GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

MSM & Democrats Always Trying to Tie Rove to Scandal

March 16, 2007 by GayPatriotWest

This morning, AOL headlines its top news with the line, “E-mails Show Rove Involved in Firings,” but when you click on that link, you learn only of one line in an e-mail where Kyle Sampson, the op aide to Alberto Gonzalez, wrote about firing all the U.S. attorneys that “if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I.”

Note the conditional here. This statement says nothing about what Karl Rove thinks, but instead offers insight into how Sampson would react if Rove thought there was political will to replace the attorneys. In a January 6 e-mail, Colin Newman, roughly quoting a conversation he had with Rove, writes that he asked “how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.” Note that Rove asked how they were planning to proceed, thus indicating that he was aware of plans to replace some or all of the U.S. Attorneys.

That does confirm that the White House was involved. Only 8 of the attorneys were replaced — and long after the e-mails were written (one was fired last summer, the remaining seven in December).

It doesn’t seem that Rove himself did anything wrong. To be sure, Newsweek‘s
Michael Isikoff is correct to write that the president’s top political aide “had a greater level of involvement in the dismissal of the prosecutors than the White House has previously acknowledged.” But, a greater involvement than previously disclosed doesn’t amount to scandal.

Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY concludes that “Karl Rove was in the middle of this mess from the beginning.” Yeah, he was involved. But, given what Sampson wrote about political will, it seems that if anything Rove encouraged his colleagues to proceed more cautiously. Let me repeat only 8 U.S. Attorneys (fewer than 10%) were fired — and long after this e-mail exchange.

Given that the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, it makes sense that his top political aides would offer advice on whether to replace them. The Administration should have been more forthcoming about the reasons for the firing. Once again, poor public relations skills lead to the perception of a scandal.

And once again, the MSM seems convinced that Karl Rove had been involved in some kind of scandal. Given that Rove never misrepresented his role in the firings of the U.S. Attorneys, the issue is not his misdeeds, but why other Administration officials were not as forthcoming as they should have been about the President exercising his prerogative to dismiss appointees who serve at his pleasure.

To me, this appears more clumsy than scandalous. And the latest headlines combined with the overblown rhetoric of Democrats like Schumer shows how the MSM and the Democrats are ever eager to paint Karl Rove in a negative light.

Filed Under: Bush-hatred, Media Bias, National Politics

Comments

  1. Vince P says

    March 16, 2007 at 3:43 pm - March 16, 2007

    I am surpremely confident that everyone in this country is going to be so sick and tired of these fcking deranged Democrats that everything will revert to the GOP next year.

  2. Vince P says

    March 16, 2007 at 3:45 pm - March 16, 2007

    This is funny

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24811&only&rss

  3. Ted B. (Charging Rhino) says

    March 16, 2007 at 4:45 pm - March 16, 2007

    Mein Gott! It’s a return to the 1880’s when the White House and the Congress fought over political appointees…and who had the right to fire them. What part of “…serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States” don’t the members of the House and Senate understand? So much for Pelosi’s laser-focus on reforming Congress… At this rate, the Dhimmicrats will piss-away their gains of 2006 while OBL and al-Queda declare victory the date-after the Congressional “troop deadline” expires.

    No wonder that Winston Churchill…during WW2 when the House of Commons chamber was destroyed…only rebuilt the chamber so-that only 2/3 of the House members can actually sit-down in the benches. Sessions of the House have to be brief so that the back-benchers can take a break and pee…without losing their seats. (There’s no assigned seating or reserved places other than the front-row for the Government and the Shadow Government.)

  4. Ian says

    March 16, 2007 at 5:34 pm - March 16, 2007

    The Administration should have been more forthcoming about the reasons for the firing.

    Why, of course, in the case of the New Mexico Attorney, they could have just said: “he was a good performer until Rove, Domenici and Wilson couldn’t get him to start an unwarranted politically-motivated investigation against Dems just prior to the 2006 election. So when he refused to do it, we fired him.”

