« ‘I Am Loved’ pins | Main | Parking downtown »

March 09, 2007

Libby case, White House

This whole Lewis Libby case (3/7, A-1) is very upsetting: the scandal, the lies, the corruption and the lack of truth in government. We need the Clintons and Sandy Berger back in the White House.

Charley Morasch
Leawood

Comments

CRD

"If you do and get caught, you face the consequences."

Yep. Libby didn't get shafted. He got caught.

kcstar_is_one_sided

If you are under oath, whether it be a criminal or civil case, you don't lie. Period. Whether it is about a CIA agent, a sexual excapade, cross dressing, whatever. If you do and get caught, you face the consequences.

CRD

Even if we were to grant your dubious and debatable argument that Clinton's vacillation about sex is in the same camp as Libby's lying under oath about a plot to expose a CIA operative for political gain, exactly how that supports your position is unclear.

As viet-vet puts it, "it's nice to know that "everybody else does it" is still being used as an excuse by today's 3rd graders."

No sh*t.

Engineer

Irishguy
The "Clinton Defence" that you are so upset about was provoked by NavyMan saying "Too bad Clinton didn't think of that." The response was assuring him that BC did think of and use that response. Of course, if you listened to HRC's testomoiny before Congress about the Rose Law Firm's Records, in which she could remember absolutely nothing, he obviously had a lot to learn from her.

irishguy

"The first three words out of Clinton's mouth during the deposition in the Paula Jones case were "I don't recall."

And immediately, we get the "Clinton did it, too" defense.

And you are calling for the impeachment/resignations of which members of the Bush Administration for doing what you found so awful in Clinton?

kcstar_is_one_sided

NavyMan -

I agree with you as well. I have never understood why white collar crime is seen as a lesser offense than other crimes. I would appear that an individual who rips of hundred in a fraud scheme for a major company gets a better deal that a poor guy ripping off a liquor store. At least that is the perception.

irishguy

"Here are two, but there are many more examples:"

Sorry, buddy, but neither of those two editorials --- from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch or the Salt Lake City Tribune --- claim to "vindicate" a person who was never accused of anything.

You know, you set a new standard for dishonesty with every post.

And now you are linking to "evidence" that doesn't even support your argument.

Pathetic.

As far as Wilson telling the truth, you wouldn't know the truth from a hole in the ground, so it is rather comforting to hear that you consider him a liar.

Arminius

NavyMan:

"I've been seeing a lot of the right-wing moonbats blathering about faulty memories. You know, "I don't remember", the Bush administration defense for everything.

"Too bad Clinton didn't think of that."

He did, but the left-wing moonbats have short memories. The first three words out of Clinton's mouth during the deposition in the Paula Jones case were "I don't recall."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/whatclintonsaid.htm#depo

NavyMan

Hey, one_sided, I agree with you. They got what they deserved. Too bad they can't make them serve time in a real prison instead of the country clubs these political hacks go to. Some people actually think that perjury, i.e., lying under oath, is only important if a Democrat does it.

I've been seeing a lot of the right-wing moonbats blathering about faulty memories. You know, "I don't remember", the Bush administration defense for everything.

Too bad Clinton didn't think of that.

Engineer

What has always seemed so strange to me about this Plame non-crime investigation is the idea that if the President of the US, or the Vice President, wanted to make difficulties for a CIA employee, they would "out" that employee if they were covert, a status which has never been established for Plame. Seems as if there would be a whole lot of other choices.

Arminius

IRISHGUY:

"What newspapers have "editorialized" this, and what would Wilson and Plame be "vindicated" of?"

Here are two, but there are many more examples:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/FDC54A74427E97F6862572970001B5FA?OpenDocument

"Exactly what were Wilson or Plame accused of? Telling the truth?"

Outside of Kieth Olbermann and Chris Matthews, not many would accuse Joe Wilson of telling the truth.
http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_5401101

irishguy

"Some newspapers have even editorialized that the verdict vindicates Wilson and Plame."

What newspapers have "editorialized" this, and what would Wilson and Plame be "vindicated" of?

Exactly what were Wilson or Plame accused of? Telling the truth?

Arminius

jack:

"Joe Wilson was sent to Africa to write a report about the supposed yellow cake. He reported that "curveball" did not appear to be telling the truth. Joe Wilson WAS NOT sent to Niger to report on other possible weapons of mass destruction."

But the media are reporting it that way. They're saying Wilson argued that Saddam did not have WMD, when, in fact, Wilson argued that Saddam did have WMD and would use them on our troops if we invaded.

"All of the other crap about Joe Wilson saying he thought that Saddam might have other weapons is just exactly that...CRAP."

