I was not sincere in my thoughts.
In the Healthcare discussion you made the wrong assumption, I was trying to get you to do my research. Not True. Even apologized if what I asked was unclear. In my perception you took that apology as a weakness and pushed on. This happened multiple times on this thread.
You have done this in my persception on many occasions with others as well. I find rude and unacceptable.
My goading was also unacceptable. I apologize. Owe you a cup of coffee or soda or adult drink of choice(hell no not a $75 glass of cognac :-) ) and a gentleman's handshake. If you think I am not sincere and full of BS try it.
Hell we all (everyone included.... but only buying for Truth) need to be able to sit down and discuss this crap over a cup of coffee. I know we all would have our differences, but bet we would ultimately agree on more than we think.

Again Sorry Truth

Posted by bwr on July 5, 2007 03:28 PM

That’s a good format Truth, let me try it:

Do I think that pardoning 16 FALN terrorist is a bigger concern than commuting Libby’s jail sentence: Yes

Do I think that bringing up Marc Rich’s pardon acts as a diversion from the far more serious problem of pardoning terrorist: Yes

Do I think that the media is biased in the Democrats favor: Yes

Here it is, your typical CCN news article today, same as our discussion:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/05/clinton.libby/index.html

Notice how the eyegrabber of the page is a nice happy picture of the Clintons, setting the tone.
Short quotes from the administration, carefully selected to make the administration look bad. I’m sure they said more than 5 sentences, but I’ll have to go to Fox news to find out the whole story.
One video link, to who else Clinton and his media friends. No opposing view presented in full, video or text. Some mention of Marc Rich, peppered by little soundbites like “sparked largely partisan outrage”, really? The way I remember it, it sparked more than just a partisan outrage. Naturally, no mention of the terrorist pardoning. Is this fair and balanced reporting? In your dreams!

Posted by Uno on July 5, 2007 03:33 PM

Uno,
Thanks for keeping the facts upfront so all the good folks won't forget.
There sure is a lot of interest in the Libby matter (or was that G Gordon Liddy? It's hard to keep all these republic criminals staight).
Good format tho........
Did Clinton capture the '93 WTC perps? YES
Did he wiretap US citizens to do it? NO
Did his administration warn W Bush about Bin Laden? YES
Did W Bush do anything about it in the 8 months before 9/11? NO
Was it on W Bush's watch that the WTC was attacked again? YES
Has he tried and/or convicted anyone for the crime? NO
Are you tired of having to be nearly strip searched before getting on an airplane? DAMN RIGHT!
Has Homeland Security made us more secure? HELL NO!!
Do we long for the days of peace and prosperity when Clinton was at the helm?
ANSWER THAT ONE YOURSELF.

Posted by dmz on July 5, 2007 07:08 PM

DMZ Agree with most of your comments actually. Do have a couple clarifying questions for you if you dont mind? When you mentioned the '93 perps. Who were you referring to in that instance. The ones that actually did the bombing or others as well. Thanks in advance

Posted by bwr on July 5, 2007 07:18 PM

Do we long for the days of peace and prosperity when Clinton was at the helm?
ANSWER THAT ONE YOURSELF.

Posted by dmz on July 5, 2007 07:08 PM

What we're waiting for is 1-20-09 and the possibility that this long nightmare of stupidity and dishonesty will be over.

Posted by Wes on July 5, 2007 08:00 PM

Wes good to see you give up on the 2 party system and vote Libertarian also. Thanks Hopefully another convert from the 2 party insanity

Posted by bwr on July 5, 2007 08:04 PM

Wouldn't be fun if somehow our sentence was commuted and we didn't have to serve it out till 1-20-09?

Dear USA

We have decided that forcing you to endure another 564 days of this insane madness is cruel and unusual punishment. Your sentence is hereby commuted and you are free to select someone with a modicum of honesty and integrity immediately.

Sincerly

The True Patriots of this Country.

Posted by Wes on July 5, 2007 08:28 PM

OK, assassin dmz, let’s go thought this:

Did Clinton capture the '93 WTC perps? YES
No, FBI did with the help of other agencies.

Did he wiretap US citizens to do it? NO
You think? That’s an assumption without proof. Do you have any?

Did his administration warn W Bush about Bin Laden? YES
True. The question is in what context and priority. It’s easy to say, I told “you so” after the fact. What did Clinton do about al Quaida after ’93?