    Yeah, they could have told the truth. Right around the same time as when pigs fly. Dan, I cannot believe you still defend these people! I got the impression you were more of a libertarian for which these shenanigans ought to be anathema. Using the power of US Attorneys to destroy the political opposition with the goal of one party rule is an exercise in tyranny not freedom.

  5. North Dallas Thirty says

    March 16, 2007 at 6:07 pm - March 16, 2007

    Why, of course, in the case of the New Mexico Attorney, they could have just said: “he was a good performer until Rove, Domenici and Wilson couldn’t get him to start an unwarranted politically-motivated investigation against Dems just prior to the 2006 election.

    Iglesias had been investigating this for two years. It wasn’t a matter of not starting investigations; it was the fact that he was dragging his feet on finishing them.

    Furthermore, what is amusing about that statement is that, just a couple of months ago, the newly-chosen state election’s director told a gathering of election clerks that he knew election fraud had taken place and likely was taking place in New Mexico.

    That first gives you an excellent example of how inept Iglesias was; despite having a voter registration made out by a 13-year-old girl and numerous examples of double registrations, he couldn’t find anything wrong in two years worth of investigations.

  6. Ian says

    March 16, 2007 at 6:48 pm - March 16, 2007

    #5: The politically-motivated investigation I was referring to had nothing to do with voter fraud. It had to do with allegations of construction kickbacks against a former Dem state official.

  7. North Dallas Thirty says

    March 17, 2007 at 12:49 am - March 17, 2007

    Oh, there’s very little “allegations” about it, dear Ian.

    Furthermore, given what came out during the first trial, one can see why Iglesias could easily be accused of foot-dragging, given what can only be described as a “target-rich environment”.

  8. Ian says

    March 17, 2007 at 1:28 am - March 17, 2007

    #7: Strike 2 NDT! LOL. Once again, wrong case. Did you even read any of the articles? The construction kickbacks case I brought up was being investigated in late 2006. Your first article is dated more than a year before and describes how a plea deal led to indictments of former state officials for kickbacks from an investment advisor. Sounds like Iglesias had completed that investigation. Indeed, your second article just describes some of the fallout from the trial ongoing in Spring 2006. Again, you’re whining about a separate case that Iglesias had already investigated, submitted indictments for and brought to trial long before “Pajamas” Domenici and homohater Wilson tried to strong arm him about the construction kickbacks investigation.

  9. ThatGayConservative says

    March 17, 2007 at 1:46 am - March 17, 2007

    I cannot believe you still defend these people!

    But you’ll defend to the death the liberal a$$ clowns wasting time and money on a trumped up scandal instead of doing what they promissed.

    Wanna talk about shenanigans? This non-issue is not illegal, however:
    Chucky Schumer’s ID theft is.
    Sandy Burglar’s theft is.
    Leaking classified national security information is.
    Accepting bribes and hiding the cash in the freezer is.

    Using the power of US Attorneys to destroy the political opposition with the goal of one party rule is an exercise in tyranny not freedom.

    Oh please. The criminals I listed above got a slap on the wrist. Jefferson has a panel seat. You should be thanking Gonzales, you simp.

    Seriously. How long is it going to be before the libs make a scandal of Bush taking a shite with subpoenas? Face it Ian, the libs are full of it and so are you. We all know it and we’re not as stupid as you wish we were.

  10. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    March 17, 2007 at 1:54 am - March 17, 2007

    The Democrats try to criminalize everything the Bush Administration does. Soon the American people will realize its all for politics. Remember the MSM agonizing over how politics were being polarized ten years ago and why couldn’t we all just get along. As long as William Jefferson Democrat LA is still serving and in a leadership position to boot, how can anyone take these Dems seriously?

  11. ThatGayConservative says

    March 17, 2007 at 5:36 am - March 17, 2007

    Here’s Chucky Schumer interfering with an investigation:

    January 22, 2004
    The Honorable James Comey
    United States Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20530

    Dear Deputy Attorney General Comey:

    I write to request an update on the investigation into allegations that senior administration officials committed a federal felony by leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative.

