Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Album Of The Month
Rush
Fly By Night
Pick Up Your Own Copy
Links
Search
About
If You Can't Do Something Smart, Do Something RightFreedom
The Alliance to Restore the Republic
We Have Assumed ControlWednesday Hero
What Is Wednesday Hero?
Get A Copy Of The Post
3/5 Darkhorse Memorial
11 comments:
Bill Clinton Lied under oath..several times. What did he get?
1. The adoration of Liberals worldwide.
2. Lucrative speaking engagements.
3. The Liberal news establishment hanging on his every opinion.
I guess Libby should have been a member of a Democrat administration and things would be going better for him.
Well Clinton wasn't lying about issues of national security. Nor was he obstructing an investigation into government accountability.
Also, 30 years is only the maximum he could get - the probability is that he'll get something much lesser.
"I guess Libby should have been a member of a Democrat administration and things would be going better for him."
(It was ridiculous that Clinton was ever interrogated over his 'extra marital activities'. Who cares/why put him on the stand over something so trivial. Australia had leader die of heart-failure in his mistress' bed [Billy Sneddon], and all that happened was the secret-service moved him home before 'finding' his corpse)
No John, it most likely this had little to do with which political party Libby belonged to (American courts are impartial, right?). Libby's troubles are result of him being the only one busted for betraying the American people. 'Lying and obstructing a leak investigation' on a matter relating to national security. I thought you were most concerned about your nation's security John, you've berated me for underestimating the seriousness of security issues.
"I'd hate to see how many years the President of The United States would get were he to lie under oath"
Why should it have to be 'under oath' for it to be serious/significant penalties apply if the result's the same? (other than 'perjury'-type nature of the crime)
Libby's 'indiscretion' is believed to be part of retaliation for Wilson's efforts to discredit Bush and Cheney's lies about WMD's, and compromised security.
If these guy's were so 'lose with the truth', and the direct consequence is that American troops are dying for this lie. Then I wouldn't be too worried whether Clinton did or didn't do a staff member, I'd be worried about Bush and Cheney's (and cronies) betrayal of America.
Do American's like you John and Chris place a higher value on loyalty to a political party than to the truth, and it's consequences on your nation's people?
Murphy; You are incorrect about everything to do with this Libby conviction. He was convicted of not remembering if he had or had not spoken to a reporter. Thats purgery because he made conflicting statements to the FBI and a grand jury. THATS ALL he was convicted of. Nothing to do with National Security nor the Iraq War nor anything else you have mentioned above.
Also; Bill Clinton was President of The United States when he purjured himself with a Grand Jury.
It does not matter about what he purjured himself about; it's that the law was broken.
Your Bloviations as usual; are totally unwarranted and mis-informed.
As far as your insults; SCREW YOU!
and the jackass you rode in on. Aussie piece of shit. Getting really sick of your mouth, mis characterizations and outright lies. I'am not going to discuss anything with you until you stop
using such incindiary insults.
Ah, I see. John apparently believes that leaking information to the public about CIA operatives and then perjuring one's self to cover it isn't an issue of national security.
And John, given that he was convicted on four of five charges, that's not "all he was convicted of". If you look into it, he's been charged with:
1) obstruction of justice,
2) giving false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
3) committing perjury twice before the grand jury.
And I like the way your "moral stand" on Clinton has no practical value for when your nation is being intentionally abused and misled. But you seem to care more about party than country - otherwise you'd be less into bashing democrats and more into coming up with strategic solutions for the current problems America faces.
Well, we've got the details of the charges sustained above. I was speculating why, in the context of the investigation (relating to national security), someone would commit perjury twice. I really doubt that he 'fell on his sword' for the hell of it, giving credibility to the claims made about him. So while Libby can hide behind lies, and accept the convictions relating his disregard for the truth, it would take someone naive to think that his crimes stop there.
As for the suggestions of insults and mis-characterisation. I think it would be fair to say that I am polite to you John, in comparison to the manner in which you address me. Now that you've chosen to 'step-up' the abuse ("SCREW YOU"... "Aussie piece of shit"), do you really think it is reasonable to demand an improvement in my manners? Isn't it just a little hypocritical don't you think? (and if calling you a hypocrite is the kind of thing you're referring to, then maybe you better get a thicker skin, or ditch the hypocrisy. I've looked above, and the 'meanest' thing I've said to you is ask whether you value your political party above your country; which after you've suggested that Libby would have gotten away with it if he was a Democrat, seems a reasonable question)
John, I had hoped that you'd accept my comments in the spirit they were offered, as 'cheeky banter' if you like.
After all, it was you that not long ago referred to me as a 'putz', and I happily accepted your explanation, and the spirit in which it was offered.
Chill out, it's clear you enjoy some lively debate, so don't take things so seriously,
ya drongo!
('drongo' is a good Aussie 'friendly insult')
Hey, you mentioned the party over country thing too. I didn't read your comments through, so I didn't pick that - which means I'm gonna have to step in now and say that Chris doesn't do party over country... he just doesn't investigate issue deep enough to realise that the Republicans only agree with him on a limited range of issues.
Whenever he tests his viewpoint on, say, Nationstates or the Political Compass, he winds up left-leaning. He just doesn't seem to bother looking into why that is.
Sorry Chris, I stand corrected, it seems I tarred you with the same brush I was trying to thump John with.
It was John who said that things would have gone better for Libby if he was a Democrat. I was thinking there was something along those lines in the OP, but it was only the speculation of "I'd hate to see how many years the President of The United States would get were he to lie under oath"
Za, the reason is because, while I'm a Republican, I don't "heel, toe, heel, toe" with what is stereotypically the Republican views. I do have my own individual views and opinions. And those do lean to the left sometimes.
Most times more like. It's only on the sensationalised issues that you lean Republican. Abortion, gay marriage and national security are the only issues I can really find that you have in common with them (and even then, you generally disagree with them in some way).
Heck, you're even pro-welfare; you just want to see it have a bit more security against the bludgers (which truth be told, isn't actually the main issue with welfare fraud - most often it's internal).
Post a Comment