![]() |
#341 | |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,749
Local Time: 02:39 PM
|
Quote:
![]() The people making it a party issue are the ones who are supporting Bush's decision. In case you didn't catch my timeline, Wilson called the administration out on lying to the public about their reasons for going into Iraq The administration then ordered to out his wife to shut him up and warn others against doing the same Of all the responses contradicting mine, Bluer White seems to be the only one who is really willing to discuss the ISSUE at hand and not resort to generalizing and labeling. As phillyfan said, he is not even a democrat!! Which just even moreso proves his case: here you have a nondemocrat who recognizes the corruption going on with this decision. What he was saying was that people are so committed to their parties, especially the ones that do support this administration, that they are unwilling to call them at fault for what is truly happening here. Honestly, all this is doing is affirming what I already know. Until people can really offer some counter-responses to 1) WHY did Libby lie 2) WHY, after all the information collected, Fitzgerald says there "is a cloud over the whitehouse" 3) WHY the administration would do such a thing I'm gonna right now and say that this is a HUGE scandal, which again is just more proof that the administration lied to the public about Iraq, and is creepy enough to put families and OUR NATIONAL SECURITY at risk just for protecting their reasonings to do so. Since it hasn't been mentioned, I'll point out that Plame was a covert CIA who was involved in Counter-Proliferations. She had been working to ensure that weapons of mass destruction (nuclear in particular) would never be used to harm us. As I said, not only did outing her threaten her family, but it threatened US. However, Cheney didn't care, because his main concern was not protecting US, but protecting the administration's true intentions for going into Iraq. Why is this so deniable by some people? My guess is that those of you who ARE supporting this decision are either CIA or spouses of CIA yourself, and you're afraid of the same thing happening to you. I don't blame you. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#342 |
Refugee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 06:39 AM
|
And yes, he has run a very tight line on his morals. Bailing out one of his good friends would be expected. Any President, no matter what party would have done this if they were in the same shoes, so for the Democrats to go all hoopla on Bush is quite immature. Firstly Bush and morals do NOT go together in the same sentence unless the words 'has no' are included. Secondly the phrase 'its what a good buddy does' grates. So your buddy rapes someone and you bail him, cause we'll he's a bud and all and you can't have him going to jail etc etc. Bush is the PRESIDENT. I mean yes, he is really everything a president shouldn't be, not wise, worldy, intelligent, understanding, open minded, strong, etc but its just another thing in a line of a million things that bush has done wrong while being in power. |
![]() |
![]() |
#343 | |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 02:39 PM
|
Quote:
![]() But seriously, because obviously there aren't that many CIA or CIA spouses on this board, why are people supporting this decision and not questioning this act? I know it's been asked upthread, but can we ignore comparisons of numbers of pardons given out by Clinton or whatever and look at this specific issue, in the context of this administration and its policies at home and abroad? Is that too much to ask, to have an on-topic, reasonable debate? You can still defend the decision, you just need to find ground to stand on within the parameters of what this debate actually is about. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#344 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 02:39 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#345 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 02:39 PM
|
Quote:
Here is the problem that we have, that you still seem to not understand: THIS IS A COVER UP! A COVER UP! This has nothing to do with President Clinton! Bringing up Clinton means nothing. We are discussing the fact that Libby is covering for Cheney, who ordered a leak of classified information. Because it really isn't Libby's fault that he followed orders, Bush decided to commute him so that he doesn't have to get jailtime for PERJURY, which was only used to cover Cheney's ass. We are discussint the fact that, because he was COMMUTED (NOT PARDONED, as people were discussing earlier with Clinton), he retains his fifth amendment rights and doesn't out Cheney. Here's how the Clinton arguments don't work: 1. His pardons were pointed out. This was not a pardon. 2. This isn't a partisan issue. I'm not a Democrat! I have no partisan bias against President Bush. So, quit making this thing into a damn partisan issue. We're not comparing Bush to anyone. That was never the issue. We are discussing the commute used to cover up. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#346 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 02:39 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#347 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 02:39 PM
|
^
![]() No....that's kind of what I want them to realize by actually discussing the topic... |
![]() |
![]() |
#348 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 11:39 AM
|
I don't think anyone has posted that Bush did not have the Constitutional Right to bail out Libby.
The Mark Rich pardon by Clinton was widely condemned. There were not a lot on Democrats rising to defend it. I do remember there was quite a bit of talk, especially by Republicans to try and change the "pardon" program. To prevent the "appearance' of pardons influence by politics. The Bush/ Cheney Administration jumped all over the Republicans in congress to squash it. For those who want to keep comparing with Clinton, please show me where Clinton commuted a sentence for someone associated him or with his Administration. |
![]() |
![]() |
#349 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 02:39 PM
|
As well as commuting before the sentence was served at all, which was described as "unprecedented."
|
![]() |
![]() |
#350 | |
Acrobat
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 485
Local Time: 07:39 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#351 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:39 AM
|
How utterly regal.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#352 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,749
Local Time: 02:39 PM
|
struckpx,
why do you think he ordered the commute? why do you think libby lied? p.s. responses which contain the words: democrat, friend, and clinton aren't allowed ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#353 | |
Acrobat
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 485
Local Time: 07:39 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#354 | |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 03:39 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#355 | |
Acrobat
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 485
Local Time: 07:39 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#356 | |
Acrobat
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 485
Local Time: 07:39 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#357 | |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 03:39 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#358 | |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,749
Local Time: 02:39 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#359 | |
Acrobat
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 485
Local Time: 07:39 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#360 | |
Acrobat
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 485
Local Time: 07:39 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|