Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
In all honesty, Ace, what does Clinton have to do with this?
|
Out of the context of the flow of my exchange with Rekna, nothing.
Quote:
|
What we should not punish people in government for wrong doings because you think we should have punished Clinton worse?
|
I thought going after Clinton was a waste of government resources as was going after Libby. I think government should focus on things that matter to and have an impact on most of Americans. The political tit-for-tat appears as if it will never end.
Quote:
|
WTF it's been close to 10 years, doesn't your hate get old and expire after awhile?
|
How do you figure I "hate" Clinton? Just because I asked a question involving an issue during his time in office? If that is the test - it seems any reference to history is off limits. I don't accept that, so think what you will.
Quote:
|
Libby was found guilty he should pay the price.
|
In our history many have been found guilty of crimes, when the charges were politically motivated. A guilty verdict does not make that kind of thing right.
Quote:
|
And it's not just you it's a vocal bunch of GOP'ers that want to keep bringing Clinton's name up. WTF.
|
There are double standards, involving both parties. I see it. Do you?
Quote:
|
How can this country move forward in a positive manner if you and your party's voices are going to keep past hatreds and resentments alive?
|
I don't resent or hate Clinton. In-fact, I doubt you could find a negative word ever written by me about Bill Clinton. So WTF are you talking about?
Quote:
|
Hey Zeus Freaking Crisps...... get the fuck over Clinton.... If you party screws up get the screw ups out and move on. Bringing up Clinton all the time does nothing..... except keeps hate alive and even that wears off after awhile.
|
How about reading what I write before making attacks. I know it is easier to argue with stuff you make up. But if you want to make stuff up, don't use me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
ace....and anyone else.....your thoughts on the following...i.e., who is and is not telling the truth....who is defending, IMO, the indefensible....what does this say about the integrity of the administration, and who is acting in the interests of "the nation, in a time of war"?
|
The Bush administration "outed" Plame. At this point I don't think anyone is saying they didn't.
We disagree, but I think the attacks on the Bush administration has hurt our efforts during war. The administration in my opinion has an obligation to respond to critics. In this situation their response was wrong.
Quote:
|
.....and why...with the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, saying this:
|
Was she undercover, or her job? If she was undercover, why didn't he charge Libby with that crime?
Quote:
|
....was it neccessary to add thos "Some People Say....", "critics" lines to the "story".....why would "a liberal press", add "foxisms" to the story, especially after Libby was convicted.
|
Don't know.
Quote:
|
Has there been any official statement from the White House, the DOJ, or the CIA, that contradicts Patrick Fitzgerald's "her employment was classified" statement, made in front of news cameras....so why are "critics say" references in the article that match no official statements, and would directly refute Fitzgerald, a man without a blemish on his record?
|
I think her status could have easily been de-classified by the administration. I think Fitzgerald is smart enough to know the difficulty in bringing a case on that issue. And he is smart enough to know it would not have been a wise thing to do, assuming he cares about his career. So, perhaps Fitzgerald is not as altruistic as you may want me to believe.
Host - sometimes you have to read between the lines.