Lynn Abbott: All people equal

Advertisement

This is an open letter to Paul Epley.

Dear Mr. Epley: You say liberals don't recognize moral absolutes. I am proud to be a liberal and proud to be part of a group which takes its moral values very seriously. This group is the Routt County Democrats. Perhaps I could send you one of our tee shirts. We wear our values on our backs at every parade, community gathering and meeting place. We're proud of our values and happy to discuss them.

We believe that all people are created equal. We believe that all people have the right to worship or not to worship as they please. We know that these tenets are guaranteed by our Constitution. It is neither right nor proper for governmental decisions to be based on the demands of a particular religious conviction; such decisions must be based on rule of law. In other words, separation of church and state.

Further, we believe that our President and his administration must follow that rule of law. We cannot condone an administration that acts above the law. We do not accept the abridgement of our civil liberties through warrantless wire-tapping or various provisions of the Patriot Act. Nor do we condone the manipulation of justice by political contamination of the Department Of Justice. We stand firmly for the rights of the individual under the law - in a land where justice is served by the rule of law, not by political maneuvering. In other words, Government Integrity.

We believe in Real Security. Real security depends on collaborative diplomacy as well as competently managed military strength. It relies on respect for cultures who may be different from ours but who seek a peaceful world just as we do. We must work together with them to bring Peace to the global community.

Peace, real security, government integrity, separation of church andstate. These are four of the values on our tee shirts. There are four others on our shirts, and a total of 20 in our Statement of Democratic Values. Many of these you decry as "advancing a social good." We're proud of our efforts to advance the social good. We can save that discussion for another time. Meanwhile, shall I send you a shirt?

Lynn Abbott

Steamboat Springs

Comments

Slapper 7 years, 5 months ago

settle down ann mcarthur. you live with clinton-others which is the majority live the current nitemare of the neothugs.

0

Slapper 7 years, 5 months ago

yes these democrats are the exception to those in washington who wet themselves in fear of the dark master rove. if only they could be like these here. why do the points brought out make sense-because it's correct. copy&paste the day away sbhor it does not change the fact most americans want exactly what lynn wrote. thank you. you rock girl.

0

dundalk 7 years, 5 months ago

I am so happy to read that Democrats are so outstanding.

I am so pleased to know that Democrats "cannot condone an administration that acts above the law".

With that line in your letter, I presume you, Ms Abbott, did not find favor with the Clinton Administration and all its lies and immoral behavor which we, the citizens of this great country were sbjected to while Bill Clinton fooled around and cheated on his wife.

Its refreshing to read that you apparently agree that Bill Clinton should have been impeached when he lied! How awesome that as a Democrat you concur with the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Its great to know that you realize that Bill Clinton did nothing when our national security was threatened numerous times during his time in the White House.

Sadly though you fail to mention anything about the preservation and protection of the unborn. I am estatic that we have a President such as Bush was does not believe in embryonic stem cell research and believes in the right to life. I consider these to be moral theories.

Where might we send YOU a Right to Life t-shirt?

0

dundalk 7 years, 5 months ago

Ah Slapper! With such eloquence, you have just firmed up the opinion that some posters have with regards to people who are not mature enough to simply read a comment and absorb it. Rather, you resort to the little kids table and attempt to mentally masturbate the rest of us who find you repugnant and stale. I send you my best, whoever you are.

0

muscleman 7 years, 5 months ago

Articles of impeachment were set against Clinton for lying about his misadventures. The Senate failed to impeach.

Bill may have lost some semen, but W's lies have led to the deaths of thousands. Should he be impeached? No. For two reasons. First, Cheney becomes president (although I think he has always been president) and second the Congress has more important things to tend to, like unraveling 8 years of chaos in government.

0

nikobesti 7 years, 5 months ago

Oh my goodness, dundalk, you should have had another cup of joe before writing that post. Your brain must still be foggy.

"With that line in your letter, I presume you, Ms Abbott, did not find favor with the Clinton Administration and all its lies and immoral behavor which we, the citizens of this great country were sbjected to while Bill Clinton fooled around and cheated on his wife. Its refreshing to read that you apparently agree that Bill Clinton should have been impeached when he lied! How awesome that as a Democrat you concur with the impeachment of Bill Clinton."

Thing is, dundalk, most Americans could care less about a blow job. What does this REALLY have to do with leading America? Powerful men cheat. I do not condone his actions, including lying. But let's just do a little comparison, shall we? You go on and on about MORALS. To you, torture is moral. Indefinite detention is moral. Killing innocents in Iraq is A-okay. Lying to Americans time after time is just fine. But getting a hummer is the ultimate evil? Um, who's morals are out of whack?

