Mike the Usurper wrote:

Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have be shown that a crime was committed.

So now you need to have done something more than be unethical and harmful to the nation, you need to have done so criminally? I suppose that's fair, since holding by the earlier standard the changes in White House appointee payroll would have made a significant dent in the deficit...

This is the most clear example of this administration protecting it's own and not holding itself accountable to the American people. This administration is externalizing it's failures to the media. That's not right and not what we need in goverment leadership.

Neoteric wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have be shown that a crime was committed.

So now you need to have done something more than be unethical and harmful to the nation, you need to have done so criminally? I suppose that's fair, since holding by the earlier standard the changes in White House appointee payroll would have made a significant dent in the deficit...

This is the most clear example of this administration protecting it's own and not holding itself accountable to the American people. This administration is externalizing it's failures to the media. That's not right and not what we need in goverment leadership.

So then should BJ Clinton have quit after lying under oath which is a crime? BJ had to question the meaning of the word "is" for pete's sake.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on why BJ Clinton wasn't fired AFTER being found guilty of lying under oath before I entertain the notion of Satan (I mean Rove) being fired.

ibenez wrote:

Neoteric wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have be shown that a crime was committed.

So now you need to have done something more than be unethical and harmful to the nation, you need to have done so criminally? I suppose that's fair, since holding by the earlier standard the changes in White House appointee payroll would have made a significant dent in the deficit...

This is the most clear example of this administration protecting it's own and not holding itself accountable to the American people. This administration is externalizing it's failures to the media. That's not right and not what we need in goverment leadership.

So then should BJ Clinton have quit after lying under oath which is a crime? BJ had to question the meaning of the word "is" for pete's sake.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on why BJ Clinton wasn't fired AFTER being found guilty of lying under oath before I entertain the notion of Satan (I mean Rove) being fired.

My response to this is that I don't have any sympathy for what Clinton in that regard either. I understand WHY he did it, and what he did there was not different than any other guy who gets caught with his hand in the cookie box, but doesn't want to end up in divorce court.

The question is, "what was he lying about?" Clinton was lying about not getting a little, in a civil proceeding funded by folks on the other side of the aisle (the Paula Jones case). The proceedings there were not because anyone had, or may have, broken the law, they were there because somebody thought that it would be a great way to score points on a sitting president by going after him as a philanderer.

I am going to say uncategorically, the people involved in that operation and this one are nothing short of treasonous. Their actions in both cases have acted to harm the security of this nation.

In the Jones case it prevented Clinton from taking actions that should have been taken because they would have caused aditional political problems. The Lewinski scandal manufactured by the disloyal opposition meant that operations against Al-Qaeda in the 90's did not happen. If they had, the disloyal opposition would have used that as further ammunition saying that this had been done to distract attention from the personal problems. Their actions stopped operations that could have stopped Bin Ladin in 1998 and 9/11 would have never happened.

In the current case of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby exposing a covert operative, they have done DIRECT harm to the intelligence gathering abilities of the United States. Prior to this exposure, she was in a per... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]