    The investigation has been underway for four months now and we have received no meaningful reports regarding the progress you are making. I realize there are limitations on information that can be disclosed regarding an ongoing criminal investigation, but, as we have discussed, a prosecutor has the responsibility to assure public confidence in criminal investigations, especially those of such a serious nature.

    In the wake of recent calls by former intelligence operatives for a Congressional investigation, I write to ask that you publicly answer several questions regarding the progress you are making:

    Has a grand jury been empaneled in this case? Have members of the White House staff signed waivers, permitting journalists to discuss confidential communications? If so, what percent of the White House staff has signed such waivers? Has anyone who has been asked to sign such a waiver refused to do so?

    Have journalists been interviewed as part of the investigation? Has any journalist who has been released from confidentiality (assuming any has), refused to answer questions regarding previously confidential communications?

    Were White House staffers ordered as a condition of employment to submit to interviews? Has anyone asked for or been offered immunity? If so, how many individuals fit in each category and what types of immunity have been asked for and offered to each?

    What other information can you provide us regarding the progress you are making with this investigation?

    I look forward to hearing from you soon.

    Sincerely,
    Charles E. Schumer
    United States Senator

  12. ThatGayConservative says

    March 17, 2007 at 5:52 am - March 17, 2007

    Say Ian, if you could just switch back from environmental professor to attorney, I have a question:

    The libs, including Leaky Leahy have said that this issue is not illegal, but “hurts law enforcement”, why is it that the libs didn’t give a d*mn about hurting law enforcement when they were obstructing the appointment of judges?

    Further, if there’s nothing illegal here, why in the h*ll are we wasting time and money on this? Shouldn’t the libs be jetting off to their NCAA suites or adding more pork to the budget? While we’re at it, were’s the minimum wage increase?

    I want my money, beyotch!

  13. Ian says

    March 17, 2007 at 10:14 am - March 17, 2007

    #10:

    Chucky Schumer interfering with an investigation

    And how long after that did Senator Schumer’s guy at the White House fire the guy? Oh, that’s right, Schumer had no guy at the White House.

    #11:

    if you could just switch back from environmental professor to attorney

    Actually, I’m not an attorney but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

    if there’s nothing illegal here, why in the h*ll are we wasting time and money on this?

    First off, it appears that Abu Al and his buds at Department of “Justice” may have lied to Congress about the firings. That’s illegal. Second, there is a serious ethical problem with trying to force US Attorneys to act as political attack dogs. If, as a self-described conservative, you can’t see the problem with this, then I doubt you’re truly a conservative.

  14. North Dallas Thirty says

    March 17, 2007 at 12:54 pm - March 17, 2007

    The construction kickbacks case I brought up was being investigated in late 2006

    Not quite, my dear; it was quite a bit earlier than that.

    Furthermore, the reason all of these interlink is because all of these are related to puppets, cronies, and financiers of — surprise! — Bill Richardson and the scandal-ridden Democrat Party.

    Indeed, given the preponderance of evidence in all of these cases, it seems astounding that Iglesias sat and did nothing. Perhaps because he himself was taking advantage of kickbacks — and then, when he was found out, turned to puppet Dems like you, Ian, who facilitate this sort of corruption?

  15. Vince P says

    March 17, 2007 at 1:12 pm - March 17, 2007

    Look at how this ass Henry Waxman conducted his hearing … is this how the Democrats are going to behave? When are they are going to start acting responsible?

    http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/16/video-henry-waxman-grills-victoria-toensing/