"Its great to know that you realize that Bill Clinton did nothing when our national security was threatened numerous times during his time in the White House."

Yeah, and when our national security was threatened under Bush, we invaded a country that wasn't about to do us harm. (Yes, sbvor, I read your links. You still cannot maintain Iraq was an immanent threat.) He created a breading ground and perfect conditions to create more radical terrorists. We created a civil war in one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in US history. Now THAT'S the way to respond to a national security threat! You're right-Clinton couldn't even get close to that successful response!

"Sadly though you fail to mention anything about the preservation and protection of the unborn. I am estatic that we have a President such as Bush was does not believe in embryonic stem cell research and believes in the right to life. I consider these to be moral theories."

Here we go again with the hypocrisy and mislead morals. We have now killed more civilians in Afganistan than the Taliban ever did. Our presence in Iraq is contributing to thousands of innocent deaths. Hard working people are dying because they can't afford an expensive surgery. Over three thousand American lives of our brave soldiers don't count either. Science is stymied and people with serious diseases are not helped. But to you that's all just fine--as long as we do no harm to freaking STEM CELLS. Your "Right to live" is a joke.

Thank goodness your twisted view of MORALITY will end soon.

0

Slapper 7 years, 5 months ago

somebody has a major problem here and it sure as hell isn't lynn abbot. nobody cares sobhor

0

dundalk 7 years, 5 months ago

Niko:

You're correct in your presumption that people could give 2 hoots about blowjobs. I personally don't care if Bill slept with an ewe. I do find objection though that he jerked us all off with his silly "definition of "is", etc". He lied, bold face, to a grand jury. This was a violation of his oath as a lawyer, and of course as a President.

I don't even care that JFK slept around. It's not the act itself that gives me pause, but rather the arrogance these men felt; that they were above it all.

I find it rather sad that while Billy was playing with Monica, we had men fighting in Somalia and elsewhere around the globe.

0

Neil O'Keeffe 7 years, 5 months ago

When will we get over our squabbling, ego driven differences and begin to accomplish something for the common good??? Can we at least begin to discuss in a creative fashion just what that might be? Believe!

0

corduroy 7 years, 5 months ago

I think its shocking we tried to impeach Clinton for infidelity, but no one has done anything to try and impeach Bush, who is a perpetual liar and dragging us through the mud!

0

corduroy 7 years, 5 months ago

lets see.. he told us they had reports of WMDs which they never found any of.. and got us into this stupid war in the process.

you and I are never going agree on anything so I'm just going to stop responding to you from now on :)

0

fish 7 years, 5 months ago

So who else wants to take a guess at what sbvor is suppose to stand for. I am guessing given the ego and the past, it is "Steamboats Voice of Reason." any one else care to take a guess. Not that I would expect the truth from SBVOR.

0

Murray Tucker 7 years, 5 months ago

OK sbvor. One Bush lie (of many): We'll help New Orleans Oh, another We'll build a fence (well there are 13 miles of 800 miles authorized) Oh another, "Things are looking up in our battles in Iraq" Oh another "Support our troops" waste money with Haliburton, but not on explosive resistant humvees Oh another "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

Compare with Bill's lie for which Articles of Impeachment were passed by a House led by another pervert who was having sex with a woman not his wife. "I did not have sex with that woman!"

Go ahead and give me threads counter to each of the above. You realize that there are several threads that deny the Holocaust. One can put anything on the internet these days.

Murray Tucker

0

Murray Tucker 7 years, 5 months ago

How about the lie of all lies: "I am a compassionate conservative" or is that an oxymoron.

0

id04sp 7 years, 5 months ago

You don't care that Bill Clinton cheated on Hillary?

If a man will lie and cheat and show so little respect for his own wife, how can we think he has OUR best interest at heart. We're strangers who mean NOTHING to him.

Marriage is a contract that contains an oath of loyalty. An oath of office is also a contract. In my life, the ways I've seen people deal with the "little" contracts have also been reflected in how they deal with the "big" contracts -- like marriage.

Say whatever you want about morality. If a man cannot compartmentalize his sexual desires and keep them under control in order to honor his wife, then why should we expect him to forego anything else he desires for the benefit of perfect strangers? Just because he needs our votes?

The Clinton Klan lives to wield power, and will tell any story necessary in order to obtain it. The Brady "gun bill" is the best example of how they operate. The law was passed and put into operation, and during the entire Clinton administration, not ONE convicted felon was prosecuted for attempting to purchase a firearm -- they were simply prevented from obtaining a firearm from a legit dealer. So, do you think that prevented them from buying a gun? No. Did trying to buy a gun get them off the street? No. Feel-good words with no backup in action do no good at all.

