iheartskins Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Wouldn't it be a national disgrace if in the same year Cheney, Rove, Frist, and Delay were all indicted. It could very well happen. What does that say about modern politicians? Disgrace, yes. But at least we prosecute them in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Wouldn't it be a national disgrace if in the same year Cheney, Rove, Frist, and Delay were all indicted. It could very well happen. What does that say about modern politicians? It says that if your opponent continues to beat you at the ballot box use the legal system to find a way to bring them down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 26, 2005 Author Share Posted October 26, 2005 Agreed Iheartskins. The entire leadership of the Republicans though. It's something to think about. I wonder if that has ever happened before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Clinton had bigger scandals, much bigger ones, involving the usual suspects-oil companies and fundraising When a whistleblower CIA Ops Officer tried going public with it, he was shot down quickly (not literally, but nobody really heard what he found out) If Cheney lied under oath, adios Dicky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 What will you liberals do if none of these guys are indicted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 26, 2005 Author Share Posted October 26, 2005 It says that if your opponent continues to beat you at the ballot box use the legal system to find a way to bring them down. To quote Kilmer... er the Who-- "Meet the New Boss same as the Old Boss." That's what liberals say about the Clinton witchhunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I think everyone here is forgetting the most important fact about Clinton's perjury: it may have robbed a woman of justice. He lied in connection to a sexual harrassment case that was brought against him. He was a notorius womanizer and not all of the wqmoen in question were apparently happy to receive his "attention." I don't want to drag up the whole affair again, but the lies about Monica were to keep his philandering hidden in the sexual harrassment case against him. Clinton was accussed of actions similar to the ones that ended Senator Packwoods career. NOW and the left was all over him, but claimed Bill's accussers were liars and defended him.:doh: BTW, "Packwood" has to be one of the worst names ever, especially if you're gonna get embroiled in a sex scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 No. The impeachment was a joke with Clinton, and it would be a joke with Cheney. This is potentially a major scandal and disgrace for Cheney, but let the electorate decide at the next election. Impeachment should be reserved for "high crimes and misdemeanors" which to me is only the really big evil stuff. PS - I think Cheney did big evil stuff too, but that's not at issue in this investigation.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Bllue Talon, I believe Clinton "lied" about a bj or the definition of having sex. Last I checked, this was not a crime outside of the lieing under oath about it.Cheany lied about his or somebody elses revealing classified info (if guilty). I believe this is a crime beyond just the lie under oath about it. I believe you have the who lied about a crime backwards. You are just one of several people posting on this thread that either don't understand what happened, or intentionally misrepresent it. Clinton was accused of sexual harrassment, which is a crime. He suborned purjury (also a crime) in an attempt to get out from under the accusation of sexual harrassment. The lie to which you refer, and to which you think I refer, was more than just a white lie to save his family from embarrassment. It was an attempt to cover up a pattern of sexual misbehavior -- and temporarily succeeded, since the lawsuit's success depended on being able to show a pattern of sexual impropriety. When the facts became known, he was disbarred for 5 years, among other things. On the other hand, Cheney is suspected, by many of you, of outing a covert CIA agent. The law, as it is written, makes it a crime to knowingly and maliciously reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent within 5 years of that agent's time undercover. If I understand the timeline correctly, Plame had been working as an analyst back here for 6 years, which would remove it from the purview of that law. (In other words, no crime is possible -- at least, not by that statute.) Even if it were within the 5 years, it would have to be proven that her identity was outted by Cheney and not some reporter or even her husband, or that the information wasn't already public knowledge. Then it would have to be proven that it was intentional, and with malintent. (I know some of you think everything Cheney does is intentional and with malintent! Too bad for you.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 If he perjured himself, then yes, he should be impeached.BTW, does the left still believe that Clinton was impeached because he got a smoothie in the Oval Office? Or do they now realize that it was the lying under oath that was the reason? I can't speak for the left but I find it amazing that people like yourself still want to pretend the entire situation was anything short of a witch hunt. The question shouldn't have been asked. The fact that white water turned into "anything that could possible hurt him" when a thousand woman with GOP funded lawyers sprang up looking for something...anything they could find. So yeah I know why he was impeached. I also know the ideology that decided it was more important to make an ass out of the country then simply let the man do his job.....only to turn around now and accuse the left of wanting to embarrass the President for political reasons. Wag the dog for trying to act on bad intell....heh what a joke that is now eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I think everyone here is forgetting the most important fact about Clinton's perjury: it may have robbed a woman of justice. He lied in connection to a sexual harrassment case that was brought against