One day someone is going to make an honest to goodness comparison of the Bush and Clinton administrations and realize that the Clinton “scandals” were no more than the RNC cranking out press releases, while the Republican leadership - as is the case with past Republican White Houses (Reagan, Nixon) - is dealing with actual criminal acts.
Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net
The special prosecutor in the CIA leak probe has interviewed a wider range of administration officials than was previously known, part of an effort to determine whether anyone broke laws during a White House effort two years ago to discredit allegations that President Bush used faulty intelligence to justify the Iraq war, according to several officials familiar with the case.
“The strings of the world ply and predetermine the outcome for both crappy and impeccable acts.”
Carlos Casteneda
And I’m sure that Fitzgerald will be prepared for the shitstorm which the Goopers will launch against him the minute he announces indictments. Looking forward to the trolls telling us “Don’t believe your lying eyes, it’s not REALLY an indictment” and “This indictment REALLY proves Rove’s INNOCENCE.”
I could write RW talking points, they use the same tactics every time. I’m convinced they just cross out Dick Clarke, or Joe Wilson, or Cindy Sheehan’s name off the blast faxes and fill in the name of the new Gooper Goldstein.
It seems to that if “the special prosecutor … has interviewed a wider range of administration officials than was previously known,” then perhaps he has yet to find a “person of interest”, and is srill looking.
But, that’s me.
Or it could mean that he is working to do his job to the best of his ability - maybe someone in this administration could take a hint and actually work FOR the people and not just work for the moneys…
But, that’s me…hardworker type…
Golly! Jay you Truly are CONSISTENT.
BJ’s or lying to go to war…hmmm…lets see both are…hmmm…oh yea - one is lying and the other is lying - it is just that all that died with BC’s BJ was a million of his own Sperm Cells - now in the Iraq war…hmm…
One day someone is going to make an honest to goodness comparison of the Bush and Clinton administrations and realize that the Clinton scandals were no more than the RNC cranking out press releases
Good grief. You truly are DELUSIONAL.
Says the guy who treats Newsmax, Fox, as if it were so much gold.
Robert Dreyfuss is a freelance writer based in Alexandria, Va., who specializes in politics and national security issues. He is a contributing editor at The Nation, a contributing writer at Mother Jones, a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and a frequent contributor to Rolling Stone. His book, Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, will be published by Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books in the fall.
I would say his perspective is amazing, OK. And eminently predictable ::yawn::
Predictable, as say; civil war in Iraq. You diminish yourself
Maybe someone could explain how stealing 900 FBI files was the result of an RNC press release?
Or how the DNC accepting at least $3 million in illegal campaign funds during the 1996 campaign was the result of an RNC press release?
Or how 33 guilty pleas/verdicts and 112 Fifth Amendment pleas during the Whitewater investigation was the result of an RNC press release? Guess those weren’t criminal acts either, hmmm?
What most libs still fail to realize is that much of the scrutiny given to the Clinton administration by the GOP was simply political blow-back from the ridiculous, infantile treatment of the Clintons as knights in gleaming armor, riding into Washington DC on pure white stallions, poised to turn the eeeevil “establishment” government into a utopia of peace, harmony, understanding, and compassion — all because “The Right People” (TM) were now the White House.
Because the Clintons were supposed to be the modern-day equivalent of Mary Poppins, perfect in every way, there should have been no scandal or hint of impropriety in the White House, ever.
That there was, was simply a reality check to remind everyone that the Clintons were human too, and were as deeply involved in cronyism, good-ol’-boy deals, get-rich-quick schemes, and ugly partisan dirty tricks
as anyone else in politics at the time.
Amazing perspective on the Sadr/Hakim feud and the “Gathering Storm” of civil war in Iraq. Complements of wrong-headed architects enabled by the likes of Jiller.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050922/badr_vs_sadr.php
BTW;
What are your published credits?
I’m sure modesty compels you, once again, to retreat in silence.
Of course, you’re only counting Jim McDougald–the man who swindled the Clintons–just once here right? Because it would be misleading to count him 18 times for the 18 charges he was found guilty on.
Right, Mike?
P.S. And “stolen” FBI files? Nobody ever accused anyone of stealing the files.
Yes, we have only to look at the convictions that happened to Bill and Hillary Clinton on “Filegate” and Whitewater to see how reality-based those right wing investigations were.
Oh, wait.
In case it conveniently slipped your noggin, here’s the conclusion of the Ray report on Whitewater: “This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct.”
And “FileGate”? “”there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved”
The Con fantasy will march on, I’m sure, never deterred by any actual facts.
