Letters to the Editor
-
The main difference
between Libby and Clinton is that Libby got his day in court, with an attorney and was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of 12 citizens. That judgment was affirmed on appeal. None of that happened in Clinton's case. Not only was he not convicted, he wasn't even charged.
-
I don't care if Bill Clinton smoked meth with the Pope
Guess who else did bad things?
Hitler. Yeah Hitler did some shit too.
So.Fucking.What. Clinton and Hitler and Jack the Ripper and Frankenstein aren't actually the President of the United States right now. But when they are, you assholes be sure to remind me that they're doing some shit too. K?
At least 2 self professed emperors in Africa, in my memory were probably cannibals. Bokassa I and Idi Amin. Is that your benchmark? "I am not a cannibal"? That's great. We'll put a cannibal question on the debates from now on.
Yeah so Clinton did some things in retrospect are questionable. Wow. I never fucking heard that one before. So now what you need to do is build a time machine, go back in time, bring 2001 Bill Clinton back with you to answer you personally for his actions. And then I want you to tell me about the solid shit halo over Bush's head.
Bush is THE biggest failure since Nero.
-
People do life in prison for crimes like Libby's
I have never heard of anyone doing time for lying about cheating on his wife.
I have never once given a rats ass about Bill doing Monica. The Paula Jones case was settled out of court because that was all Paula Jones wanted, and Clinton was impeached because Republicans couldn't stand Clinton being perceived as "a good President." The entire investigation was supposed to be about the Whitewater land deal that Clinton LOSSED money on.
These Republicans are the opposite of everything they say they are. Christians? They lie, steal, kill and covet FAITHFULLY. They take God's name in vain, they commit adultery, and they worrship fals idols (money and the flag). If Bush was held to the same standards Clinton was back in '98 when the news was "All Monica all the Time" Bush would have been impeach before the 2004 election, only this time the Senate would have convicted him too, along with Dick Cheney.
-
Noah
To say that "Clinton got away with it" is ludicrous, it ignores what Clinton experienced during the Starr/Lewinsky/Congressional hearings years.
-
America?
Humorica!
-
It Depends on What the Definition of "Oz" Is
Oz = Early 21st Century USA.
AND! Scooter is not taking this hit for some "crime that never was committed." Scooter lied and unremembered in order to shield Cheney. We do not know what he was covering. I hope we can find out.
Scooter, please stand up and speak. Please stop pretending to be stupid. You will come to hate yourself, once all this sinks in, in a couple years, when you played an idiot on TV so long that you actually have become an idiot.
-
so let's follow that up
Doesn't the "Clinton did it too" argument only strengthen the argument for drawing up articles of impeachment against Bush and Company?
The House drew up the articles, and Clinton was tried in the Senate. He was impeached, but not convicted. Right?
Soo .. if we're using Clinton as the baseline, when can we expect the Bush/Cheney hearings?
-
Holy Cripes
Chrisesquette does not know the difference between 'lying under oath' and 'perjury' and claims to be a lawyer? The only affront to common sense and decency is if Chrisesquette actually practices law.
Even putting aside the understanding that Clintons woes have nothing to do with Libbys travails, and the quite obvious fact that Clinton was not convicted or even charged with a crime and Libby was convicted of FOUR FELONY COUNTS, there is still the context which makes my blood boil.
What is more of an affront, lying about consensual boobie play, or lying the country into war, outing covert CIA operations, and then more lying to cover the whole mess up. Please take that context to the next common sense and decency wing-nut Clinton did it too love fest. Thanks.
-
Impeachment different from a trial
Noah's argument also seems specious to me in that the purpose of Clinton's impeachment "trial" was not simply to decide guilt or innocence, but whether his actions justified removal from the presidency. One could easily say that even if he was guilty of perjury and obstruction, what he did was not sufficient cause to remove him. That is very different from Noah's inference that he got off scot-free when he shouldn't have.
I am not too surprised by the hypocrisy of so many people defending Libby after calling for Clinton's head. We are living in the most partisan, polarized political culture our nation has seen in many decades -- maybe ever. What astounds me is the denial. So many of these hypocrites seem totally unwilling to even entertain the question of hypocrisy. Surely some are being disingenuous, but I really think that others are so caught up in their partisan worldviews that they don't even see the hypocrisy.
-
A less high-minded defense of Bill Clinton
I've known a lot of guys, liberal and conservative, who would distinguish between having intercourse (calling it "sex") and a blowjob (calling it a long list of slang terms as opposed to the formal term "blowjob").