Did W Bush do anything about it in the 8 months before 9/11? NO
What would you have done about it? Even now you’re bitching about airport security and wire tapping as it is. After 2890 dead on same day. You’ll never learn. What did Clinton do to prevent ’93 bombing?

Was it on W Bush's watch that the WTC was attacked again? YES

Has he tried and/or convicted anyone for the crime? NO
Yes, you liar, Zacarias Moussaoui, other terrorists are being killed weekly, many killed where leaders involved with same organization. Clinton did nothing.

Are you tired of having to be nearly strip searched before getting on an airplane? DAMN RIGHT!
Not nearly as bad as being picked up in pieces from an airplane wreckage stuck in a building.

Has Homeland Security made us more secure? HELL NO!!
This needs more clarification, last 6 years no attacks, even Clinton can’t claim that.

Posted by Uno on July 5, 2007 09:02 PM

Uno,

I admire that you're such a committed Authoritarian Bush Cultist.

You give lip-service to "a pox on both their houses", but the common thread through all your posting is a reflexive defense of Dear Leader. The above post is a perfect example.

To be a more effective writer you should edit out about 95% of what you say and change the other 5% to mean the opposite of what you mean.

Posted by Charles B on July 5, 2007 09:25 PM

Charles. I am definately not a Bush supporter here now or ever. Libertarian with fears that our country and freedoms are being pecked away by both parties to help save me and you!!!

With that said please give your definition of DMZ/s questions and comments listed below:

"Did Clinton capture the '93 WTC perps? YES
Has he tried and/or convicted anyone for the crime? NO"
To DMZ's first question I listed above... Yes most were captured during Clinton's admin. Those were the terrorists that did the bombing. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was not captured until 2003 . He not only planned 2001 attack but also the 93 attack. Of course #s 1 and 2 are still at large for both questions however
Question #2 - Of those that perpetrated the 2001 attack how many have been found, captured or convicted? True we have not found any of them......errr maybe we found parts but think they were vaporized with most of the victoms they killed. Again Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Pakistan in 2003. Again he admitted to both 93 and 2001 attacks. Again 1and 2 are still out there.
I agree with most of what he asked and answered on the other questions. Please add any other questions he has asked.

Last question Charles, do you agree with DMZ's idea of assissination? This I completely disagree.

Again I blame both parties for this mess. People can choose to pick the better of 2 evils, but are we really ok with settling and hoping they wont be worse than the other?

Posted by bwr on July 5, 2007 10:41 PM

Uno sure loves suckling his chimpy master.

Posted by FYK on July 5, 2007 11:16 PM

Cultists, Charles? I’m not the one who wants to assassinate people. You sure didn’t denounce dmz for that, so should I make assumptions about your stance on that?
“The above post is a perfect example.” Explain what you mean, dmz answered his own questions, and I answered his.
“common thread through all your posting is a reflexive defense of Dear Leader” – this really escapes my logic, if I agree with what Bush is doing on some issues, I should bash him just because you said so? No!

Posted by Uno on July 6, 2007 07:07 AM

FYK, thanks, you just proved some of the points I’ve been making about liberals.

Posted by Uno on July 6, 2007 07:14 AM

bwr,

Sorry I'm late getting back here; but yesterday was the time to make up for all not done on the Holiday.

I think you are confusing a "stand on politics" with a personal opinion concerning the actions of a particular individual - or actions of individuals - in an exceptional area, that of the exercise of Executive Clemency. This, in a way, is equivalent to the old cliche about: "Answer yes, or no. Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The presumption, that an opinion on Executive Clemency as exercised by any President, is also a "stand on politics" as such, is, simply, an invalid presumption; and, therefore, it cannot be answered with a single syllable.

I think I have drawn about as large a generalization concerning the current events as might be allowable. But, even that generalization is limited to the expression of what I perceive concerning a single political party; and has little, if any, relationship to the greater concept of a "stand on politics".

I'm just not given over to the "60 second soundbite" approach to complex issues.

Posted by Old Grouch on July 6, 2007 09:34 AM

Uno - Have you noticed the extreme labeling we get from the liberal crowd here?

When someone posts twisted or distorted facts (or outright lies) and we call them on it, immediately the labels come out like right wingnuts, boot lickers, foot soldiers, etc...

I've noticed it on virtually every topic.