Yes. We remember how the Starr commission finally, after years of investigating, found the Clintons guilty of all of that. It was all in the report.
But then the mole people came and carried away all the evidence to their secret tunnels, right?
Leo: Civil war in Iraq is by no means predictable: it is always easier to predict bad news (if you’re right, you can say “I told you so”; if you’re wrong, you can say, “Thanks God I was wrong!” — win - win)
As for my writing credentials — I haven’t written any predictable, keft -wing books, no.
BTW, I couldn’t possibly diminish myself any further in your eyes. You, on the other hand, because I am more tolerant, have a ways to go.
Zorro;
Crapping out is better than keeping it in.
You should try a colonic
Leo:
Thanks for the offer, but no. But don’t let that stop you…
I have no great affection for Pres Bush and no hatred for Pres Clinton, but when I see progressives cynically trying to rewrite history or demonstrating ignorance about recent history, I often wind up doing one or the other.
O said this: “the Clinton scandals were no more than the RNC cranking out press releases, while the Republican leadership”
And the usually reasonable Zappa said: “BJ s or lying to go to war’
For the umpteenth time, Pres Clinton lied under oath in a sexual harassment depositon. Lied under oath - he was the chief law enforcement officer in the land.
Said Judge Wright: in a biting, 32-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright of Arkansas said Clinton gave “false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process” in Jones’s sexual harassment lawsuit.
Dugger
Oliver & Quaker:
I guess WJC being disbarred after leaving office was just a right wing conspiracy as well? You people are incredible, you scream “BUSH APOLOGIST” while crapping out apologies for Clinton at the same time. It’s a wonder you don’t starve to death.
I thought this was interesting.
I’m not the world’s biggets W fan or a Clinton-o-phobe but quite often foolisheness like this item puts me in the position of being one or the other.
The normally coherent Zappa says: ” BJ s or lying to go to war’
O, inarticulate as usual, says: “Clinton scandals were no more than the RNC cranking out press releases”
Let me remind you. Clinton, the chief law enforcement officer in the land, lied under oath in a sexual harassment deposition. Just because some of your yahoo counterparts on the right have been out there in Vince Foster conspiracy land and wasting away in Mena, Arkansas, does not detract from that cold hard fact. On his actions, read Judge Wright:
‘In a biting, 32-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright of Arkansas said Clinton gave false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process in Jones s sexual harassment lawsuit. She specifically cited Clinton s assertions that he was never alone with Lewinsky and that he did not have a sexual relationship with the former White House intern.
Wright, who personally presided over Clinton s January 1998 deposition in the Jones case, acknowledged that no court had ever taken such action against a president but said it was important to act to protect the integrity of the judicial process.
Sanctions must be imposed, not only to redress the president s misconduct, but to deter others who might themselves consider emulating the president of the United States by engaging in misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system, she said. ”
Get that part about misconduct and conduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial process? Thats the Republican press release, right? Just a bravo juniper?
Dugger, To OW.com as Benjamin to Animal Farm
Not to mention the idea that if it was “just a BJ”, why perjure yourself over it?
Yes, Clinton lied under oath. Yes, that was bad. Yes, he deserved to be disbarred.
But Clinton lied to prevent not only personal embarrassment, but to prevent his government from being brought to a grinding halt by a bullshit investigation engineered by his well-funded political enemies.
Compare that with the systematic lying in office with which the Bush administration screws the country and the world on a daily basis, and I’ll take Clinton’s little lie any day.
If Clinton deserved his disbarment, what does Bush deserve, Dugger?
Corollary question to Dugger and Frank: Is a small, inconsequential lie under oath worse than a big lie that is not under oath with enormous consequences?
Wilbur,
“Is a small, inconsequential lie’
Lets sort it out then. First of all, this posting is headed by Oliver’s outrageous assertion:
“Clinton scandals were no more than the RNC cranking out press releases, while the Republican leadership - as is the case with past Republican White Houses (Reagan, Nixon) - is dealing with actual criminal acts.”
Can we agree OW, here, is, uhh, full of it. There was clearly more to some of the Clinton scandals than R press releases. He is badly mistaken here. And he says ‘actual criminal’ acts: whose actual criminal acts. Criminal acts have been alleged. Its very easy to allege anything. No R criminal act has been officially alleged re Plame.
