Keeping It Fair
The NY Times reports with glee that the prosecutor may seek indictments against Karl Rove and Lewis Libby based not on any wrongdoing with respect to revealing Valerie Plame's identity, but for failure to be forthcoming with the grand jury.
Doesn't this sound a bit familiar? The only difference between this and the Clinton/Lewinsky matter is the fact that Karl Rove reportedly forgot a phone call with a reporter, and Bill Clinton "forgot" receiving oral sex from an intern in the Oval Office. (Oh, yeah, and the entire Clinton investigation sprang from credible allegations of sexual harassment, illegal activity in and of itself).
I guess that, even if adjudged guilty of wrongdoing, Rove and Libby won't have to do anything but admit wrongdoing and surrender their law licenses . . . like Clinton.
Doesn't this sound a bit familiar? The only difference between this and the Clinton/Lewinsky matter is the fact that Karl Rove reportedly forgot a phone call with a reporter, and Bill Clinton "forgot" receiving oral sex from an intern in the Oval Office. (Oh, yeah, and the entire Clinton investigation sprang from credible allegations of sexual harassment, illegal activity in and of itself).
I guess that, even if adjudged guilty of wrongdoing, Rove and Libby won't have to do anything but admit wrongdoing and surrender their law licenses . . . like Clinton.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:43 AM
5 Comments:
ROTFLOL
I must admit I am experiencing glee... not at watching Rove and Libby twist in the wind but in watching narrow minded right wing blow hards like yourself try to justify perjury with arguments that basically come down to: Clinton's perjury about a blow job was more serious than Rove and Libby's perjury about revealing a CIA source.
I need another chuckle, how about parting some wind about Tom Delay.
Are you really going to compare silly sexcapades in the white house to illegally revealing the identity of a CIA agent as a result of:
a) retaliate. Cheney's feud with the CIA apparently dated back to Gulf War I. He was particularly angry that that they didn't support his War marketing with phony evidence about WMD's.
b) A sharp wrist splap to Plame's husband for revealing the fact that there was no evidence of Saddam's supposed yellowcake shopping spree in Nigers (and more likely just outright lied).
This sordid episode clearly goes way deeper than Clinton's libido. It reflects an administration completely out of control in its "seek and destroy" mission against any dissenters. At its core it shows the deception involved in bringing America to war. And your comparing this to a blowjob?
Here are six factual differences between the Bill Clinton and Turd Blossom cases...
1) Turd Blossom lied about leaking the identity of an undercover CIA operative during a time of war. Bill Clinton lied about an extramarital affair having nothing to do with the security of the nation.
2) Turd Blossom "forgot" that he leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative during a time of war. Despite Carol's claim, Bill Clinton never said he "forgot receiving oral sex from an intern."
3) Turd Blossom leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative as a cheap act of political payback. Bill Clinton never set out to hurt anyone when he received oral sex.
4) The elder President Bush called people like Turd Blossom, who leaked the identity of undercover CIA operatives, the "most insidious of traitors." No President has ever condemned oral sex.
5) Patrick Fitzgerald was asked to investigate who leaked the identity of an undercover CIA operative, and Turd Blossom is being charged directly in relation to that. Kenneth Starr was asked to investigate a failed real estate transaction--which of course had absolutely nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky.
6) Turd Blossom is being defended by people like Carol who apparently believes that leaking the identity of an undercover CIA operative and lying to cover up your involvement is just politics as usual. Bill Clinton was upbraided by people like Carol, who apprently believe lying about an extramarital affair is cause for impeachment.
I think the better analogy is with the Martha Stewart case. She was jailed, not for the original crime she was accused of, but for her conduct during the investigation.
The perjury committed in the second example was an attempt to impede, frustrate, and obstruct the judicial system in determining how the man was injured or killed, when, and by whose hand, in order to escape personal responsibility under the law, either civil or criminal. Such would be an impeachable offense. To say otherwise would be to severely lower the moral and legal standards of accountability that are imposed on ordinary citizens every day. The same standard should be imposed on our leaders.
Kay Bailey Hutchison 1999
Post a Comment
<< Home