If you question global warming - You're in favor of more pollution.

If your against socialized medicine - You're selfish and don't care about others.

If you find fault with any dem in congress - You're a Rush of Fox (faux) news worshiper.

Why do they always feel the need to counter with the extreme paint brush?

Posted by KW on July 6, 2007 09:45 AM

thomas,It is true the GOP used this to get rid of clinton,the most corrupt,second most incompetion president in our life times.Just like the F.B.I. using income tax evasion to bring down Al Capone.

Posted by bart on July 6, 2007 09:46 AM

Welcome back OG. Hope the holiday has been good.

I guess I see it with a party affiliation as the determining factor when it comes to what questions are answered or not. If the question can be paired down to allow for a better answer, why can that not be asked in a polite and respectful manner? You and I have used that method to pretty good success, I believe? You are correct in the fact that "Stand" was too much and should have been tempered with something more opinion based. But when people fire off questions with derogotory(or my impression of derogotory)implications, and then refuse to answer questions or ask for clarification, it gets my blood pressure up abit
I get asked a lot of questions on here....hell by both parties, but I try to answer as best as I can, knowing that I will make mistakes and hope that those mistakes will be rectified through discussion. Hell I even offered a free cup of coffee as my frustration led me to being rude, which I deeply regret.
These threads usually get "broadened" in scope that leads to "Blog Sniping". And the baiting will continue from both sides

Posted by bwr on July 6, 2007 10:13 AM

KW:

Can you write a complete sentence without interjecting some hypocrisy? The following sentence is a perfect example:

"Uno - Have you noticed the extreme labeling we get from the liberal crowd here?"

Can you tell me why it's hypocritical? Do you ever edit your posts?

Posted by Charles B on July 6, 2007 10:30 AM

KW,

You're still a selfish, pollution loving, faux News worshipping, Bush boot-licking right wingnut. Good summary!

Posted by drew on July 6, 2007 10:32 AM

Why do they always feel the need to counter with the extreme paint brush?

Posted by KW on July 6, 2007 09:45 AM

I would say KW it is because you are about as extreme and radical as they come. If you were in Iraq you would be volunteering for Death Squads and a chance to use electric drills on those you hate. It is this kind of extremism that shows up in your writing day after day without any recognition of other points of view that so easily identifies you.

When people point out the irrationality of claiming to be a super patriot who supports torture and warrentless wiretapping and the total abandonment of the Constitution for an all powerful Unitary Executive you react by claiming it was all Clintons fault. Your logic is clear only to you my friend. The rest of us want a world where the Rule of Law is the same for all individuals regardless of their class or wealth. We want a world that is truly moderate and inclusive. You want to destroy our pluralistic Democracy so your criminal politicians can stay in power forever. Extremism is the only viewpoint you understand so you assume the rest of us are the same. We're not.

Posted by Wes on July 6, 2007 10:41 AM

Wes have you met KW and talked with him regarding his views? Or do you take the small area of text that is available and make those conclusions?

Have you offered to take him out for a coffee and look at our country from an end to end view? If he is a coffeeslut like me he might even take you up on that offer. At least you have not advocated physical violence so he may be ok. Now DMZ might be another story.....just hacken at you :-)

But to label in such a way only feeds into the political system that has been created and will continue until it gets to a point of no recovery.

just a thought

Posted by bwr on July 6, 2007 11:12 AM

KW,

Perhaps the best answer to your question is to be found in the posting immediately following you, that of "bart".

Or isn't that an "extreme" in your opinion? Yet, that is exactly what the great majority of postings directed against those called "liberal", or "socialist", are; both the brief ones that are nothing more than insults and the longer ones that are nothing more than diatribes of expression "against it" - whatever "it" may be - in both nature and content.

bwr,

Since I really never paid any attention to what Clinton did when he exercised Executive Clemency, I would have to say, NO, simply on the basis of lack of interest - which is not a matter of "stand on politics", since Executive Clemency is only peripherally "political" anyway. As to Bush, again, NO, simply because, while it has become a hot topic for the blog, it again has nothing to do with my "stand on politics" as such. And I think I have expressed my views on generalization there already.

You are, unfortunately, all too correct about the topics getting "broadened" - sometimes all out of proportion to original point(s). But, that's what makes a truly open forum format both enlightening and fun. It serves to point up the difference between the "60 second soundbite" approach to problems and the reality of the complexities generally present in major matters.

