Thought it was an interesting view of it all. And I gotta tell ya, I did not know who Scooter was either.
I agree with what the guy is saying. I had to step back and take some perspective, but when I did, I agreed.
The left is so desperate to get ANY TRACTION against Bush, et al. Indicted means CONVICTED...while they still cannot look in the mirror for fear of seeing an image of Clinton. A form of self-induced hypocrisy that belies any reality except the reality they work so hard to create...
Ping.
I got this in an e-mail. I was in a good mood after reading it.
I hope indictments will wake up the Republicans to finally go after the criminal Clinton cartel.
If he's overzealous, then anyone who gets indicted will be acquitted. On the other hand, if any aides perjured themselves or obstructed the investigation, then the h*ll with them. Let the Dems have the double standard on protecting people who try to cover up.
I will say that any trial of Rove or Libby would be interesting due to the discovery phase. I'd really like to see Joe Wilson under oath, given the number of proven lies he's already uttered (and his wife should also be entertaining, trying to explain that she didn't recommend Wilson for the Niger trip when the paper trail shows otherwise). Any good defense attorney should be able to reduce Lyin' Joe to a blubbering mess.
Yes, it matters -- unless Fitz also indicts a couple of players on the other side!
Indictment = apperance of evil in the Bush admin. That's what they want. To make those guys look so evil for for giving out the name of an agent.
Thanks to Clinton/Gore China is rapidly upgrading their military to eventually threaten us, and never a peep.
Politically speaking, the Delay indictment, and (if) any
WH indictments, are exactly a year too early to be of any
use to the Dems in the mid-term elections. The cases will
be dismissed/resolved/boring by then, and the persecutors
(and their DNC fans) will be revealed to be (again) using
the courts to get what they can't get in elections.
But if unintentional omissions and misstatements are the
basis for any upcoming charges, then yes, it really
matters (irrespective of the target individuals), because
that's a serious corruption of our legal system, and will
make ALL future grand jury witness uncooperative or even
hostile.
I'd rate this right in with Iran-Contra and the Don Regan era of another administration. Yup, I guess that President went down in flames ;) Your right one needs to keep perspective.
I remember how painful that was . . . but it didn't diminish the big guy at all.
at least in the short run, any WH indictments will be played in the MSM and the dem leadership (heavens, I can hear pelosi braying about it now) as part of the "continuing pattern of corruption and incompetence of the republicans".
it's more than likely all part of the dems 2006 election strategy; and it WILL resonate, at least in the short run.
If indictments are unsealed thursday, let us hope that pardons are issued friday.
/ sarcasm
Well, if the indictments came down tomorrow, the DemocRATS and their toadies in the "media" would have to call an end to their celebration of Al Qaeda's "2000th Kill" so they could begin their indictment celebrations. If you look at it that way, I guess indictments could be a good thing.
But make no mistake about it - this is also a test of power. Can those in the media really dedicated to opposition of the Bush administration manage to create a damaging public relations campaign out of pretty much whole cloth? Yes, they have done so. Can it still bring down the presidency as it did Nixon's? No, it cannot.
Clinton soured the system against that. Bush now has, if he elects to use it, a large battery of maneuvers that were validated by the truly most criminal presidency in American history, his predecessor's, including outright pardon of persons convicted rightly of felony. No one in the current administration has even been accused rightly as yet. And dreams of a presidential impeachment will founder on the relentless partisanship that Clinton brought to his defense in Congress. If there is payback for his impeachment, there will also be payback for his phony exoneration.
How can someone be indicted (if any) if they weren't the one who 'told' Robert Novak about Plame, considering that Novak is the only person who even mentioned Plame's name in print.
Maybe not to me, but it is of some importance to Libby or Rove respectively.
bttt
I hope it wakes up the President. Maybe he will finally play hard ball and stop protecting the likes of the Clinton gang.