|
the reaction to the OP is, in general, variations on the certainty of mr. libby's guilt. that's really not relevant and not something i would even begin to contest.
i must restate...
if you are outraged by this libby business, there are only two morally consistent arguments available:
1) this libby case is an extra-ordinary abuse of power and insult to justice!
2) this libby case is just the latest in a never-ending string of abuses and i am opposed to all of them in measure proportionate to their severity
the first is very difficult or impossible to argue (dc_dux is the only one who's attempted it). the second demands a moral consistency that i haven't witnessed on this board. if you can't demonstrate the first and don't qualify to argue to second, you're guilty of the same preferential notion of justice for which you condemn the president.
-------------------------
host, i appreciate your discipline for citing resources... but i find your posting style more distracting than convincing. in addition to helpful source documents you also tend to post op/eds and info from dubious sources. what's more, they're often posted in their entirety. for what it's worth, i think they'd be more effective if your restated the argument in your own words and linked only to sources confirming objective facts that may not be readily accepted.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
~ Winston Churchill
|