  16. Vince P says

    March 17, 2007 at 1:32 pm - March 17, 2007

    More chemical weapons being used in Iraq

    BAGHDAD – Three suicide bombers driving chlorine-laden trucks struck in the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Anbar province, killing two policemen and forcing about 350 Iraqi civilians and six U.S. troops exposed to the gas to seek treatment, the military said Saturday.
    The attacks came after back-to-back bombings last month released chlorine gas, prompting the U.S. military to warn that insurgents are adopting new tactics in a campaign to spread panic.
    Just after 4 p.m. Friday, a driver detonated explosives in a pickup truck northeast of Ramadi, wounding one U.S. service member and one Iraqi civilian, the military said in a statement.
    That was followed by a similar explosion involving a dump truck south of Fallujah in Amiriyah that killed two policemen and left as many as 100 local citizens showing signs of chlorine exposure, with symptoms ranging from minor skin and lung irritations to vomiting, the military said.
    Less than 10 miles away, another suicide bomber detonated a dump truck containing a 200-gallon chlorine tank rigged with explosives at 7:13 p.m., also south of Fallujah in the Albu Issa tribal region, the military said. U.S. forces responded to the attack and found about 250 local civilians, including seven children, suffering from symptoms related to chlorine exposure, according to the statement.

  17. Ian says

    March 17, 2007 at 2:40 pm - March 17, 2007

    #14: LOL! So now you’re changing the subject. Look, your own links prove Iglesias was getting indictments and trials of wrong-doers. That’s why he got good performance reviews. He wasn’t even on the list of those to be fired until he refused to bow to pressure to get dirt out in order to influence the 2006 election. But keep spinning and defending Torquemada Al – you’ll look all the sillier when he gets the boot.

  18. Ian says

    March 17, 2007 at 5:26 pm - March 17, 2007

    #14: Toensing is a bald-faced liar. I’m sure she knows what the IIPA states in unambiguous language; that’s why she’s a liar when she claims that Wilson was not covert because she had not been “stationed abroad” within the five years previous to her outing. The act actually uses the term “served” outside the United States. Because Wilson was sent on secret missions outside the US within that timeframe, she most definitely meets the criterion of having “served” outside the US. Indeed, it would make no sense for the Act to only apply to those stationed or residing outside the US because the risk is the same no matter whether you live abroad or go on spy missions abroad.

  19. Ian says

    March 17, 2007 at 5:27 pm - March 17, 2007

    Sorry, make that #15 I was responding to.

  20. ThatGayConservative says

    March 17, 2007 at 5:30 pm - March 17, 2007

    If, as a self-described conservative, you can’t see the problem with this, then I doubt you’re truly a conservative.

    “It’s illegal because I said so! If you don’t believe me, you’re not a conservative!”

    Now I know you’re a child. Weak a$$ attempt at stifling discussion though, and you know what you can do with your suggestion.

    you’ll look all the sillier when he gets the boot.

    Oh please. You’ll look like an a$$ AGAIN when the latest fabricated “scandal” turns out to be just as vacuous as the others.

  21. ThatGayConservative says

    March 17, 2007 at 9:08 pm - March 17, 2007

    Further, Ian, if you really wanted criminal & unconstitutional acts investigated, you’d demand Pelosi be investigated for her billion dollar pork vote buying scheme.

  22. North Dallas Thirty says

    March 18, 2007 at 3:08 am - March 18, 2007

    Because Wilson was sent on secret missions outside the US within that timeframe, she most definitely meets the criterion of having “served” outside the US.

    If she was, the CIA under Clinton was even more stupid than we thought.

    To put this bluntly, they were using as a “covert agent” a person who they knew the Soviets had the name of and, if that wasn’t enough, had broken the rules around so-called “non-official cover” by using the US Embassy as her address, cementing her connection to the US government — something which was found with a simple database search.

  23. ThatGayConservative says

    March 18, 2007 at 6:29 am - March 18, 2007

    #14: Toensing is a bald-faced liar.

    Right. But her idiot husband who added her name to the Who’s Who book, where Novak got her name, isn’t. Nevermind that her name was leaked twice before that fcuktard Wilson ever went to Niger.

    Forget the fact that Fitz-fong found no crime. We’ll just pretend that all Republicans are automatically guilty, and the Wilsons, supported by lying a$$holes are totally innocent.

