Bucky? ... Bucky Fellini, We presume.

look here.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086856/

"He isn't accused of committing a crime, he is accused of lying about something that wasn't a crime to begin with. This is a partisan persecution!"

"Crime or not, we'll never know because he lied. Lying under oath is a crime in and of itself. It is an offense to the system and must be punished!"

You misstate the argument. Perjury is lying about a material fact. It doesn't have to be about some underlying crime. As per FRE Rules 412-414, any of Clinton's other (alleged) sexual behaviour wasn't admissible in a civil trial, and in fact, as per FRE Rule 403, evidence otherwise admissible may be excluded if it may produce "unfair prejudice" ... or if it's just for the purposes of embarrassing the deponent. And in fact, Judge Wright excluded all the crapola the RW panty-sniffers were trying to dig out using the power of the judiciary (and FBI).

Libby lied about material facts of concern to the investigation of whether someone violated the IIPA (or other federal laws).

And you're echoing the RW "spin machine" talking point about there being no underlying crime (because supposedly Armitage also disclosed Plame's covert status. News flash fer ya: Just because someone else commits muder doesn't get you off the hook. There could have been more than one person potentially violating the IIPA.

On another note, "crime or not" from the second quote is inapplicable to Clinton's case, as neither his behaviour with Lewinsky nor his alleged behaviour with Jones constituted a crime. Jones's lawsuit was a civil suit.

Read and learn (and I don't mean Freeperville/Clownhall/WhirledNutzDaily). It would do you some good.

Cheers,

The most early blueberries are beginning to ripen.

I is macho cranky. Methinks I may be in jail..."um yea 'um methinks me deserve to be CRANKY!"

I need a scuffed up shoe attorney!

C'mon Jeff. Everyone knows that a vote for ANY Republican in 2008 is a vote for whatever Bush stands for today. It matters not at all what any of them say about anything. It will simply be more of the same, whatever we have now. Seriously, EVERYONE knows that.

The Europeans call what they call liberalism out of a respect for history, that much I'll grant you. We call it conservatism in an American context because it asserts that the economics of Hayek, et al. would result in a steady-state beneficence entirely guided by the hand of God. (And, of course an elite of philopsopher kings, elevated above the hoi polloi by their unique grasp of the Hand of God.)

Experience has taught us, as it taught Martin Luther King in another context, that those economics incorrectly predict the outcome of classical economic liberalism. Left to motor on without interference, it's more likely to lead to Love Canal than a country of yeoman entrepreneurs and shopkeepers, more likely to make common cause with plutocrats than democrats.

The collectivist red herring is exactly that. Social Democracy has no more to do with Soviet Communism than Robert A. Taft had to do with Hitler.

Except for one small detail. We don't have to assume the Rethugs are lying to conclude they will support torture, shredding the Constitution, and continue on with a stupid war.

They say it plainly, and in public. Which, I will admit, is a step up from Bush's lies.

The scary part is, people are actually cheering for these Fascists. yikes.

The candidates may be distancing themselves from the Commander and Chimp, but most of the base voters still aren't. I live in a red state, the Bushies here are still loyal as ever. Many of them are still looking for another Bush this go round. I think I have figured out why the right is so defensive of him though, this is just my observation, but I think they realize they are wrong. I think they realize that Bush is incompetent and that the world isn't black and white and that worldview is why he has failed but don't want to admit it so what to they do? They get mad at the messengers. It's just easier then admitting that they are wrong about everything.

None of these clowns would have stood behind a democratic president that screwed up a war, particularly a war of choice like Iraq was, this bad. Incidently, I've never heard a republican have anything nice to say about Clinton so this idea that we shoud have to "prove" that we aren't just being a bunch of meanies to Bush is a steaming pant load!

C'mon Jeff. Everyone knows that a vote for ANY Republican in 2008 is a vote for whatever Bush stands for today. It matters not at all what any of them say about anything. It will simply be more of the same, whatever we have now. Seriously, EVERYONE knows that.

Not sure what the "C'mon Jeff" has to do with the point.

But coming as I do from a family of middle class Fox news conservatives who wouldn't know "neo-conservative" from a hole in the ground -- Republican is Republican.

They voted for Bush, and while they might think the war in Iraq was a "mistake," they don't believe all the negative polls against their man; they'll vote for the next Republican no matter who it is, and if the Bush policies continue, well, that is not a distinction they care about.

It's all about the taxes. And the fantasy that some day, they too, will be wealthy enough to reap the benefits.

Glenn's recounting of canonization, repudiation and amnesia on the part of the conservative movement strikes me as similar to, if not the manifestation of, the defenses of idealization, splitting, and denial.

Bush is our Dear Leader. → Bush has failed us; therefore, he is not "us." He was never nor could he be "us."

The denial when confronted…

Paul R

A good deal of their ferocity, methinks, derives precisely from that secret knowledge: Bush went so far, so fast that he let the cat out of the bag for all to see…

HappyJack makes a similar point: "the fiasco of the Bush 'presidency' has revealed their venality and sociopathy."

It seems like some of the ferocity is coming from a conscious level— Bush exposed the rotten core of the conservative movement, somehow "blowing" their cover—and some from an unconscious level—when confronted, the movement is vehemently, ferociously denying that which it cannot accept—not only that it supported Bush and that his actions embodied the fullest extent of their aspirations but that those are, in fact, their aspirations.

[Disclaimer: That's my informal take on the situation. I'm not an expert on defenses and will defer to those more knowledgeable.]