Libby's Criminal Indictment

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Ouch! Me thinks a level of personal nastiness is developing here.

---

Shane has a habit of bringing up Clinton EVERYTIME his darling president publically evidences lies, deciet, betrayal of a few minor citizens [please don't misunderstand that], possible crimes against the american people....When that doesn't work, he routinely goes after the messenger and how the Lord will judge him...It's gets old very fast.

[Dr. Shane]

Shane is much closer to the middle than either the right or left wing. So he often observes the behavior of both the right and left wings. Quite often both the right and left wings behave much more like each other than they would like to admit. So when Shane sees one side criticising the other side he compares that to past behavior of that side.

For example: The right wing critisized the left wing for attacking Ken Star. Ken Star, they say, was just doing his job and shouldn't be the focus of anyone. Now many of those same right-wingers, are critisizing Patrick Fitzgerald. Hmmm, that kind of behavior is observed and mentioned by Shane.

Shane does recognise President Bush as a Christian and does not believe we should judge his motives any more than we should judge anyone sitting in the pews of our local church. That doesn't mean we can't disagree with his actions, but we ought not judge his motives.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Shane is much closer to the middle than either the right or left wing.

---

As I have said, Shane talks neo-conservative, puts forth thier ideas, and continues to bring up Clinton or some aspect of his administration and likes to see his name in print.

[Bravus]

All that stuff aside, I read today that Fitzgerald has empanelled a new Grand Jury and is continuing to investigate. So Rove presumably isn't out of the woods yet - even Cheny may still be in the line of investigation, although that's speculation.

It seems to me that there's a fairly broad consensus that Fitzgerald is doing a good and careful job. His inquiry has been one of the most leak-proof in recent memory, and the indictment against Libby is very carefully laid out and butressed with testimony from a number of witnesses. (Please note that I'm not presuming Libby's guilt here, merely saying the case to be answered is strong and well constructed.)

From a political perspective that's on the left (as most who know me know), I hope that this stuff isn't forgotten and painted over by the midterms next year, and for that reason the fact that the investigation is thorough and on-going is good news.

[Bravus]

Two more quick points:

1. It's possible Libby's trial itself will implicate Cheney to the point where his position becomes untenable: it looks as though he may have been the first source for Libby's knowledge of Plame's identity.

2. I hope the Dems and the press are able to keep their eye on the ball of the Libby indictment and on-going Fitzgerald inquiry despite the dog-wagging nomination of Justice Alito this morning.

[Jeannieb43]

Oh. You mean Justice "Scalito"??

[He's such a carbon copy of Scalia that he's acquired that nickname.]

[Bravus]

<img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Derrell M]

Yes, so far Fitzgerald seems to have done a very good job. He has carefully kept to the point, and made it very difficult for anyone to try pinning him down on political motivation, or any of the other issues that the rest of us are free to speculate on.

[Jeannieb43]

Fitzgerald is totally opposite from Kenneth Starr.

I'm glad that independent counsel statute has lapsed and has not been renewed.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I hope the Dems and the press are able to keep their eye on the ball of the Libby indictment and on-going Fitzgerald inquiry despite the dog-wagging nomination of Justice Alito this morning.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I trust the justice system enough that I am not concerned that the Dems or the press keep their eye on the case. Some may have forgotten about Samuel Berger stealing top secret documents and being cought on camera. It was only in the press for a day or two but even without the attention of the press he was still prosecuted and ended up making a deal. Justice was served without the press, without the spot light. On these high-profile cases, I trust the system. The system is weak when the poor get cought up in it.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane talks neo-conservative, puts forth thier ideas

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Shane isn't even sure what neo-conservative ideas are <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Do neo-conservatives worry about dependance on forgien oil? Do neo-conservatives worry about using up our limited resources? Do neo-conservatives worry about soil erosion and waste desposal? Do neo-conservatives worry about the oil companies taking advantage of the American consumer? Do neo-conservatives support food stamp and other welfare programs? Do neo-conservatives support the right to abortion in cases of rape, incest, known birth defects or medical reasons? Do neo-conservatives support independent investigations of government officials regardless what party they belong to? Do neo-conservatives support civil unions? Do neo-conservatives support subsidized ESL classes for immergrants? Seems Shane needs a little help understanding exactly what neo-conservative ideas are.

[Bravus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I trust the justice system enough that I am not concerned that the Dems or the press keep their eye on the case. Some may have forgotten about Samuel Berger stealing top secret documents and being cought on camera. It was only in the press for a day or two but even without the attention of the press he was still prosecuted and ended up making a deal. Justice was served without the press, without the spot light. On these high-profile cases, I trust the system. The system is weak when the poor get cought up in it.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Agreed: but in this instance I'm not so interested in criminal justice, although of course that's important, as in electoral justice. Yes, the wheels of justice will grind away slowly in the background, but if the public forgets and these guys aren't also punished at the ballot box, how is change going to come?

[Derrell M]

Quote:

---

how is change going to come?

---

Change doesn't come. Politicians are what they are.

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress."

Mark Twain

"Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

Mark Twain

"An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens."

Thomas Jefferson

And here is what every person should bear in mind when faced with the ballot box:

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."

