I’ll grant you this: you are amusing.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You can spin this all you want.
The fact of the matter is that LYING to investigators about actions involving national security, during an investigations into said actions, is very troubling. [/quote]
It’s only troubling if it actually relates to national security. However, given that seemingly there was no crime of disclosing anything related to national security, given the lack of any indictments for such, it seems the alleged lying simply related to the investigation.
As I’ve said, lying under oath is problematic. But it ain’t national security.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I doubt anyone truly believes that these indictments came about simply because Libby was unsure of a few facts and misspoke himself. [/quote]
No, the indictment came because the prosecutor believed Libby was lying to him. Fitzgerald had specifically asked for and received (a very typical thing actually) an extension of his authority to prosecute for matters related to his investigation. Can’t blame the guy for not liking it when he thought someone was lying to him.
But guess what: Not national security.
[quote]vroom wrote:
No, the problem here, and the right is quick to grasp it, is that a huge spotlight is being shined into some uncomfortable areas right now. So, the usual tactics of distract, deflect and discredit are being brought to bear.[/quote]
Not really. Why should the White House care if the facts indicate that persons in the administration pointed reporters to Wilson’s non-undercover CIA analyst wife as the source of his appointment, about which Wilson had repeatedly lied? 'Cause I think it’s a pretty fair deduction, given the lack of indictments over disclosure of the identity of a covert operative, that she was not covert or there was no intent. It’s not like it would have taken the prosecutor 2 years to find out who told what to which reporters…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Let’s compare this to Clinton, and point out how Clinton was in a higher position when he did it.
Let’s compare the indictments to the possible range available and point out it could have been even more damning.[/quote]
Nah. Let’s point out how the indictments aren’t in any way related to national security issues.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Let’s suggest that because people aren’t indicted it proves they must be innocent. It doesn’t do much of anything, and I’m not claiming to know what did or didn’t happen, but I do have my opinion as does everyone else.[/quote]
No. Let’s point out that if no indictment was brought, then either of two things happened: 1) The prosecutor couldn’t find any evidence that led him to believe there had been a violation of the law; or 2) The prosecutor found some evidence that he thought was questionable, but decided it was too weak to risk an embarassing loss in a high-profile case just to pursue weak leads.
In neither case would you be in a high-ground moral position to look down on the non-indicted person and decide that he should be treated as morally culpable – even if you knew which one of the two alternatives it was, which you don’t. Of course, you can believe what you want, but when you have no evidence a crime even occurred, let alone know who took what actions, and you want to act as if the administration should be hanging its head in shame, it’s kind of pathetic.
[quote]vroom wrote:
As many people have previously claimed, prior to the whole issue of indictments due to this investigation, the Bush administration appears to have had a war against Iraq in mind and went looking for ways to justify it.[/quote]
Keep regurgitating the Democratic talking points. This is related to lying to a grand jury how again? Over how many assumptions do you have to leap to get from there to your point?
[quote]vroom wrote:
The ongoing investigations and any trials into this issue are going to shine a very hot light onto the actions of the administration in this regard.
So, of course I’m talking about things which are at the very least months away, but gems of information are going to drop out of this affair like wax off of a slowly burning candle.
Every single negative truth that comes out is going to burn the republican party, at all levels, especially because of their repeated claims of being the ethical party, the one you can trust to do the right thing as compared to the democrats.
This is why republicans are foaming at the mouth like impotent fire distinguishers trying to find any way to put out the awful blaze afire due to all the recently mishandled crises.
The Bush administration may have been doing bad things to innocent little girl America…
Hey little girl is your daddy home
Did he go away and leave you all alone
I got a bad desire
I’m on fire
Tell me now baby is he good to you
Can he do to you the things that I do
I can take you higher
I’m on fire
Sometimes it’s like someone took a knife baby
edgy and dull and cut a six-inch valley
through the middle of my soul
At night I wake up with the sheets soaking wet
and a freight train running through the
middle of my head
Only you can cool my desire
I’m on fire
[If this doesn’t set the foamers off, I don’t know what will][/quote]
You obviously have strange dreams. Don’t take ZMA or eat spicy foods before bed any more.
You do realize that you’ve concocted your own little fantasyland there, all based on what you (apparently) hope will happen, with nothing at all based on what came out today? Heck, we don’t even have a request to extend the grand jury right now…