Zipp0 1 #26 March 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteI don't understand why people can't see that firing a large group of US Attorneys half way through a term is significantly different from replacing all or most at the start of a term. Because they don't want to hear it and would rather repeat the misinformation that they get from their "news" sources (which they will admit are "entertainers" but only if you corner them on the issue). That's why they repeat only part of the story and ignore the rest of it. Repeating often enough it makes it "the truth". Karl Rove is the master of creating cognitive dissonance - the trademark of the Bush administration. Present two different ideas as truth, and people don't know what to believe. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #27 March 21, 2007 Quote Karl Rove is the master of creating cognitive dissonance - the trademark of the Bush administration. Present two different ideas as truth, and people don't know what to believe. Or better yet, create two different ideas as opposing truths, to get the debate started, and keep the actual truth locked up out of sight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #28 March 21, 2007 Why do you suppose Bush will allow his staff to talk to Congress, but not under oath and only without transcripts? I'm guessing Limbaugh et al must have formulated some sort of talking point answer other than "to avoid prosecution for lying" by now. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #29 March 21, 2007 QuoteWhy do you suppose Bush will allow his staff to talk to Congress, but not under oath and only without transcripts? I'm guessing Limbaugh et al must have formulated some sort of talking point answer other than "to avoid prosecution for lying" by now. Blues, Dave Lamebaugh won't touch that one. He'll distract with "but Clinton....93 + 30" and J J J J Jimmy Carter axed one. Where's the drive by reaction to that one? Whew, I sure picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #30 March 21, 2007 QuoteWhy do you suppose Bush will allow his staff to talk to Congress, but not under oath and only without transcripts? I'm guessing Limbaugh et al must have formulated some sort of talking point answer other than "to avoid prosecution for lying" by now. Blues, Dave Just look what happened to Libby."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #31 March 21, 2007 >Just look what happened to Libby. And Delay, and Cunningham, and Ney, and Weldon, and Jefferson, and Frist. It's getting so a guy can't even lie under oath or take a decent bribe any more! What's happened to our traditional american values? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #32 March 21, 2007 Quote>Just look what happened to Libby. And Delay, and Cunningham, and Ney, and Weldon, and Jefferson, and Frist. It's getting so a guy can't even lie under oath or take a decent bribe any more! What's happened to our traditional american values? Apples and oranges for the most part but I did expect this reply. Just not from you"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #33 March 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhy do you suppose Bush will allow his staff to talk to Congress, but not under oath and only without transcripts? I'm guessing Limbaugh et al must have formulated some sort of talking point answer other than "to avoid prosecution for lying" by now. Just look what happened to Libby. So it is just "to avoid prosecution for lying under oath." Oddly enough, I'd choose a different route to avoid such problems...just tell the fucking truth. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #34 March 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy do you suppose Bush will allow his staff to talk to Congress, but not under oath and only without transcripts? I'm guessing Limbaugh et al must have formulated some sort of talking point answer other than "to avoid prosecution for lying" by now. Just look what happened to Libby. So it is just "to avoid prosecution for lying under oath." Oddly enough, I'd choose a different route to avoid such problems...just tell the fucking truth. Blues, Dave and if the "truth" were told Libby would have never went to court to begin with Why??? Because Fitzgerlad admited he knew the first day of the investigation who names Plame and that there was no crime in doing so. So, why did he ever go and talk to anybody else? Hhhhmmmmmmm POLITICS!!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #35 March 21, 2007 >and if the "truth" were told Libby would have never went to court to begin with . . . Likely true. Unfortunately he did not tell the truth. Lying under oath is a crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #36 March 21, 2007 Quote>and if the "truth" were told Libby would have never went to court to begin with . . . Likely true. Unfortunately he did not tell the truth. Lying under oath is a crime. I am not sure that is the case but I know that is what you believe. You don't seem to adament about when clinton did it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #37 March 21, 2007 >I am not sure that is the case but I know that is what you believe. It's also what the US justice system believes. >You don't seem to adament about when clinton did it . . . The trial against Libby showed him to be guilty of lying under oath. The impeachment of Clinton showed him to be not guilty of the crimes he was accused of. Both, of course, are still liars in the end. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #38 March 21, 2007 Quote>I am not sure that is the case but I know that is what you believe. It's also what the US justice system believes. >You don't seem to adament about when clinton did it . . . The trial against Libby showed him to be guilty of lying under oath. The impeachment of Clinton showed him to be not guilty of the crimes he was accused of. Both, of course, are still liars in the end. Clinton was disbared because he lied under oath. You loose this one. and Libby is where he is because of an out of control justice dept and I think you know as well as anyone he should not be in this situation. But you can't admit it because of your position.....sad"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #39 March 21, 2007 >Clinton was disbared because he lied under oath. Yes. He may have also lost his Price Club membership for lying. The only LEGAL proceeding against him was the impeachment. Google that and see if it was successful. >and Libby is where he is because of an out of control justice dept . . . run by . . . who runs the justice department again? Google that and let us know. But perhaps you're right. Perhaps the justice department is out of control. The House Judiciary subcommittee should get those SOB's on the stand to answer some questions! I'm sure you'd support that, if they're really out of control. >and I tink you know as well as anyone he should not be in this situation. I agree! Had he simply told the truth, he would not have been convicted of perjury and obstructing justice. As that may have gotten his boss in trouble, though, he made the (bad) decision to