It's not crap, it's the truth.

""Scooter" was convicted of lieing to the Grand Jury. He wasn't convicted of outing Valerie Plame."

But that's not how the media are reporting it, is it? Some newspapers have even editorialized that the verdict vindicates Wilson and Plame.

"You have to have done it on purpose. No one is that stupid by accident!"

Given that alcoholism came be passed from father to son, I suppose there is a good chance you were drunk when you posted this message. If you can't argue the facts, I suggest you leave the discussion.

kcstar_is_one_sided

Libby lied under oath and will go to jail, irregardless of if anything else was true or not. Clinton lied under oath and lost his law license. One was a fed case, one was civil. Both got what they deserved, what's the big deal?

jack

Bush has now admitted that the 21,500 troops is actually 30,000 ... or more. Of course, that doesn't "count" the "support personnel" that "counted" in prior wars. The cooks etc that used to be combat personnel are now "contract labor" and therefor (according to our President)don't "count". And because of this their numbers in service, wounded and dead "don't count". The actual number is somewhere around 250,000 to 300,000 in theater and the number of dead and wounded are around 5,000 and 30,000 (but they "don't count").

Then there are those like my son. He was the machine gunner on a Humvee that was "caught in traffic". The Brigade Commander decided that the Humvee should cut across some open ground because it was in a "high risk situation". While cutting across said ground the antenna of the Humvee came in contact with a 220v power line. The spark went from the antenna, in my son's headset, through his right ear and out the middle finger of his left hand.

He was dead on the ground when some anonymous helicopter pilot set down in an "illegally small" landing area and, after getting his heart re-started, flew him to a hospital. According to the Bush administration he doesn't qualify for a Purple Heart because his injuries were not "combat related". He will carry the scars, both physical and mental, for the rest of his life. Yet, he does not count, according to "Bush Mathematics" as one of the wounded.

How many lies must Bush and his people tell before those of you who bow down to the label "conservative" will admit that he is a lieing scum?

Joe Wilson was sent to Africa to write a report about the supposed yellow cake. He reported that "curveball" did not appear to be telling the truth. Joe Wilson WAS NOT sent to Niger to report on other possible weapons of mass destruction.

I realize that this is not the kind of "truth" that neo-cons like. But it is reality. All of the other crap about Joe Wilson saying he thought that Saddam might have other weapons is just exactly that...CRAP. Other possible weapons weren't his job.

"Scooter" was convicted of lieing to the Grand Jury. He wasn't convicted of outing Valerie Plame. He wasn't convicted of claiming the yellow cake was real. He wasn't convicted of protecting Big Dick. He was convicted of lieing to the Grand Jury.

All other arguements are bogus. At least engineer is far to intelligent to claim to believe anything else.

In regard to "arminius" I am left to wonder, did Mark change his screen name?

Arminius reminds me of a statement my father used to make when he was A) inebriated and B) extremely angry.

That statement was:

"You have to have done it on purpose. No one is that stupid by accident!"

Arminius

viet-vet1970:

Oh, and given that Joe Wilson was so unequivocal about Saddam having WMD, it would show a bit of class on your part to apologize for writing that my statement of fact was "another groaner from one of the lip-flappers on talk radio."

Arminius

viet-vet1970:

"C'mon Arminius, tell us about a credible source that says Wilson believed Iraq had WMD."

I can't cite a credible source. However, I can cite Joe Wilson himself. You just need to visit his own web site:

http://www.politicsoftruth.com/editorials/saddam.html
http://www.politicsoftruth.com/editorials/big_cat.html

You moonbats never cease to amaze me when it comes to how uninformed you are. Where do you get your news? CNN? MSNBC?

Engineer

Well, we had an investigation of a crime that was never established as being committed, when the person who "leaked" the information was known from the start. The usual title for something like this is "Witch Hunt". If Libby actually lied, and it took a jury from Wasshington DC quite a long time to convict him, wasn't this entrapment?

jack

Sorry, it ain't the weinie song (although I would find that extremely fitting). It is in fact the doggie song from Ken-L-Ration.

Lost_In_Ambivalence

NOTE TO ALL:

All presidential administrations have some form of corruption involved in them. Those that shed the light on it themselves are the more honest ones (can anyone think of a recent example? didn't think so). The fact is, the public has no idea what goes on behind closed doors. We have no idea what is going on in someone's mind. Maybe he can't remember the details. Can you remember the last time you had mac and cheese? Maybe he is covering it up to protect himself or others. Would you tell your spouse how much you spent on your last golf club/spa trip?

He is being punished according to what facts presented themselves. Get over it. Very few people in power are honest, must less a cadre of them.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright