Email Shoot out with the Office Liberal

Whipping Boy(WB):
If Scooter, had called out Valerie Plames name while having sex with an intern and enjoying a cigar it would have been his own private business and this investigation would be all about sex.

WB:
Couldn't find his response to this email, it was something snid and condescending about the seriousness of leaking a CIA agents name.

WB:
Scooter wasn't charged with leaking a CIA agents name to the press. He was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice which were the exact same charges that were brought against Clinton. The prosecutor didn't have a case for the naming of the CIA agent.

Office Liberal(OL):
haha - I see you've taken the Republican course on Semantics 101 (followed by Spin 201). Not "having a case" may be the reality, but how else do you explain why he lied to the prosecutor if not to hide his own complicity or the knowledge of who did? That is, if he had nothing to hide, why the perjury? Fact is someone from the White House told reporters and used them to punish Plame's husband. Just because they can't pin it on Scooter suggests to me it was probably Rove who did it with Chaney's approval, but Scooter is taking the hit like a good soldier.
And I always did agree with Clinton about his Lewinsky affair - his infidelity would never have been an issue in any other court for anyone else except when it involves a right wing prosecutor trying to embarrass a Dem president. Clinton lied about something that wasn't criminal and should've never been asked.

Note: Clinton was stupid for allowing his libido to supersede his good judgment, but I could serve multiple life sentences for stupidity myself. (Although not for affairs, unlike Clinton. My wife kicks ass. Nothing like a good woman to keep you walking the straight and narrow, hehe.). That someone tipped the public about this guy's wife being a CIA agent is a whole different realm, not the least of which is the danger she faces from her blown cover.

WB:
I am a firm believer in the "Innocent until proven guilty" premise. Present your evidence and let a court of your peers determine your innocence or guilt not your political affiliation. The prosecution has been working on this for 2 years and this is the best they can do, at least with Clinton we had solid irrefutable evidence.

OL:
right right right - and you'd let Michael Jackson spend a night with your kids all alone? Or O.J. date your 20 year old daughter (assuming you had one)?
Be careful of absolutes. They can put you in tight places in a world that's more gray than not.
And Clinton's "irrefutable evidence" (dang, that's funny, given the nature of the 'evidence') was that he had an affair. Whoopee.
Thanks for the banter.
Cheers!

WB:
I wouldn't trust Clinton with my box of Cuban cigars. The process isn't perfect but you can't go around making charges that can't be proven. The evidence against Clinton proved that he lied under oath and that he tried to create evidence that would exonerate him. All he had to do was tell the truth and he never would have committed a crime. If it was just about sex why was he disbarred? And talk about semantics "Oral sex isn't sex" come on.

OL:
hehe - Again, there was no need for the prosecutor to ask him about sex with Lewinsky, but he (wasn't it Ashcroft?) did so because it would embarrass the Democratic Prez. That Clinton didn't see a way out of his own mess was his problem. I'll give you that. Clinton was responsible for creating his own misery.

But as far Scooter goes, someone did tip off the reporters in an act an attempt to intimidate Iraq war critics, and a CIA spy's career was recklessly destroyed in the process - unlike Clinton. Which case is more serious? Really now . . .

The White House had the political motivation and the assumed moral impunity to pull such a stunt. They lied about Iraq's WMDs, they lied about Saddam's connection to Al Queda, they lied about their preparedness for rebuilding Iraq (but given FEMA and Katrina, that's no longer such a surprise) . . . is it me, or is there a pattern here? ;-)

Go ahead and stand behind the technicality of the law. No problem here. It's meant to protect people from hearsay. However, I do find it interesting that the administration is saying, "See, this is nothing," instead of being alarmed that one of their government's agents was exposed in a cheap political shot. You'd think the Republican party would've formed a lynching party by now, given how the wear the flag like a coat (or is that cloak?)

WB:
I love it when liberals say he lied about WMDs because then I get to ask this question "Did Clinton lie about the WMD's" , "Did Kerry Lie about the WMD's", "Did Cofi Annan lie about the WMD's". So when Clinton said "We attacked the Nuclear and Biological targets in Iraq" was he lying also. A liberals biggest problem when he says that is his own statements. I agree that naming a CIA agent is a serious offense but what I do disagree with is trying to railroad the highest official in the bush administration that you can find with conflicting statements. We ought to have a case with some evidence and then If a court decides that there isn't any validity or enough evidence to prove a charge you have to respect that. You also make alot of statements that aren't proven i.e. " someone did tip off the reporters in an act an attempt to intimidate Iraq war critics" I agree that her name was named but what evidence do you have that it was to intimidate war critics. If you could point me to something that supports this assertion I would be really interested in seeing it.

Also what technicality are you talking about the judge and I believe that the prosecutor didn't bring those charges against him because of lack of evidence. What evidence is it that you have to implicates him that the Judge and prosecutor didn't have.

OL:

WB:
Silence ..... imagine crickets in to background. The OL hasn't spoken to me In days.

If you would like to see a bunch of politicians lying about WMD's click Here