try to protect him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #40 March 21, 2007 QuoteQuote>I am not sure that is the case but I know that is what you believe. It's also what the US justice system believes. >You don't seem to adament about when clinton did it . . . The trial against Libby showed him to be guilty of lying under oath. The impeachment of Clinton showed him to be not guilty of the crimes he was accused of. Both, of course, are still liars in the end. Clinton was disbared because he lied under oath. You loose this one. and Libby is where he is because of an out of control justice dept and I think you know as well as anyone he should not be in this situation. But you can't admit it because of your position.....sad Time to look in the mirror. Who is running the Justice department right now? I agree with you that it is an "out of control justice dept". Firing US Attorneys that don't toe the party line is an action that an "out of control justice dept" would do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #41 March 21, 2007 So, let's see, if them Dems insist on someone being fired because they don't approve of their performance, then it's OK, but if the president lets someone go on his own initiative, it's criminal? Get a grip, man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #42 March 22, 2007 .........but not under oath by Lucky... QuotePost: What a joke, hear what this group of criminals we call the presidentia admin is saying? The WH aids can testify in private and not under oath, so IOW's, hear say everthing. They must have learned that wen you lie, lie not under oath. None the less, they are full ofshit if they want it all in closed session. Is it more apparent than how woh illicit the chimp and friends are? SO now Bush says there will be an all-out war over this if the Dems push it? Where was he when the Repug scum pushed the Lewinsky scandal? Welcome to your own nightmare, scumbag Bush. I guess those Dems were so effecient that they got all of that legislation done in the first 100 hours, now they've got nothing else to do. They remind me of the old fart who has retired, built all of his bird houses, and has nothing left to do except sit on the porch and take down the license plate numbers of everyone who he thinks is breaking the speed limit by 3MPH. Every evening he calls the police dept. and insists that something be done about this problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #43 March 22, 2007 QuoteI guess Bush really did learn something from Clinton. Yea, Bush gets his gead from interns and ensures they swallow it all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #44 March 22, 2007 QuoteIt is interesting to note that among the 90+ US Atts fired by Clinton, were some investigating governmental wrong doing in Arkansas. I wonder where those investigations, had they been completed, would have led. Spectacular double standard on the part of the left. Clinton was impeached for lying about a BJ, and there is a double standard? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #45 March 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteSo Rush, you don't think the timing makes this issue different? In what way? There are (were) issues with what those that were fired were doing under both admins. I am not making a claim of right or wrong (as some seem to be implying here) The point, more than anything, is how differently it is viewed depending on which party has the power of the office. Your thought? An admin cleaning house as they enter office is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay diff than cleaning house as shit is hitting the fan in the middle of your presidencey. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #46 March 22, 2007 Quote>I am not sure that is the case but I know that is what you believe. It's also what the US justice system believes. >You don't seem to adament about when clinton did it . . . The trial against Libby showed him to be guilty of lying under oath. The impeachment of Clinton showed him to be not guilty of the crimes he was accused of. Both, of course, are still liars in the end. Furthermore these proceedings are criminal (Libby, etc) and Clinton's was political - huge difff.....apples/oranges. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #47 March 22, 2007 QuoteQuote>I am not sure that is the case but I know that is what you believe. It's also what the US justice system believes. >You don't seem to adament about when clinton did it . . . The trial against Libby showed him to be guilty of lying under oath. The impeachment of Clinton showed him to be not guilty of the crimes he was accused of. Both, of course, are still liars in the end. Clinton was disbared because he lied under oath. You loose this one. and Libby is where he is because of an out of control justice dept and I think you know as well as anyone he should not be in this situation. But you can't admit it because of your position.....sad You're confusing the impeachment and subsequent failure to get the conviction..... A POLITICAL PROCESS. ....with the criminal process with Libby, IT IS PART OF TEH CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. Don't confuse the 2 processes, diff rues, etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #48 March 22, 2007 QuoteSo, let's see, if them Dems insist on someone being fired because they don't approve of their performance, then it's OK, but if the president lets someone go on his own initiative, it's criminal? Get a grip, man. Who are you saying teh dems insisted on being fired? I think you're missing it here, your heroes biys were fired cause they knew too much. Shall we debate that or live with your tangents? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #49 March 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt is interesting to note that among the 90+ US Atts fired by Clinton, were some investigating governmental wrong doing in Arkansas. I wonder where those investigations, had they been completed, would have led. Spectacular double standard on the part of the left. Clinton was impeached for lying about a BJ, and there is a double standard? You really don't know what all happened do you? Wow"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #50 March 22, 2007 QuoteI guess those Dems were so effecient that they got all of that legislation done in the first 100 hours, now they've got nothing else to do. So the Clinton impeachment showed lots of attention to other more important things huh? Brilliance. QuoteThey remind me of the old fart who has retired, built all of his bird houses, and has nothing left to do except sit on the porch and take down the license plate numbers of everyone who he thinks is breaking the speed limit by 3MPH. Every evening he calls the police dept. and insists that something be done about this problem. And teh Repugs chasing of Clinton was not like this? Hard to hear Repugs whine after the BJ impeachment over what.... lying? Oh yea, same lying they are investigating now...... I'm sending you a mirror, just drop a mailing addy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
