March 7, 200719 yr Fox News will hire him, they often hire convicted felons like Libby's cousin G Gordon and Ollie North.
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. Yes, it is indeed. Libby would have done better if he had been Sandy Berger, don't you think? Who said Plame was in danger from being "outed"? She was in no more danger than is our local IRS agent.
March 8, 200719 yr They should have indicted Dick "Bird-Shot" Cheney, America's foremost liar, and his associate, President Bush. Strange how they can impeach Clinton over lying about a sex act in the White House between him and another consenting adult, and do nothing about the lies of Bush and Cheney that took us into war in Iraq and wasted Billions upon Billions and many thousands of young American lives. WAKE UP AMERICA !
March 8, 200719 yr They should have indicted Dick "Bird-Shot" Cheney, America's foremost liar, and his associate, President Bush. Strange how they can impeach Clinton over lying about a sex act in the White House between him and another consenting adult, and do nothing about the lies of Bush and Cheney that took us into war in Iraq and wasted Billions upon Billions and many thousands of young American lives. WAKE UP AMERICA ! :sleep: First, the subject of what Clinton lied about is completely irrelevant. He wasn't impeached for anything to do with consenting adults but for lying under oath. Second, the Democrats have control of the House of Representatives. If they've got something to impeach him on, they can do it. Why don't you ask them why they haven't?
March 8, 200719 yr :sleep: First, the subject of what Clinton lied about is completely irrelevant. He wasn't impeached for anything to do with consenting adults but for lying under oath. Second, the Democrats have control of the House of Representatives. If they've got something to impeach him on, they can do it. Why don't you ask them why they haven't? First, Libby was also covicted of lying under oath, not helping to beat the Iraq war drums as he was truly doing. Second, it's not worth the time, money and effort to impeach a lame duck president when the current congress has 6 years of make up work to do on many more meaningful issues.
March 8, 200719 yr I happen to disagree with the supreme court ruling that allowed the Paula Jones charges to continue while President Clinton was in office. I know that some will claim that no one is above the law but I think that case should have waited until Clinton left office. It turns out that history proves me right. President Clinton was distracted from doing his job (the most important job in the world) to answer charges that would not have changed if they had been delayed. He was guilty of lying about the incident but never charged with the actual incident. I know its wrong and a crime, but anyone other than lawyers and judges usually scratch their heads over these charges.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.