As to Bubba. A pretty good president, especially domestically - good economy on his watch. You say you agree he lied under oath -as president. We could talk a lot about symbolism of the chief law enforcement officer’s behavior, but lets concede what was ultimately involved here was Paul Jones’ sexual harassment case (not the conscience easing bravo juniper- often alleged). An old case. One woman. Important to her and Clinton, but not much else - except as symbolism. Now if thats true, what does it say about Plame and Delay. If we throw out the symbolism, what wwas the real harm done to persons? Who actually got hurt. If anything, the actual impacts are less than Clintons. I honestly don’t see how you can minmize Clinton’s woes and not do the same re the “crimes” of Delay and whoever, if anybody, gets tagged via Plame.
My take. None are really that important and they are being exploited by partisans. I support the slap on the wrist Bubba got and would sugest the same for Delay, if an impartial jury finds he violated campaign finance laws, and any Plame culprit. But thats just my take.
Dugger
He lied in a sexual harassment case. Are you going to claim that lying under these circumstances is “inconsequential”? I’d like to hear you say that to a woman who’s been sexually harassed.
I think for any man to “call out” another man for getting a blowjob is kind of classless. Whoever I am banging is not really relevant, and if another guy wants to broadcast who’s sucking me off, I would find it a little weird…
Con math
Lying about a BJ=Lying about facts that led to war.
Lying is wrong. Lying other people into an early grave is more wrong.
Feces:
You’re an idiot. He lied during the Paula Jones Harrassment deposition. And, as it seems on this board regarding guilt and the evidence needed to prove it, she most definitely was harrassed.
Neo:
Witty rejoinder. You’re evading the basis of the question by uttering dem talking point nonsense. I don’t accept your premise that a President lying to the country is all about the degree of the untruth.
Was Monica sexually harrased??
You don’t? You see all lies as the same? How foolish. I hope you can explain that to the 1,930 families that have been destroyed by Bush’s lies on Iraq.
“Was Monica sexually harrased??”
No, but that was never the question, and is a non-sequiter in this case. The questions re his relationship with ML were asked in order to establish a pattern of behavior regarding his treatment of female subborinates. And his numerous sexual relationships with the same, something quite germane to a sexual harrasement civil suit. For a dem, in other words, political dynamite. Especially when the “feminist” lobby is a counted on constituancy. He lied to avoid the inevitable political fallout, and embarrasment.
Neo:
You mean alleged lies don’t you? You don’t know something that the rest of us don’t, do you? Otherwise GW would be facing impeachment as we speak instead of getting ready to appoint his 2nd SCOTUS justice. You’re still guilty of the same offense, shouting “BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!” at the top of your lungs. But you still don’t have the goods.
Wilbur:
Regardless of the reason for the lie, he still broke the law (and attempted to cover it up) while cheif law enforcement officer of the US. How is that any different in theory than what Nixon did? What kind of lying is acceptable to you? By your logic, if Clinton killed someone in the oval office, it would be OK for him to lie s that it didn’t bring his govenment to a halt.
Who is going to impeach Bush? The con Congress?
Nope. Not willing to concede that. Remember this?
Can we agree OW, here, is, uhh, full of it
Oliver’s statement is obviously hyperbolic, and pretty mild hyperbole in the context of modern political discourse. “Full of it?” no: the point he’s trying to make is that the reckless, vindictive, well funded right-wing campaign to destroy Clinton was not only out-of-proportion to any of his alleged offenses, but also resulted in zero convictions of Clinton for anything, including perjury. For anyone to claim that there was something to the Clinton charges and simultaneously that there’s nothing to the charges against Bush cronies unless they produce convictions in a court of law is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
Zorro says:
By your logic, if Clinton killed someone in the oval office, it would be OK for him to lie s that it didn t bring his govenment to a halt.
You might be right if I had said that it was OK for Clinton to have lied. I didn’t. I said the exact opposite, as a matter of fact. But it is true that some lies are worse than others. A lie about a side-issue in a decade-old case that ended up getting thrown out anyway is bad. Deceiving the congress and the people into an ill-advised and ill-planned war that has (so far) cost tens of thousands of lives and produced a breeding-ground for terrorism: worse.
Dugger: in terms of punishment inflicted by the legal system I’m pretty sure that the most DeLay, Rove, Libby, etc. have to fear is a similar slap on the wrist, but that doesn’t say much to the question of whether they should maintain their current powerful positions in government. What they are accused of is directly related –not just “symbolically” related — to the official duties they are entrusted with.
Neither Zorro nor any of our right-wing friends has answered my simple question yet:
“Is a small, inconsequential lie under oath worse than a big lie that is not under oath with enormous consequences?”
