March 6, 200719 yr I wasn't alive yet but from what has been told to me and the research I've done-- The initial information and findings about what happend with Watergate started off slowly, with a few convictions of White House aides that drew little fanfare and not may people really cared about. Not saying this will turn into a Watergate for the administration, just trying to point out similarities. I was very alive and you are very wrong.
March 7, 200719 yr The problem here is someone named "scooter" decided to play a political game that has/had the chance to put real people at risk. Who is he to do that? He is also the most trusted advisor to Dick Cheney. Are we then to assume during this episode his most trusted advisor did NOT tell the Vice President? Does that still make him the MOST trusted advisor or did he actually maintain the trust level? Political fun and games and strategy aside, both Democrats and Republicans look foolish and stupid when they do it. The matter here is a person who had access to our most secret operational aspects decided which game of names to play. And the Bush Administration fails to understand why there is great relutance to "trust them" on issues of privacy and intrusion?
March 7, 200719 yr I guess Libby will be checking into the "John Dean Wing" of the Hanover Federal Prison soon?
March 7, 200719 yr The problem here is someone named "scooter" decided to play a political game that has/had the chance to put real people at risk. Who is he to do that? He is also the most trusted advisor to Dick Cheney. Are we then to assume during this episode his most trusted advisor did NOT tell the Vice President? Does that still make him the MOST trusted advisor or did he actually maintain the trust level? Political fun and games and strategy aside, both Democrats and Republicans look foolish and stupid when they do it. The matter here is a person who had access to our most secret operational aspects decided which game of names to play. And the Bush Administration fails to understand why there is great relutance to "trust them" on issues of privacy and intrusion? What are you talking about? Libby was convicted of lying to various people. Both under oath and not. He (nor anyone else) was charged with the crime that got this whole mess started. No one has been (or will be) charged with putting anyone at risk. Libby is free on bail pending appeal. This thing will drag on for some time, and then Libby will be pardoned in January of 09. JMO of course.
March 7, 200719 yr I guess Libby will be checking into the "John Dean Wing" of the Hanover Federal Prison soon? Libby is free pending appeal. Define "soon".
March 7, 200719 yr What are you talking about? Libby was convicted of lying to various people. Both under oath and not. He (nor anyone else) was charged with the crime that got this whole mess started. No one has been (or will be) charged with putting anyone at risk. Libby is free on bail pending appeal. This thing will drag on for some time, and then Libby will be pardoned in January of 09. JMO of course. Wasn't that what Bill Clinton did too? As some that has minimal knowledge of this, it seems more of politics in DC as usual rather than any big deal. Libby simply wasn't good enough to cover his own tracks as other politicians have.
March 7, 200719 yr Wasn't that what Bill Clinton did too? As some that has minimal knowledge of this, it seems more of politics in DC as usual rather than any big deal. Libby simply wasn't good enough to cover his own tracks as other politicians have. Clinton was a little higher up on the food chain.
March 7, 200719 yr Not exactly surprised, but I thought it could have gone either way. I doubt we've heard the last of it though. I agree. I think he was a scapegoat though, I would have liked to see some other top aids get indited.
March 7, 200719 yr then Libby will be pardoned in January of 09. JMO of course. I think it will happen too, which is why I think he isn't spilling the beans about the "rest of the story". I am sick and tired of political figures pardoning people of their administration or friends. I would like to see a law to stop this and that they should only be allowed to pardon people that they don't know that well, like two boarder guards who are sitting in prison for doing their jobs and should have only been reprimanded, but this administration refuses to do anything for them!
March 7, 200719 yr Amazing. It took all of two replies to deflect the issue from the current administration to the previous one. The old "you did it too" argument. Bottom line - Libby is the highest-ranking White House official since the Reagan presidency to be convicted of a felony. And indications from the trial are that he was a sacrificial lamb for the person pulling the strings in the whole affair - the VP. Wilson questioned/criticized the administration's rationale for getting into Iraq, and was retaliated against.
March 7, 200719 yr Libby was not charged with the crime you mention, no one was. This whole thing was a joke. Libby will win on appeal or be pardoned and I'm glad about that.
March 7, 200719 yr Amazing. It took all of two replies to deflect the issue from the current administration to the previous one. The old "you did it too" argument. Bottom line - Libby is the highest-ranking White House official since the Reagan presidency to be convicted of a felony. And indications from the trial are that he was a sacrificial lamb for the person pulling the strings in the whole affair - the VP. Wilson questioned/criticized the administration's rationale for getting into Iraq, and was retaliated against. Yes it is amazing since the last administration was so full of fine, upstanding bastions of morality. BTW what ever happened to Sandy Berger who admitted that he removed classified papers from the National Archives in his underwear? There's no chance that he did this to protect the Clintons is there?
March 7, 200719 yr Yes it is amazing since the last administration was so full of fine, upstanding bastions of morality. BTW what ever happened to Sandy Berger who admitted that he removed classified papers from the National Archives in his underwear? There's no chance that he did this to protect the Clintons is there? And that pertains to the CONVICTION of Scooter Libby how? Oh, that's right - "your guys did bad stuff too, so that makes our guys somehow less culpable." I guess I'd much rather hear from some folks on the con side of the aisle that can actually make some cogent argument as to why the CONVICTION wasn't warranted. There are some posters here - on both sides - who actually debate these kinds of issues on a scholarly basis. I enjoy reading, and on rare occasion participating in legitimate debate. In this particular thread, it took a grand total of 12 minutes for someone to use the time-honored trick of obfuscating the issue by referencing someone else; in this case WJC. At least Rush (shock, gasp - I often tune in) on his radio show today is trying to attack the conviction from the standpoint that Wilson isn't credible. I'll repeat - Libby is the highest-ranking White House official since the Reagan presidency to be convicted of a felony. Is that incorrect? If it is not incorrect, and if he indeed was convicted, will he appeal, and if so will he get the conviction overturned? If not, will he be pardoned? Is so, why? If not, why not?
March 7, 200719 yr And that pertains to the CONVICTION of Scooter Libby how? Oh, that's right - "your guys did bad stuff too, so that makes our guys somehow less culpable." I guess I'd much rather hear from some folks on the con side of the aisle that can actually make some cogent argument as to why the CONVICTION wasn't warranted. There are some posters here - on both sides - who actually debate these kinds of issues on a scholarly basis. I enjoy reading, and on rare occasion participating in legitimate debate. In this particular thread, it took a grand total of 12 minutes for someone to use the time-honored trick of obfuscating the issue by referencing someone else; in this case WJC. At least Rush (shock, gasp - I often tune in) on his radio show today is trying to attack the conviction from the standpoint that Wilson isn't credible. I'll repeat - Libby is the highest-ranking White House official since the Reagan presidency to be convicted of a felony. Is that incorrect? If it is not incorrect, and if he indeed was convicted, will he appeal, and if so will he get the conviction overturned? If not, will he be pardoned? Is so, why? If not, why not? There you go....confusing the issue by sticking to the topic. :lol:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.