Woody Allen

[Dr. Shane]

I have to agree. What we see is politics. One side is going after the other just for the sake of trying to score points and gain power. It has been repeated decade after decade for over two centuries.

I am convinced that had Al Gore won the presidency we would still be in Iraq. I tend to believe we would have went in sooner and not drug our feet like President Bush did. 90% of the time Democrats oppose Republican ideas because they are Republican. The converse is just as true. 90% of the time Republicans oppose Democrat idea because they are Democrats. Each party has about 10% core beliefs that make them different from the other.

[Bravus]

I would still argue that this particular administration is different. Not just because I'm on the left but because they have moved so far so fast in directions that have huge implications for the future of the country.

[Dr. Shane]

Being honest one would have to say the same about Teddy Roosevelt (broke up big oil and RR companies), Franklin D. Roosevelt (vastly expaned the role of government), Lyndon B. Johnson (started several entitlment programs) and Richard Nixion (created several regalatory agencies). I would suggest that any one of these four presidents had a greater impact on the nation than President Bush has or will have.

[Derrell M]

Ecclesiastes 1:9 - The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

[Bravus]

Friend - I tend to believe that very strongly too.

Shane, you may well be right about that. I guess I wasn't so much comparing Bush to past presidents, though, as to the alternatives now. The argument that's often made, and seemed to be being made here in the thread, was that 'all politicians are the same, so it doesn't matter if we kick these guys out, the ones who replace them will be just as bad'. I was opining that I don't think so - that these guys are worse than the current alternatives. I should have made that clearer, but the historical reality check you provided is still very welcome: it's easy for me to get caught up in the current situation and think it's unique, when it clearly isn't.

I do think Bush has, on balance, left the country in worse shape than he found it, though, in all sorts of ways. The facts and stats that support that belief can, of course, be challenged - and it depends what one values in the first place - but a drubbing at the mid-terms would help to show Bush and his administration that people are aware of what he's doing with the country, and hopefully reign him in for the rest of the term.

(Side note: If the press had done its job, it's quite likely the American people would have had answers on the PLame case *before* the election - and who knows what would have happened in that case...)

[Bravus]

I should clarify, by the way, that I don't only mean Democrats when I talk about alternatives to Bush. I don't think either Gore or Kerry was a really strong candidate, although I do think either would have done less damage to the country than Bush has. But I think there are more moderate Republicans - I'm thinking of McCain and people in a similar mold who I don't know by name - who are dismayed by the direction their party and the country are going, and who would make much, much better leaders for America.

[Ron Lambert]

Bravus, I supported Senator McCain in the 2000 campaign, and was so offended by the way the party leaders manipulated things to give the nomination to Bush that I wound up voting straight Democrat for the first time in my life. Every time I flipped a lever, I was thinking, "Take that, and that, and that!"

However, I also must admit that George W. Bush has turned out to be a much better president than I expected, and I did vote for him in 2004 (thought that was partly because I was so adamantly opposed to Hanoi Kerry). I must admit now that I am glad it was Bush who was president rather than Al Gore on 9/11 and thereafter.

You mentioned McCain in 2008. I think he is already too old, now. I would not vote for him for this reason. It has to be someone in George W. Bush's generation (the Boomer generation). I have yet to see someone step forward whom I would support enthusiastically. I think the Republicans will be in real trouble in the 2008 campaign.

[Dr. Shane]

Is the country worse off now than when George Bush took office? Well it may be. However a lot has happened that has been out of his control.

When Bush took office the country was sliding into a recession as a result of the hi-tech bubble popping and overflowing into the rest of the market. A lot of people lost a lot of money. That means they spent and invested less which was slowing down the economy. Then 9/11 and all the corporate scandels happened which just tanked an already weak economy.

President Bush's tax cuts and rebate checks did help but it took quite sometime to come out of it. President Bush has expanded government more so than any president since, perhaps, Nixion and we just don't know what consequences that will have.

The deficit has skyrocketed from the Newt-Gingrich surplus <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> we had in the late 90s. There are two reasons for that. 1) the recession which caused decreased revenues and 2) the spending on the war on terror. The tax cuts actually resulted in increasing revenues.

Democrats and Republicans really aren't much different when it comes to national defense. At least they have not been historically. The Democrat party is now catering to the anti-war crowd because they need them politically.

If the Democrats are voted into control of one of the houses of Congress in the midterm elections all we will see is obstruction. Contrast that when the Republicans won control in 1994. The Republicans had an agenda - The Contract with America. When they won control they pushed their agenda and much of what Clinton takes credit for was part of the Republican Contract with America. The Democrats are not seeking control in order to push a stated agenda. The Democrats are seeking control in order to be obstructionists. They would do well to get an agenda together and run on it.

[Bravus]

Agreed. I think Obama has an agenda, and he's the kind of leader I'd like to see the Democrats bring forward.

Though I have to admit, the Condi/Hillary election would have it's own compensations... <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> But in the long run I think both are too tainted by their histories to be able to get to work in reuniting the country - something that's desperately needed. Because worse off or better off, the country started getting more polarised in Clinton's second term, and that has only accelerated under Bush. And it's unhealthy.