I understand, and appreciate, your position on, and desire for, more reason and careful judgment, along with a whole lot less of the name calling and simplistic insults. And I acknowledge the fact that you certainly give good example of presenting your material in a reasoned way. I hope we can continue along those lines in future.

Posted by Old Grouch on July 6, 2007 11:31 AM

Thanks OG

Agree on an open forum. Again this old hippie looking guy is not about to restrict any of this at all. That would be against my nature and keeps things hopping for sure.
I just want to make sure that those who "expand" the thoughts in 1 thread, not cry foul in the next because it differs in flavor.

Thanks again OG

Posted by bwr on July 6, 2007 11:44 AM

andy,

Although this does come late in line, I think you are insisting too much on what might have happened "back when" being totally indicative of what "ought to be" presently. Tha't putting an exceptional matter - i.e., Executive Clemency - in a position it really doesn't belong.

In context, what Clinton did at the end of his term, and what Bush did the other day, are as comparable - or rather, not comparable in the way you ask - as the traditional old "apples and oranges". Both Clinton's pardons and Bush's commutation are acts of exercising Executive Clemency, just as both apples and oranges are tree grown fruits. But, just as an expression of like - or dislike - for oranges last week has no bearing on an expression of like - or dislike - for apples today, so, too, what anyone might have done, said, or witten - or not done, said, or written - with Clinton's pardons has no real bearing on what the person might do, say, or write - or not do, say, or write - with Bush's commutation today.

Posted by Old Grouch on July 6, 2007 11:52 AM

Charles B - Refering to someone as "liberal" is not extreme. I'm sorry you think of it that way. I consider my self conservative and you may call me that anytime without my taking offense at it. Did you miss the point of my post, again?

Wes - If you think I'm as "extreme and radical as they come" you haven't been out of the barn very long. Why don't you go visit radical right wing site? Then you can come here and speak about things with some knowledge.

OG - When I'm labeled as selfish and uncaring simply because I don't embrace socialized medicine, that is perfect example. I however do NOT consider your views extreme as we have actually agreed on points. Truth too. But Charles B, Wes, Thomas, etc... Well, you get the picture.

Posted by KW on July 6, 2007 12:31 PM

KW,

Then you, perhaps, understand how others feel when they are called - among other things - "traitors", "perverts", "commies", etc., and are accused of "trying to suppress free speech" when they point out false assumptions, or ask for evidence to back up assertions.

I am NOT accusing you of that. But, I think you will have to agree that there is hardly a line of postings on this web page where that kind of thing is not to be found.

In context, I would far rather be labeled as "selfish and uncaring" for my views on an economic subject than called someting such as a "filthy pervert" for my views on a sexual subject. But, that's more a matter of personal response than anything else. (And I have been called that, elsewhere on the website, over the time I've been posting.)

I certainly have to agree that Wes is very naive if he thinks that you are "extreme and radical as they come"; but I think you are correct in having also pointed out that he is relatively new to the site - at least insofar as postings I have read.

There is really no justification for remarks of the kind, at either extreme of any topic. But, just from the short time I've been on the site, it appears to me that those who are - or are willing to be labeled - liberal, progressive, etc., are far less likely to descend to the kind of name calling that seems to mark those who want to be the "spokes-persons" for the other side. The "liberals" might - indeed do - come up with some excessive judgments on one's overall postings, and/or on one's personal life taken from postings on a single subject, and/or both. But the epithets, and the insults - of the nasty kind - seem to be almost a form of hallmark among those who use, "conservative", as their label.

I don't propose to dissertate on how, or why, this might be so; but I make the observation, after browsing through today's postings in several areas, where the "conservative" kind of remarks have become quite prominent. Of course, some topics tend to bring out the worst in responses, too. Again, something that seems to mark the "conservative" camp much more than any other.

In any event, I appreciate your position; and I certainly would like to see a bit more balance all round. Nevertheless, I don't want to see outright censorship - or have the website simply become another fossilized area of nothing more than agreed upon and agreeable mutual mental masturbation, as the larger majority of blogs seem to be.

Thanks for your patience.

Posted by Old Grouch on July 6, 2007 02:21 PM

Still think KW should get a free cup of coffee and a discussion going...hehhehe

Posted by bwr on July 6, 2007 02:31 PM