Posted on 12/06/2005 10:28:41 AM PST by freedomdefender
Dear God! You have just proven yourself to be a completely disengenuous poster, willing to say anything to "win" the argument.
I agree with your statement. Nice job.
Yeah, I guess espionage is acceptable. Lawyers defend clients. Welcome to the real world.
Better yet, why would the President approve Libby as Cheney's Chief of Staff?
Because they wish to maintain continuity of corruption at the highest levels!!!
:>)
Think Michael Moore posts here?
I am gobsmacked by that statement. :-)
You agree that Rich is worse than Jonathan Pollard?
Interesting.
That is known by it's smell as Sloppy Agape compassionate conservatism.
VOMIT!
As you probably know, this aspect of the Libby "scandal" is trumpeted all over the internet. Neo-cons run the White House for the International Jewish Conspiracy you know. In that context, nothing should surprise you.
I thought Jack Quinn represented Marc Rich.
No, I do not agree with that. This is his statement that I agree with.
Yes, but a lawyer/mouthpice for a traitor like Rich doesn't belong in a sensitive White House position. Not in a Republican administration. As the article said, Libby's presence in the White House might be one reason the Bush folks didn't pursue the possible corruption in CLinton's pardon of Rich. Libby phoned Rich to congratulate him on the pardon -- it would be strange for Libby and his administration colleagues to follow up by investigating that pardon, wouldn't it. Bush and Cheney would do well not to hire any more "mouthpieces" for criminal scum.
They are both disgusting scum.
Cheney was warned by a number of conservative commentators not to hire Libby, because of Libby's Marc Rich connection. The world would have been just as "real" if Cheney had taken that good advice. And again, when Libby called Rich to congratulate him for the corrupt Clinton pardon, Libby was not Rich's lawyer. He did it on his own volition, not for pay -- and he embarrassed his boss, Cheney, by doing so.
Why are you so supportive of Rich and Libby, anyway? You seem angrier at people who hold Rich in contempt than you are at Rich himself. Don't you think that trading with Iran when it was illegal to do so -- and when they were holding US hostages -- was pretty low? Don't you think the Clinton pardon was pretty suspicious? And don't you agree that Libby hardly looked good by congratulating Rich on receiving that possibly corrupt pardon?
If you don't, then YOU'RE the one living in an alternative reality. I'll stay in the "real world," thank you.
I do. Rich "enriched" Iran - when they were holding US hostages. Pollard helped Israel. How many US hostages were they holding?
Although I do agree that Rich is worse, it's beside the point. If Pollard had been the recipient of a corrupt pardon from Clinton - ie. a pardon that looked like it was in return for campaign contributions to Hillary or some other gift -- and if Pollard's former lawyer had called Pollard to congratulate Pollard on receiving that corrupt pardon, then I would scorn that lawyer as much as I scorn Libby, who did precisely that when Marc Rich got his smelly pardon from Clinton.
I'm not aware of that. You're welcome to post the links. Cheney must be a pretty stupid guy.
Why are you so supportive of Rich and Libby, anyway? You seem angrier at people who hold Rich in contempt than you are at Rich himself. Don't you think that trading with Iran when it was illegal to do so -- and when they were holding US hostages -- was pretty low? Don't you think the Clinton pardon was pretty suspicious? And don't you agree that Libby hardly looked good by congratulating Rich on receiving that possibly corrupt pardon?
Sounds like the typical garbage which emanates from a factless poster. However you'll welcome to post proof that I support Marc Rich. I'm sure you based that accusation on something. As to Libby, I'm not sure I see anything not to support him over. The fact that he once represented Marc Rich, a standard you admit to applying only selectively, falls short of establishing anything nefarious about him.
""In a particularly damaging exchange with Pennsylvania Democrat Paul Kanjorski , Libby agreed that Rich might be characterized as a traitor for fleeing the country and renouncing his American citizenship. Kanjorski asked Libby why he would call a traitor to congratulate him on his good fortune in winning a pardon. Visibly uncomfortable, Libby had no answer."""
Howlin, this is what I know:Byron York on NRO, "Lewis Libby comes to Marc Rich’s defense", March 2, 2001: ""In a particularly damaging exchange with Pennsylvania Democrat Paul Kanjorski , Libby agreed that Rich might be characterized as a traitor for fleeing the country and renouncing his American citizenship. Kanjorski asked Libby why he would call a traitor to congratulate him on his good fortune in winning a pardon. Visibly uncomfortable, Libby had no answer."""
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/yorkprint030201.html
It state that Libby considered Rich not guilty of the charges against him, but considered him a traitor for fleeing the country.
In what I consider a stupid but understandable move he called Rich from home, to reinforce the fact that it was a personal not professional contact, to congratulate him on his pardon.
There's absolutely nothing in it to indicate that Libby was unqualified, or that Byron York considered him unfit for his position.
Hopefully the other conservative pundits you cite actually said what you claim they said, that Libby shouldn't have been hired.
As I said at least twice previously, you are tailoring your words and the facts to suit your agenda, leaving out parts that do your particular "story" no good:
Here is the EXACT exchange:
The exasperated Democrat pinned him down: "You can't be half-pregnant, Mr. Libby. Is he or isn't he? . . . Do you consider him a traitor?"
Libby's answer: "Yes."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.