him. He was a notorius womanizer and not all of the wqmoen in question were apparently happy to receive his "attention." I don't want to drag up the whole affair again, but the lies about Monica were to keep his philandering hidden in the sexual harrassment case against him. Clinton was accussed of actions similar to the ones that ended Senator Packwoods career. NOW and the left was all over him, but claimed Bill's accussers were liars and defended him.:doh: BTW, "Packwood" has to be one of the worst names ever, especially if you're gonna get embroiled in a sex scandal. I want to know who paid for the legal fees of all these female accusers. How much you want to bet a republican picked up the tab? After all when white water went no where....the GOP needed something to justify changing the tone and topic of questions that were asked right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Cheney and Bush should be impeaced, they have none a grave disservice to thie country. The continual lying is just more arrogance and coverup of there incompetence. Both of them are unfit for command, the record speaks for itself. My opinion the outing of a CIA operative is treason, then you add on the reason they did it was to punish and silence Wilson and use him as an example to anyone else who questions the policies and wisdom of these clowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Cheney and Bush should be impeaced, they have none a grave disservice to thie country. The continual lying is just more arrogance and coverup of there incompetence. Both of them are unfit for command, the record speaks for itself. My opinion the outing of a CIA operative is treason, then you add on the reason they did it was to punish and silence Wilson and use him as an example to anyone else who questions the policies and wisdom of these clowns. Fortunately, the justice system in this country is based on laws, not on your opinion. I find it highly ironic that you've basically already tried and convicted Bush and Cheney for lying, when (A) you don't even know if Cheney's office is the source of the leaked identity, ( you can't know, you can only suppose the motive for releasing the identity, © Wilson himself lied, and dragged Cheney into this mess, by claiming he was sent to Niger by Cheney's office, (D) the information contained in his report was wrong (a politically motivated lie?), (E) the guys you probably voted for instead of Bush & Cheney can hardly be characterized by honesty. Kerry lied about his Viet Nam service, Edwards lied in court (unless you really believe he channeled an unborn baby). Do you even know what treason is? Which sounds more like treason to you, revealing the identity of a CIA employee who has been working in Washington DC as an analyst for six years, or meeting with the leadership of a country with whom we are at war without the knowledge or authorization of our country's leadership? Kerry actually had unauthorized meetings with North Vietnamese representatives while the war was still going on! And then came back and advocated positions that were advantageous to the North Vietnamese! Bush and Cheney are both far more fit for command than the previous alternatives we had. If you guys had picked a better candidate than Kerry, then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Bush and Cheney are both far more fit for command than the previous alternatives we had. If you guys had picked a better candidate than Kerry, then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. :applause: I love this! It's the first time in ages that I've read that someone is willing to vote for the best candidate and not just along party lines. At least that's how I interpret your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Sexually Harrassing your Intern is not a personal issue. Lying directly to the Amercian people is not a personal issue. Lying to the Grand Jury is not a personal issue. Trying to intimidate people into changing their stories is not a personal issue. There was nothing about the entire thing that was personal... Personal is meeting someone that "doesnt" work for you... Lying to the Grand Jury about telling someone who told you Valarie Plame is (Perjury). No difference, doesn't really matter if she is or isnt covert at that point. It's never the crime, it's ALWAYS the coverup that gets you in trouble... for some reason they never believe it. Just like your kid never believes if they just tell you right away it will go easier on them.... Both are always wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 27, 2005 Author Share Posted October 27, 2005 Memory might be getting foggy, but Clinton never was accused of harrassing Monica was he? I thought it was a consenual affair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyhorse1 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Fortunately, the justice system in this country is based on laws, not on your opinion.I find it highly ironic that you've basically already tried and convicted Bush and Cheney for lying, when (A) you don't even know if Cheney's office is the source of the leaked identity, ( you can't know, you can only suppose the motive for releasing the identity, © Wilson himself lied, and dragged Cheney into this mess, by claiming he was sent to Niger by Cheney's office, (D) the information contained in his report was wrong (a politically motivated lie?), (E) the guys you probably voted for instead of Bush & Cheney can hardly be characterized by honesty. Kerry lied about his Viet Nam service, Edwards lied in court (unless you really believe he channeled an unborn baby). Do you even know what treason is? Which sounds more like treason to you, revealing the identity of a CIA employee who has been working in Washington DC as an analyst for six years, or meeting with the leadership of a country with whom we are at war without the knowledge or authorization of our country's leadership? Kerry actually had unauthorized meetings with North Vietnamese representatives while the war was still going on! And then came back and advocated positions that were advantageous to the North Vietnamese! Bush and Cheney are both far more fit for command