Are the Republican are hypocrits?

Wonder no more…

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
SEN. HUTCHISON: Tim, you know, I think we have to remember something here. An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict, and I do think we have in this country the right to go to court and have due process and be innocent until proven guilty. And secondly, I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.

I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people’s lives in the public arena. I do not think we should prejudge. I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let’s just see what the charges are. Let’s tone down the rhetoric and let’s make sure that if there are indictments that we don’t prejudge.

MR. RUSSERT: But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate. Senator Hutchison.


I couldn’t believe I was hearing this yesterday. This is exactly what they did to Clinton & now they are suggesting that there should be a different standard now than there was in 1998.

Mike,

I agree 10000%. If anyone lied to the GJ, they should face the consequences. Period.
I have said that all along.

I said that of Clinton. I say that of whoever now. Unbelievable that Sen H. is saying that. She knows…

“Some perjury technicality…waste taxpayers dollars…” she also said something about people in high public offices. Jeepers. What a load. Clinton should never have lied, although I understand why he did, it was about sex, this is about outing a CIA agent. Jeepers, is all I can say. :angry:

Quote (TomS @ Oct. 24 2005,13:05)
Clinton should never have lied, although I understand why he did, it was about sex, this is about outing a CIA agent. Jeepers, is all I can say. :angry:

I understand you thinking there is a difference, but to the GJ…NO. You are a lawyer, no? If you ask me, specifically, what I had for dinner last night, it can’t be a waffling(unless it was waffles…) answer. It’s one answer.

The Senator is WAY off base here. Sorry I missed this on TV.

I agree with you too Mike… BUT hypocrisy is not a party specific thing. They all are hypocritical when their butts are on the line. The first thing they teach, CYA. The second, DENY everything!

TG

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
…BUT hypocrisy is not a party specific thing.

For sure, but find a Democrat that said that Clinton should have gotten off with perjury. There were many Democrat’s that thought the impeachment was a sham, but no-one ever said Clinton should get off if he committed perjury (or some other crime).

agreed

DeLay is screwed. Rove is screwed. Frist is screwed. Should be men and own up to it.

No “is, is” moments…

There’s an article in the new Newsweek where someone important is saying that this is bigger than Watergate. I saw it yesterday linked from MSN. I’ll see if I can find it again.

If I was Clinton I would have lied, too. Avoiding the wrath of Hillary was well worth the chance. If it didn’t work what he could get from congress was still better than life at home from there on out.

I wonder if any of those Republicans have been sleeping on the couch over this? “DeLay is screwed. Rove is screwed. Frist is screwed.” Doesn’t sound like it. :)

Delay is the only one here that’s been indicted. He’s innocent until proven guilty.

Who knows about Frist but he may be in trouble too. You can’t have it both ways (keep your stock & sell it too :slight_smile:

I don’t think this is bigger than Watergate, but I do think it’s serious. I think Bush screwed up by not getting to the bottom of this himself & firing some people. Instead it made it worse, like Clinton did, by first saying that he’d get rid of people and then saying that he would only do that if there had been a crime committed. Bush ran on “cleaning” up the White-House and he should stick to that. The problem is that when McCellan made all the statements about Rove, Ashcrosft was the one investigating the Plame outing & they had no idea a SP was going to be put on this.

If Bush were smart, he’d get rid of Rumsfied, Rove and a bunch more & put new people in. Reagan did that & other Presidents did too.

Quote (clark_griswold @ Oct. 24 2005,13:08)
Quote (TomS @ Oct. 24 2005,13:05)
Clinton should never have lied, although I understand why he did, it was about sex, this is about outing a CIA agent. Jeepers, is all I can say. :angry:

I understand you thinking there is a difference, but to the GJ...NO. You are a lawyer, no? If you ask me, specifically, what I had for dinner last night, it can't be a waffling(unless it was waffles...) answer. It's one answer.

The Senator is WAY off base here. Sorry I missed this on TV.

No difference, it was perjury. Really made me mad. He should not have done that. I was working for himn at the time, but wasn't after that.

The transcript is here - Meet the Press. In fairness, she continues her explanation but IMO it just gets her into more trouble, so I didn’t bother posting it.

I disagree with Mr Allen. If either Rove or Libby are indicted, they should not resign, they should be terminated for cause.

Tom, is that legal?

Sad thing is, should they resign, be terminated or whatever… they’ll still walk away with bennies worth more than 99.8% of US will ever see… I say bust 'em down to dog-catcher, sell all their property and give the cash to ME! (OK… pick another worthy charity)

TG

Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 24 2005,12:25)
I couldn't believe I was hearing this yesterday. This is exactly what they did to Clinton & now they are suggesting that there should be a different standard now than there was in 1998.

So you're saying that if Rove or Libby perjured themselves, they deserve the same punishment Clinton received??

ksdb, you are the king of putting words in one’s mouth… I commend you. We sparred once in the Batman days, but I see your skill is still up to snuff in the straw man department. Well done. :)

Let’s see if the bait is taken and how events unfold.

Well, Al Frankin says they will be executed. You can see the vid of his conversation with David Letterman here:

www.crooksandliars.com

Just scroll down till you see it.

The problem I have with the perjury charge against Clinton is that the sex questions were not pertinent to the case (read witch hunt). They were personal questions that had no basis in illegal activity (except to Republicans who view sex as sin). They trapsed through every facet of his and Hillarys’ life in an attempt to find something they could hang him for. They coerced State Troopers to lie that they had procured women for him. They used every vile and bottom feeding tactic to try to dismantle his success and extreme popularity and failed.

They are no different now. You cannot just “grow” a soul. They have always been soulless slugs but they excell at propaganda, coersion, deception, bribery, payoffs, cromyism and are so good at it they do it right in front of the people they’re deceiving. Those same people cannot believe that anyone could be so brash and in your face with these deceptions and therefore refuse to believe that they are crooks. Con men work this way. Most Conned Seniors rarely admit to being conned by those roving bands of con-artist contractors. They don’t want to feel stupid.

ANYONE CAN BE CONNED.

It’s taken 6 years for all of this to fester. Seems like an eternity to some of us. BETTER LATE THAN NEVER.

I approved this windy rant.
KingFish

How weird! Al was kicking a “conservative” in the crotch to sell his book and now he’s calling for a presidential execution based on speculation … this guy needs a little anger management counseling.

KingFish, your comments are interesting because six years after the fact, there seems to be a new revisionist tactic to deflect the seriousness of Clinton’s perjury. If the lies were so immaterial to the Paula Jones case, why did Clinton settle and pay Jones $850,000?? He repeatedly lied to avoid accountability for a civil rights violation. The nature of his improprieties exposed a pattern of deceit that the predator had used to avoid incrimination for what he did to Paula Jones.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
the seriousness of Clinton’s perjury.

He lied about getting a blowjob to save his skin from his wife, which made him look like the good ol’ womanizing immoral southern boy he is. How many people died because of this?

This think with Plame is worse than Watergate because it is directly tied to national security and the desire to go to war - TO KILLL MANY PEOPLE - based on false reasons…BASED ON LIES THEY KNEW ABOUT WELL BEFORE HAND.

Shouldn’t Bush and Cheney be tried for lying?

Quote (phoo @ Oct. 24 2005,17:35)
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
the seriousness of Clinton’s perjury.

He lied about getting a blowjob to save his skin from his wife, which made him look like the good ol’ womanizing immoral southern boy he is. How many people died because of this?

Let’s just ignore the sexual harassment lawsuit and civil rights violations … evidently that’s not important. Presidents should be able to harass as many women as they want as long as nobody dies, right?? BTW, who died in connection with Joe Wilson??