Quaker,
If you wish to believe there is more dirt on Clinton, fine w/me. I don’t know of it and that would be all I am willing to concede. I guess you’re point is that some Rs thought and said there was more. So what. Its not out there now and I’d have to see it to believe it. What Clinton did, was wrong, and it was a helluva lot more than lying about a bravo juniper. But it ended there as far as I know.
Dugger
Wilbur:
You State:
You might be right if I had said that it was OK for Clinton to have lied. I didn t. I said the exact opposite, as a matter of fact .
You said previously:
“Yes, Clinton lied under oath. Yes, that was bad. Yes, he deserved to be disbarred.
But Clinton lied to prevent not only personal embarrassment, but to prevent his government from being brought to a grinding halt by a bullshit investigation engineered by his well-funded political enemies.”
In the second paragraph you are contradicting the first paragraph. By modifying your statement in the second paragraph you are effectively excusing the WJC lie. I accept that there are not absolutes, especially when trying to govern. But what WJC and GWB do are exclusive of each other. What you call deceptions by the Bush administration I call shit thrown against the wall by an angry political minority to see what will stick. What Clinton did, while not earth shattering, was to break the law. His disbarment was just the political deal that he took to make everything else go away so he could get on with his life.
Dugger, when I cut and paste a snippet from your comments, like this:
there’s a reason. I do that so you’ll know what part of your previous comment I’m referring to when I follow up.
I’m surprised you’re unaware of the “evidence room” certain GOP officials urged House members to visit during the impeachment trial. In that room, certain members of the House had collected materials about–no, not Paula Jones and her Republican-activist-supported-harassment-claim–about Bill Clinton’s sex life.
As the quote I posted demonstrates, someone was actively encouraging House members to review this material–unrelated to the charges brought by the Starr commission–before they decided whether to vote for impeachment.
Any guesses who it was?
Thanks Quaker (I wish I could write that dryly), but you must not followed the discussion very closely - the thrust of which is to say that we should go by no more than is available . I am not arguing anything more than that we go by what’s public record on Clinton, and that we should ignore suspicions, opposition research, wishful thinking, etc. Further, that what is public knowlledge is bad, bad enough to warrant Judge Wright’s rebuke, but not really bad enough to go any further. I say the same thing about Plame (I see no real harm done here at all).
Dugger
I’m addressing the assertion OW made and you rejected, namely:
You rejected that, saying: no, no, Bubba really did do a bad thing.
Clinton’s bad act is by no means the sum total of the “Clinton scandals.” There were a whole long list that were thoroughly investigated and which came to nothing.
In my oblique aside, I only meant to suggest that the genuinely bad act was so minor that House Republicans felt compelled to improve on it with unrelated, unreported “evidence” about his–you guessed it–sex life.
Still no guesses which GOP leader was pimping the “evidence room”?
Zorro says,
In the second paragraph you are contradicting the first paragraph
No, I’m not. You need to look that word up in the dictionary. “contradict” I mean. It means to make a statement which, if true, precludes the truth of another statment. The two statements I made are perfectly capable of being true simultaneously.
I was trying to draw a significant distinction between degrees of badness. Surely you must admit that is possible. Otherwise you would be constratined to say that a poor old lady stealing a can of cat food for lunch is as criminal as Jeffrey Dahmer. The bad thing Clinton did was bad. What Bush has done is a lot worse.
I say - way to go - once again they change the argument to Bill Clinton and how sorta kinda bad he was…though he had a good economy on his watch and he was good domesticaly etc.
Maybe if Bush was to get a BJ everyonce in a while we would have a better economy and do better at home - I mean maybe that has something to do with his jacked up decisions from the uptight right.
Zappa;
It’s a strategy as old as adolescence itself. My eldest son frequently mitigates his own major infractions by diverting the discussion to his brother’s past sins
I think is more shame on us then them - we know that their goal - why do we fall into the trap? We seem to cave when the re-frame the debate…silly it is.
Demorats culd learn a valuable lesson from the manner in which DeLay is handling his indictment.
He is RIGHTEOUSLY DEFIANT !
He doesn’t miss a beat. Just like the rhythm on a Roman slave ship, BOOM!
BOOM! BOOM! the relentless cadence rolls on : BATTLE SPEED !!!!
ATTACK SPEED!!!! RAMMING SPEED!!!!!!!
Jeez;proofreading would help
scratch-Demorats culd -edit DEMOCRATS COULD.
Quaker,
I went away for the weekend. We disagree on how bad Clinton’s lying was. I won’t say major, but can’t say minor either. Still the actual ‘harm” wasn’t that great and that is why I would give it a rest.
Lindsey graham?? (I didn’t research)
Dugger