  24. Vince P says

    March 18, 2007 at 8:11 am - March 18, 2007

    >If, as a self-described conservative, you can’t see the problem with this, then I doubt you’re truly a conservative

    Are you saying that if I can’t see lies and fraud in my own party and instead lie to protect it that I can’t be conservative? Well what does that make me? A Leftist!

    Thank you for recongnizing your own behavior. That’s why I’m not a lefty. truth and logic matters.

  25. Ian says

    March 18, 2007 at 11:15 am - March 18, 2007

    #22: Perthaps you need to get a clue: it wasn’t her name that was a state secret, it was the fact that she worked for the CIA.

  26. Ian says

    March 18, 2007 at 1:31 pm - March 18, 2007

    #24:

    truth and logic matters.

    Precious little of either in your comment.

  27. ThatGayConservative says

    March 18, 2007 at 6:46 pm - March 18, 2007

    her name that was a state secret, it was the fact that she worked for the CIA.

    And how many people have been prosecuted for it? 0. They guy who most likely should be prosecuted was protected by Fitz-fong so he could go on his 3 year hunt for nothing.

    Spare us your BS, Ian. The show’s over.

  28. Ian says

    March 18, 2007 at 10:37 pm - March 18, 2007

    #27:

    The show’s over.

    Well, the civil trial hasn’t even started so I’d say the show’s just begun. I’d remind you too that just because no one is prosecuted doesn’t mean a crime wasn’t committed. Scooter took the fall pretty well and will be rewarded with a pardon.

  29. ThatGayConservative says

    March 19, 2007 at 12:54 am - March 19, 2007

    I’d remind you too that just because no one is prosecuted doesn’t mean a crime wasn’t committed.

    So Fitz-fong lied when he said that he couldn’t find that a crime had been committed?

  30. Calarato says

    March 19, 2007 at 1:18 am - March 19, 2007

    I’d remind you too that just because no one is prosecuted doesn’t mean a crime wasn’t committed.

    Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer.

    In this case… hmm… why yes, it means exactly that. (A case with a prosecutor so eager, he put someone on trial for basically just tripping over themselves.)

  31. Calarato says

    March 19, 2007 at 1:21 am - March 19, 2007

    (And, deliberately DIDN’T put on trial the guy who confessed to the act in contention.)

  32. Calarato says

    March 19, 2007 at 1:54 am - March 19, 2007

    P.S.

    Scooter took the fall pretty well and will be rewarded with a pardon.

    Folks – Notice how the above sets up President Bush so that he is evil no matter what he eventually does.

    If he pardons a good man who was convicted by a jury that publicly disavowed its own verdict hours after announcing it… it could only be due to venal motives. But if Bush doesn’t? The Kos jerks will certainly spin a story that Bush wants Libby “locked in the Tower” as it were, his prison-murder soon-to-be-arranged, blah blah blah.

    Thus, Bush will be (or already is) a fountain of evil, no matter what he does and no matter what contradictory claims or accusations must be uttered.

    That type of thinking is one of the symptoms of paranoia (as in clinical irrationality), not to mention a soul filled with hate.

  33. ThatGayConservative says

    March 19, 2007 at 5:45 am - March 19, 2007

    I still find it fascinating that Ian has no interest in REAL crimes. Chucky Schumer can harumph all day about law & order just as long as leechlike ball suckers like Ian ignores HIS crime.

    That’s the left for ya. Ignore real crimes, but focus on the fabricated ones. Even if they do blow up in their faces like all the others they made up.

  34. Ian says

    March 19, 2007 at 9:11 am - March 19, 2007

    #30:

    he put someone on trial for basically just tripping over themselves.

    Uh, no. He put a lying scumbag on trial and a jury convicted said lying scumbag of perjury and obstruction of justice.

  35. Peter Hughes says

    March 19, 2007 at 12:15 pm - March 19, 2007

    “He put a lying scumbag on trial and a jury convicted said lying scumbag of perjury and obstruction of justice.”

