Watergate revisited

Dave LaCourse wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:20:12 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

OK, now that you've gotten that out of the way, answer us a question
or two, Dave: Do you agree with Bush commuting Libby's sentence? If so,
why

Yes, because the whole thing was politicized. The jail sentence was
for political reason. Cheney didn't out Plame, nor did Libby; her job
as a CIA employee was well known in the Beltway.
They couldn't get him on that, so they got him on something of less
import. Jail time was not necessary because of the fine, disbarment,
shame, etc. Would you like also for the man to bleed for you? Would
that sate your appetite for revenge for what happened to Clinton, or
is your lust for revenge insatiable? You wear your hypocricy on your
sleeve like a religious zealot.

First of all, you obviously have no idea of my feelings about the
whole issue. (FWIW, I am not a fan of Clinton; never have been, and
never will be.) Secondly, what's up with this "bleed for you" ...
"appetite for revenge" ... lust for revenge"? Sounds like you're
projecting your own hatred for Klinton onto others.

Third, if you are going to continually use a "big word" like that,
learn how to spell it. It's "hypocrisy". And feel free to point out
*exactly* what I've written that is hypocritical; not what you imagine
in your fevered imagination that I *might* write, but quotes of what I
have written.


Chuck Vance (and fourth: you might want to wipe some of the
spittle off your keyboard)

On Jul 3, 11:17 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:

Yes, because the whole thing was politicized. The jail sentence was
for political reason. Cheney didn't out Plame, nor did Libby; her job
as a CIA employee was well known in the Beltway.

How is a prosecution by a conservative republican prosecutor (who
stated Plume was a covert operative in direct contradiction to yours
and others accounts that her role was known.) in front of a
conservative republican appointed judge known for "throwing the book
at people" and setting examples is politicized?

And, why not bring up Clinton? He is the precedent in all of this.
He had more folks convicted than any president in history. His was an
even more corrupt administration than this one.

Please post support for this, After a quick and casual google search
appears that Grant, Harding, Nixon, Bush I, and maybe even Reagan had
more members convicted/indicted/sentenced/fined/fired for conduct
while on the government payroll then what appeared to happen in the
Clinton adminstration. By and large the Clinton administration issues
dealt with issues unrelated to their government activities? But
getting an un-biased scorecard was not found in the search so I would
use "appears".

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:20:33 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

On 28 Jun 2007 20:02:33 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

It sure will be interesting listening to the government argue against the
Watergate rulings right before an election, huh?

But first, Yet Another Distraction!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/...nce/index.html

/daytripper (An administration "corrupt from top to bottom". Nice legacy.)

Interestingly, Libby was one of the attorneys that reviewed and
(unofficially) "signed off" on Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich and Pincus
Green, and in doing so was called a "distinguished" and "honorable"
attorney by both Clintons in various statements defending the _pardons_.
Some of those statements sounded very much like Bush's official
statement made regarding the _commutation_ of Libby's sentence.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070702-3.html

Hillary may regret opening her cakehole about this one...

TC,
R

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:21:11 -0500, wrote:



Hillary may regret opening her cakehole about this one...


I hope she regrets it soon. I don't think she can be elected POTUS,
and think it would be a shame if the Dems couldn't put up someone
electable.
--

r.bc: vixen
Minnow goddess, Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher.
Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

wrote in message
...
Interestingly, Libby was one of the attorneys that reviewed and
(unofficially) "signed off" on Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich and Pincus
Green

that was, IMO, one of the funniest spinoffs from this whole event. Ain't it
a small world!! And, yes, Hillary would have been well served to remain
silent on this entire
subject.
Tom