Independent: Good twist and spin. You sound like you received your talking points this morning.
1. ALL POLITICIANS cover their own azz. Show me one that doesn't. Thats what I thought; can't think of any.
2.Clinton was convicted in the House too which has impeaching powers. The Senate was split so they couldnt do anything.
3.His pardons was for actions that took place during his tenure. There was no need until then to take action.
4. Bush did not interfere with the case. He let the man go to trial and let Fitzgerald get a little recognition.

The outrage is because people don't like Bush anyway and that particular group is not going to like him whether he does or dont do something.

IntheMiddle, Texas (Sent Friday, July 06, 2007 12:05 PM)

Thank you for your response. I do not use talking points. I am not affiliated with nor do I support any political party.

1)I agree. However, when such ass-covering has possibly resulted in 3500+ unnecessary deaths plus unknown thousands of injury, I think you can understand my level of concern over this particular ass-covering.

2)It is my understanding that since Mr. Clinton remained in office that he was not convicted. Keep in mind also that that particular Senate was by far a Republican senate. That meant something to me.

3)May be true - the point being that he didn't pardon anyone when those pardons could look like this one does for Mr. Bush. None of those pardons prevented jail time for the offenders. This one does.

4) The case is not yet over. Mr. Libby has not yet filed for appeal. The commutation was in response to a court that denied Mr. Libby's request to remain out of jail pending appeal. Mr. Bush did indeed interfere with this before it was over.

5) I am always amused by the attack on Mr. Fitzgerald who is a republican and was assigned this case by Mr. Ashcroft - certainly a poster boy for the conservative wing. It was very interesting to me, since we are throwing out opinion rather than fact on this one, that the meat of the case was "handled" after Mr. Ashcroft had to leave office. That makes me very curious.

There may be people who have the opinion of Mr. Bush as you say. I am not one of them. I would be absolutely delighted to find that my fear is unmerited that this administration has been so crassly responsible for the deaths and the ongoing distaster that is Iraq. As it is, I am absolutely and completely furious by what I perceive to be the high-jacking of our government and the systematic dismembering of our constitution that I lay at the feet of this administration.

There are in fact people who seem to support this Administration but in very few instances to I find that they can tell me why. There appears to be the opinion that any critcism of the administration is equivalent to being a traitor. I do not understand that thinking at all.

Again, thank you for your response.

"The outrage is because people don't like Bush anyway and that particular group is not going to like him whether he does or dont do something"

Awww, what's not to like about Bush?

Poor LIBBY who has to pay $250,000 FINE without using his own money ... I think this is tooooo excessive; especially to those people who gave him that money to pay off the fine ...

IntheMiddle Texas:  I am afraid you know little of the Constitution or criminal law.  Clinton was never convicted of anything by the House of Representatives.  The House doesn't even have the power to convict a President of anything.  Nor was Clinton convicted of anything in the Senate.  The House has the power to "impeach" -- that is to say it has the power to "charge" the President with treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdeameanors.  (It's akin to an indictment by a grand jury in a criminal proceeding.)   Once impeached, the matter then moves to the Senate for trial.  In cases involving the impeachment of a President, the trial is presided over by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  In Clinton's case the trial in the Senate resulted in an acquital, the Republicans having failed to achieve the two-thirds majority necessary to convict.  The vote was largely along party lines.  So please stop saying Clinton was convicted.  It's just not true and you lose credibility on any point you try to make, by stating something so ridiculously false.  

No president was ever been convicted and removed from office, although had Nixon not resigned in August 1974, he would have been the first. The evidence against him was so overwhelming as to be undeniable.. and he was only going to get about 10 votes out of the 100 Senators, a 90-10 decision, when only 67 is needed for conviction. If Bush were to be impeached and allthe information abiout the Iraq war, intel, the exposing of Vlarie Plame and all the other stuff they've been doing for 6 years, comes out, Conviction will be a certainty, only 16 Republicans would to vote to convict.

Kato: First of all who are you to judge one's credibility? Everyone understood the just of what I was saying. To keep from insulting you, Ill leave it at that.

All of us who post here are subject to having our credibility judged, and we understand what people are saying,  To keep from insulting anyone, I'll leave it at that.

Scott: Who asked you AZZHOLE?

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):