than the previous alternatives we had. If you guys had picked a better candidate than Kerry, then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. You make valid points that may lose their validity soon. Cheney's office may be implicated and Rove may well be found guilty of some charges. Also, the supposed motive may prove correct or not, we'll see. If you check Newsweek this month, as well as other publications available to you, you'll discover that the notion Wilson lied and the information in his report was wrong was spin concocted by Cheney's office and itself may lead to indictments because it defamed Wilson. Kerry has been vindicated in regard to his service record. Except at Fox News, the Swift Boat guys have been discredited. Records now released to the public support Kerry. This was a news item you missed about six months ago. Kerry has since been criticized by Democrats for not pushing to have the records released before the election. I have never heard anything about Edwards lying in court about a baby. What are you talking about? I could argue for Kerry about his meeting, but there's no need. If Kerry committed treason ten times over it wouldn't affect whether White House Aids committed treason or not. Plame was classified as undercover by the CIA. The operation she ran (a NOC) on foreign soil was a phony company whose supposed officials penetrated foreign governments. Most of those officials/spies were still operating when Plame was outed. Since Plame and the rest used their real names while posing as business people (the usual operating procedure of a NOC) hostile foreign governments only had to resurrect their records to discover the identities of dozens of our operatives still in the field. The fate of those operatives has not been disclosed. The NOC shut down immediately, costing us years of time invested and loss of intelligence about WMD, the specialty of Plame's NOC. The outing may have already resulted in a loss of life and may result in much more loss of life in years to come. That's why the crime is an important one and properly labeled Treason. It easily warrants life in prison, or more. Any candidate the Democrats picked would have looked like a bad candidate after going up against Rove, who conducted a smear campaign based on absolutely nothing. Today's Republicans are much better getting into office than governing. Kerry wasn't prepared for the out and out falsehoods and dishonesty, and didn't retaliate in kind. Nor was he able to prevent massive election fraud. The only type of candidate that could have beaten Bush would have been unfit for the office, as Bush was and is. This administration is going to at least temporarily wreck the Republican party and the conservative movement in the United States. Check the polls. You guys are toast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 They go hand in hand. Should the topic ever have warranted questioning in front of a grand jury? Was the affair worth the money we the taxpayers spent to Ken Starr? In truth, Clinton was impeached because he lied about having an affair. You can't divorse the issue from the act. Happened to lie under oath, but was asked an issue that had nothing to do with how Clinton was performing his job or the security or well being of the nation.Plame case is different. What happens to the sources or people that were used to help the US gather intelligence that she interacted with. All the sources suddenly become useless and the sources themselves endangered. It is highly dubious that anyone will search for technalities to justify this. You are actually using common sense. I wish the right-wingers would take a cue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 The best part of this whole thing? Liberals finally will back the CIA for once Amazing what politics can do And if you wish to read Clinton's REAL high crime and misdemanors, I really do suggest "See No Evil" Incredible the amount of corruption that occured in the mid 1990s involving the NSC, State Department, and Big Oil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Memory might be getting foggy, but Clinton never was accused of harrassing Monica was he? I thought it was a consenual affair. Theres no such thing at that level.. NO CEO or Military commander or anyone in that position can have a consentual affair with someone in an Intern position.... Your position doesnt allow it as the power you office holds and the person that works for you.. *my two cents* So if you don't consider him to have to abide by commander in chief code, The military will not allow this... Do you also not consider him to hae to abide by civilian CEO vs. Intern code? therefore: Above the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Should Cheney be impeached? Sure, why not? I'm not going to complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Guys, why the hell do you have to bring Kerry into this? Seriously, you sound like Kilmer every time someone brings up something he can't counter with a logical argument. "But Clinton..." "That's not what Clinton said..." "Klinton..." Are we really back at that level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Guys, why the hell do you have to bring Kerry into this? Seriously, you sound like Kilmer every time someone brings up something he can't counter with a logical argument."But Clinton..." "That's not what Clinton said..." "Klinton..." Are we really back at that level? Back to? We've never left. In fact, the level of vitriol and hatred from the left is increasing. But on this topic, it's completely appropriate to bring up Clinton when discussing impeachment. I know youd like everyone to forget what a horrible pres he was, but we wont let you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 27, 2005 Author Share Posted October 27, 2005 Which is why Bush as soon as he learned of natural disasters recruited Clinton to help him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Which is why Bush as soon as he learned of natural disasters recruited Clinton to help him. Im not following. What does Ws asking his dad and Clinton to fund raise have to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.