IMO We cheapen our argument when we compare Libby to Clinton.

[hang a left]

I hated the way Clinton was treated when he lied in his court testimony. It was ridiculous. I'll never forget that afternoon when I watched him on TV with his red tie on visibly shaken and scared. It made me sick. I'll never forget his trial in the senate. I was so angry that they were dragging this country through that muck.

But he did lie. Albeit about a personal sexual matter. Almost everyone lies about sex. But, he did it after having sworn an oath. His lawyer vigorously objected on the basis of irrelevancy. The judge overruled him. BC didn't know about the blue dress at the time. So he lied, and he got caught.

Now Libby fabricated a story. A whole bunch of lies. Clinton, if I remember correctly, was asked a yes or no question. Clinton lied about sex. Libby gave an alibi to cover for breaking the law. Libby threatened national security and the lives of Americans. There is a HUGH difference, we all agree. But when we get into a debate with someone about whose lie was bigger, and whose lie was worse, we cheapen our argument.

I think the response should be, yes Clinton lied, yes he committed perjury, it was wrong.

We can now focus the conversation on Libby, the Vice President, the pResident, and Official A. We are free from the heated debate. I think we should leave Clinton out of it.

[The Magistrate]

1. You Make An Excellent Point, Ma'am

It is an uncomfortable one, but good tactical manouvering often requires a bit of discomfort, to be amply repaid by the success achieved....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[texpatriot2004]

2. Yes. Libby's lies were about the nation not his penis. nm

[melody]

3. How many DU subject lines will bring up Clinton's name with Libby's

This is the fourth today, rehashing the ridiculous crap about Bill Clinton. What the right did to Clinton was a pointless panty raid. Bush is a murderer... so is his old man, many times over. I think putative liberals should stop rehashing Clinton's long ago petty travails in order to make some point about Libby... I suppose...

[hang a left]

6. Well I haven't been here much today...sorry if I offended you.

But in my car today listening to Air America, a winger and the host got into a debate about whose lies were worse. So the entire call was spent on hashing that out. The right is always going to bring up Clinton when you start talking about Libby and his perjury. I think we should not be the ones to bring it up, but someone from the left always does. If it is brought up I think we should quash it by admitting it was wrong. You take the wind out of their sails and now you can make your case.

[melody]

10. No, the remark wasn't to you personally, and it didn't offend me

I was just speaking to the trend.

I know you posted it for the right reasons.

[Catchawave]

4. Nobody died when Clinton lied.....

Simple :hi: Lots of RW talking points spin this weekend, and I've heard more Clinton and Wilson bashing, like that's going to help Libby, ha!

[MADem]

5. Uh, CLINTON DID NOT COMMIT PERJURY

He bullshitted some reporters, he played some legalese games, as any GOOD LAWYER would do, but in order to be tarred with the perjury brush, you have to be CONVICTED, and he WAS NOT.

What is up with all this Clinton shit here of late? He is not the President, and has not been for five horrible years.

Clinton has nothing to do with the fact that the BUSH WHITE HOUSE illegally disclosed the name of a COVERT CIA AGENT and in consequence, JEOPARDIZED THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.

This is apples and oranges, and I am seeing way too fucking much of it lately, and I find it.....interesting. And CURIOUS.

You want comparisons? Let's talk about NIXON. Or REAGAN, and IRAN CONTRA. Those issues cut a slight bit closer to the bone.

But of course, it is all about "the bone"--aka THE CLENIS.

[hang a left]

7. Uh, he was charged with perjury and he had a trial in the senate.

Please see my post 6 for an explanation.

[MADem]

8. OK, give us the RESULTS of that trial, thank you n/t

[gumby]

11. Neo-con response:

He was held in contempt of court for "lying" and had his law license revoked. That "proves" he committed perjury.

I've heard this response 'billions and billions' of times. Do you have a concise response?

[MADem]

12. Why are you advocating the neocon response? This is DU, after all

You are in the wrong venue for that crap.

My concise response is that you are advocating a horseshit argument. He was not convicted. Case fucking closed.

[gumby]

16. Well, that was unpleasant.

I was just trying to ask a question.

So the next time one of my freeper relatives tells me that Clinton was guilty of 'lying in court' because he was held in contempt for doing so and that his law license was revoked because he 'lied in court,' I'll just inform them that they have a horseshit argument because he wasn't guilty of 'perjury' as judged by the Senate.

Maybe we all have to go to law school to learn the differences.

But, many people (and this has been purposely propagandized) see the contempt charge of 'lying in court' the same as perjury.

Again, sorry for asking.

[MADem]

17. No, you should inform them that he was not convicted of perjury.

And he gets his law license back in a few months, if he wants it.

And you might want to tell them that Fitz spent less than Eight hundred grand on his investigation, and their hero Starr spent in excess of forty million for a bit of oral pleasuring, that did not even rise to the level of a full "job." But hey, that is clearly more important to your relatives than the degradation of our national security--no ambassador's spouse is safe, now, they will all be assumed to be CIA agents.

I find the CLINTON CANARD curious--it only comes up when the GOP is on the ropes. And it ALWAYS comes up when the GOP is on the ropes.

And I do find that rather...unpleasant.

[gumby]

18. Thanks.

I now have a new term: "The Canard Card," as in, "oh, you're just playing the Canard Card." HAHAHAHA. Thanks again. That's something they WILL understand.

BTW, that 'Canard Card' is not only limited to Clinton. Second place has to go to Jessie Jackson. Then there's George Soros and MoveOn.

edit:
canard
One entry found for canard.
1 : a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report

I'm spreading this "canard card" far and wide.

[Catherine Vincent]

9. Imo, the only folks bringing up Clinton are repukes.

This is no comparison. No way, no how. I wonder how Fitzgerald felt about all that back then though. I'm thinking he thought it was a waste of time.

[MADem]

You and I are on the same page

When confronted with any problem, the GOP pull out Bill's dick. It is all they know how to do.

Hell, when he dies, they'll have to send an operative to cut it off and embalm it, so that they can wave it at their rallies!

[MADem]

13. Dupe sorry, tricky mouse

[punpirate]

14. Perhaps you misinterpret recent posts on this matter...

... most I've seen have contrasted the treatment in the press of Clinton's situation to the current White House difficulties, rather than have compared them.

The essential difference, I think, the ultimate contrast, if you will, is that Clinton avoided, by dissembling, a confrontation which had only to do with his wife, and his lie to the grand jury was to avoid personal responsibility to his wife. That revealed a weakness of character in him, but the matter before the grand jury had nothing to do with either law-breaking nor matters of affairs of state in his capacity as president. Ken Starr chose to press a personal matter as if it were a governmental matter, which it was not. Clinton did not break District of Columbia or Federal law by his initial actions and did not in any substantive manner neglect his responsibilities to either Constitutional oath or his normative duties as president by engaging as he did with Monica Lewinsky.

Libby, et al, have sought to ignore Constitutional requirements on serious substantive matters which involved both Congress and the entire nation--going to war on false and manufactured evidence, and then seeking to discredit challengers of that evidence by a violation of existing Federal law.

The contrasts are considerable. The comparisons are minimal.

Cheers.

[MADem]

15. The punpirate has a brilliantly compelling point!

Well said, well done!

And how interesting that Clinton will be able to get his law license back soon...perhaps Monkey should nominate HIM to the Supremes!!!

It would probably get his approvals up out of the thirties!