indicted

I see, thanks for the info.

Edit:
I wonder what democrats that were against Clinton's saga will be for Libby's? Seems like if you have an opposite on one side (though it's not clear who), there would be an opposite on the other side, would there not?

 

oh let me see

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/politics/24leak.html

how abut hutchinson

here is hutchinson on clinton

 

No, Illinois is quite familiar with scandulous politicians, past and present.

George Ryan, Jim Edgar, Carol Mosely-Braun .... and a long list of others.

Being a former resident of Illinois, I'm familiar with many of these, but Rob being a current resident, and more specifically in Capone (Cook) County, he has an even better insight

Obviously the had anticipated this and a "pre-positioned" letter was in place for just this contingency.

 

Sorry I can't think of any names off the top of my head, however in the same sentence I also did notice democrats doing the same thing if that makes you feel any better

I will try to look, most cable news keeps transcripts so I'm sure it's gotta be possible to find them.

 

gtech one lied about a blow job to grand jury, something that many people can relate to

the other exposed a cia agent, then lied to a federal grand jury,

Which one seems worse?

 

ferret, yes I did actually see hutchinson do it as well but honestly wasn't the ones I was thinking about, but thank you for the info..

 

lol, na I was just picking on Rob because I'm from Wisconsin, figured I could pick on the Bears but with the Packers this year I don't want to open that can of worms.

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but I make no moral equivalence stances here. While Libby's is currently an allegation that must be tried (I realize some are already to convict, as noted in your comments), if he is found guilty, he should be punished. There is no excuse, should he be found guilty of what he did. Period.

 

I agree with you Gtech! Even though the initial 'crime' or investigation is totally different, the actual crime is the same, one however could easily be argued to be a little more lenient on than the other.

Yep both sides are guilty of it, I did notice dems as well, but sorry can't think of their names or the quotes off the top of my head.

 

How about including what she said about the investigation, instead of what she said about Plame?

Sure looks like a crime was charged to me.

 

But read what she's saying, she's totally changed positions there is no way to twist it.

 

check out the presidetial simulator

http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm

 

That was fun ferret, my 6 year old son realy enjoyed it, laughing his ass off.

 

It's almost like the real Dubya!

Did you notice how easy it is to put his head up his ass?

 

Wasn't checking that out to be truthful, but was funny when the his head was stuck in the bubbles

 

Totally changed positions in the same article, from one paragraph to the next? I see twisting, but not in the article

 

How do you figure? She specifically states

and then goes on to state

Of which I would think it's pretty clear she is saying either charge on the investigated crime, not on 'purjury, lying under oath' you know that sort of thing. Of course it's still going to be a crime, that whole 'purjury technicality'

 

Ah, a twisted crime, I see now. The semantics of purjury and purjury technicality. Bad republican, bad!

 

LOL, you've got to be kidding me. There is no defense for that statement among others,the only way there is if for some reason you've convinced yourself your party can do no wrong and you're willing to stick up for them no matter what.

Purjury technicality means purjury instead of the actual investigated crime does it not? This is pretty much the same phrase repeated over the past few weeks by many, I don't see how you could possibly try to defend it unless you realy 'try' to twist it, or simply can not see wrong doing of those on your side.

Or did I read you wrong

 

Why?

1- He tried to influence the government policy.
2- He committed a crime.
3- His actions put a human life in danger ( A CIA agent)

Let's call him "Domestic terrorist" according to patriot act and put him in prison without any lawyer, trial or conviction for duration of war on terrorism that nobody knows when it ends.

Gtech

How is it that you only support imprisonment without trial or conviction for criminals who don't work for Bush but like the full use of legal system for criminal working for this administration?