    Sort of almost like our former president, no? Except it was three articles of impeachment from the House of Representatives (including obstruction of justice) and one contempt-of-court ruling from a sitting US district judge.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  36. Ian says

    March 19, 2007 at 2:26 pm - March 19, 2007

    #35

    Sort of almost like our former president, no?

    Hardly. In case you don’t remember, Clinton was acquitted by the Senate. Indeed there wasn’t even a majority to convict let alone the 2/3 of those present required to convict. So it wasn’t even close.

  37. Peter Hughes says

    March 19, 2007 at 3:09 pm - March 19, 2007

    “In case you don’t remember, Clinton was acquitted by the Senate.”

    Yes, but just barely. Then-veep Algore was there to cast a tie-breaking vote if necessary.

    “Indeed there wasn’t even a majority to convict let alone the 2/3 of those present required to convict. So it wasn’t even close.”

    As Cal would say: BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong again!

    You are confusing a Senate trial with a filibuster. It only takes a simple majority – 51 votes for you short yellow schoolbus readers – to vote to remove a president for office for high crimes and misdemeanors.

    The first two impeachment votes failed 53-47 and 52-48. The third and most serious charge – obstruction of justice – failed 50-49-1. (I forget who the doofus was who voted “present but not voting,” but I hope they rot for their gutless reaction.)

    And again, Algore was there to cast the tie-breaker per the Constitution in his role as president of the Senate.

    Go WAY in the back and sit down, Ian. You may not comment again until you complete your remedial civics lesson. SNAP!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  38. Peter Hughes says

    March 19, 2007 at 3:29 pm - March 19, 2007

    And while I’m on the subject – the whole country would have been better off if Slick Willie had proven himself the equal of Richard Nixon and just resigned prior to impeachment. He should have quit and protected his legacy.

    That way, Algore would have been elevated to the presidency, he would have gotten his veep (whomever it might have been) confirmed by the Senate and he would have probably been a shoo-in for his first full term in 2000.

    Alas, it was not to be for a couple of reasons:

    1. The Clintons are mad, power-hungry Machiavellian politicians with huge egos (just ask David Geffen).

    2. Slick Willie could not trust Algore to take over the presidency because he probably thought that Gore would not pardon him once he left office.

    3. An incumbent Algore in office would derail Hillary’s 2000 presidential aspirations and make her wait for 2004 or 2008 (which still worked out in her favor today, since Bush got reelected in 2004 with the most votes ever cast in US history).

    I always love rubbing that last part in to the libtrolls.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  39. Ian says

    March 19, 2007 at 4:46 pm - March 19, 2007

    #37:

    You are confusing a Senate trial with a filibuster. It only takes a simple majority – 51 votes for you short yellow schoolbus readers – to vote to remove a president for office for high crimes and misdemeanors.

    “As Cal would say: BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong again!” Tsk, tsk, tsk Peter. Even a non-native born citizen like me knew that 2/3 of the Senate Members present is required for conviction

    The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” (Article I, section 2) and that “the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments …. [but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.” (Article I, section 3)

    You really ought to get your facts straight before mouthing off about “short yellow schoolbus readers” but I guess lack of facts has never stopped you before. LOL!

  40. Peter Hughes says

    March 19, 2007 at 5:23 pm - March 19, 2007

    Pot, meet kettle.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  41. ThatGayConservative says

    March 20, 2007 at 12:26 am - March 20, 2007

    Hardly. In case you don’t remember, Clinton was acquitted by the Senate. Indeed there wasn’t even a majority to convict let alone the 2/3 of those present required to convict. So it wasn’t even close.

    Who was it who recently said “just because there was no conviction doesn’t mean a crime didn’t occur”?

  42. Calarato says

    March 20, 2007 at 2:10 am - March 20, 2007

    Zing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    LOL 🙂

  43. sean says

    March 20, 2007 at 6:00 am - March 20, 2007

    Karl Rove wouldn’t even cut down a cherry tree! But this fascist, immigrant-loving gay-run media won’t leave him alone.

    (Who’s Clinton?)

  44. Ian says

    March 20, 2007 at 10:05 am - March 20, 2007

    #41:

    Who was it who recently said “just because there was no conviction doesn’t mean a crime didn’t occur”?

    Which is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. Constitutional scholar Peter claimed Scooter’s and Clinton’s cases were comparable. They are not in the least, for the most obvious reason that Scooter was convicted and Clinton was not.

  45. Calarato says

    March 20, 2007 at 10:35 am - March 20, 2007

    Some other reasons why they’re not comparable:

    (1) Clinton lied brazenly to the American people. (I mean, on TV – in addition to the courtroom deposition lies for which Congress justly tried him.) Libby did not.

    (2) Clinton lied as an elected Constitutional officer – in fact, as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. Libby did not.

    (3) No reasonable person can doubt that Clinton lied. While a reasonable person can still entertain some doubt that Libby did, because members of the Libby jury themselves publicly expressed doubts and questioned the propriety of their own action in convicting him.

    (4) The underlying action Clinton lied about was bad: his preying on a young-ish intern and committing adultery in the Oval Office – where and when Clinton ought to have been attending to the nation’s pressing security problems. By contrast, the action Libby MAY have lied about was Libby’s wanting to get true information about something out to the American people – i.e., Libby’s (possibly or allegedly) wanting to ADD to the public’s store of knowledge about some ridiculous games in Washington.

    Having said the above:

    I always opposed or at least questioned Clinton’s impeachment as unnecessarily divisive. (In fact, I was an early member of MoveOn.org, before they went stark raving mad.) Such is the basis on which I have also questioned (if not opposed) Fitzgerald’s persecution of Libby.

    So I can at least claim consistency of position and principle here – quite unlike some others.

  46. Calarato says

    March 20, 2007 at 10:52 am - March 20, 2007

    (P.S. to make point (4) perfectly clear: If Libby was anything in the Wilson-Plame affair, he was a whistle-blower. If Libby did what the Kos jerks believe he did – leak Plame’s name and so expose the Plame-Wilson plot to lie to America, which actually we know Richard Armitage exposed – then Libby would then be a hero.)

  47. Ian says

    March 20, 2007 at 11:26 am - March 20, 2007

    #45:

    young-ish intern

    LOL! In other words, at 22 she was an adult. Your obfuscation reminds me of Henry Hyde’s “youthful” indescretion when he was in his forties. Then you go on to turn the definition of whistle-blower on its head! Thanks for providing me with a morning laugh.

  48. Michigan-Matt says

    March 20, 2007 at 11:40 am - March 20, 2007

    Calarato, what is WRONG with you? Using reason to make your point to Ian??

    I love the speculation rampant on the blogosphere today: If Sen Clinton is elected President, would she pardon her husband? You gotta wonder if THAT’S the real reason Slick Willy is in her corner… just wondering.

  49. Ian says

    March 20, 2007 at 12:20 pm - March 20, 2007

    #48:

    If Sen Clinton is elected President, would she pardon her husband?

    Pardon him for what? I don’t recall him being convicted of anything.

  50. Ian says

    March 20, 2007 at 12:24 pm - March 20, 2007

    #48:

    I love the speculation rampant on the blogosphere today

    Me too. How long before Gone-zales is pushed out seems the question of the day. But you’d never know it from blogs like this.

  51. North Dallas Thirty says

    March 20, 2007 at 2:26 pm - March 20, 2007

    Actually, I always thought this put the Clinton affair into perspective nicely.

    And one wonders; if Clinton had faced an impartial jury, rather than one in which nearly half of it had been paid to find him not guilty, what would have happened?

  52. Peter Hughes says

    March 21, 2007 at 1:19 pm - March 21, 2007

    Easy, ND30. If the jury had been impartial, Shrillary would have visiting rights at Leavenworth for the next twenty years.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

Categories

Archives