If my wife found out I had engaged in Clinton-style shenanigans with a 20-year old woman, she would be crushed. Things would never be the same between us again. As a man, and as her husband, it's my responsibility to protect her from anything that may do her harm, including ME! If I couldn't do this for a wife, then how could I do it for someone I don't even know?

Bill Clinton is an admitted adulterer, and was disbarred for lying under oath in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit. Such conduct DID affect his ability to govern, because it divided the country even more and caused 50% of us to doubt everything he did. In the end, Clinton's legacy included only one so-called "success:" He balanced the budget by gutting the military forces which have had to be rebuilt, at huge additional cost, since the 9/11 attacks.

And now you want us to vote for Hillary?

Hah! If she's that easy to fool, or so gullible that she's willing to put up with Bill's misconduct for the sake of keeping up appearances, then we don't need anybody like her in the Oval Office.

The "secret code" nobody will talk about is that liberals don't want anybody putting limits on their sexual desires. The men and women who say that Clinton was qualified to govern despite his lies to his wife might as well say that THEY, also, reserve the right to cheat when it suits them.

I guess we expect this kind of behavior from a lot of weak-minded people who have no impulse control. Personally, I don't want that kind of person making decisions that affect MY welfare. If you don't see why it's a problem, well, that's the issue that separates us.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 5 months ago

ID- who are you to talk about weak minded people with no impulse control??? You are too weak to stand up for your own "standards."

Let's remind people of what you said:

"Speaking as the former Hash Garret,

Heck, shut the forum down completely. I won't miss it. I mostly log on to check real estate prices anyway.

People write to me and tell me how much they enjoy my posts from time to time. Maybe I'll just start blogging and sell real estate ad space on my own website instead of drawing readers to the Pilot ads."

www.steamboatpilot.com/forums/open/reader_forum/273/

Since you continue to post, it looks like you will miss the forums. Plus, hiding behind multiple, anonymous identities which you have openly confirmed you come back after being banned, and you want to speak about values? Good one!!! Sounds like skirting the rules...kinda like Clinton skirting his marriage- not illegal, but immoral, since that's what Clinton did.

0

JQPUBLIC 7 years, 5 months ago

id04sp... I agree with kielbasa.... since you remain anonymous and skirt the rules on an "allowed to be anonymous" internet forum, and since your values must be shaky because you come back under different identities and because you lied saying you wouldn't miss the forums and yet you keep posting... I will not support you as President of the USA. Now, since kielbasa is so obsessed with anonymity, if you reveal your identity for him, I'll overlook the lie and vote for you anyway... you'd have to be better than Hillary.

Sorry for the sarcasm but I have to wonder about the obsession for identities... if anonymity is so abhorrent to kielbasa, why keep slumming with us? If our views are completely worthless and a waste of time unless we're identified, why keep debating us? I enjoy a good debate and reading other peoples point of view, these forums usually aren't boring and sometimes I even find some good thought provoking arguments... and I really don't care who posted them.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 5 months ago

JQ- My point is that id is professing values and morality that id doesn't actually subscribe to here. It makes id a hypocrite. Id also uses "personal experiences" in this particular post. How do you believe a personal experience given by an anonymous person? It can't be verified. It's fiction. Even lies can be thought provoking.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 5 months ago

SBvor- Bush lies: 1) "[Castro] welcomes sex tourism," Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida, according to the Los Angeles Times. "Here's how he bragged about the industry," Bush said. "This is his quote: 'Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.' "

"As it turns out, Bush had lifted that quotation not from an actual Castro speech but rather from a 2001 essay written by then Dartmouth University undergraduate Charles Trumbull. In the essay, Trumbull did appear to quote a Castro speech about prostitution. Sadly, the student made the quotation up.

"According to officials, the actual quotation from Castro's 1992 speech reads as follows: 'There are hookers, but prostitution is not allowed in our country. There are no women forced to sell themselves to a man, to a foreigner, to a tourist. Those who do so do it on their own, voluntarily. We can say that they are highly educated hookers and quite healthy, because we are the country with the lowest number of AIDS cases.'"

2) You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (italics ours) --WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

*At the time of this statement, no such weapons were found, and no such weapons have been found to this day. On this point as well as the use of the captured trailers as biolabs, the WP said this in the above article: "U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons." There was no statement of fact, there was no smoking gun. The CIA's finding was advanced as an opinion based on its own particular process of elimination, and it was immediately challenged by both U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysts who had seen the trailers. --Politex, 08.09.03 (italics ours)

3) On April 26, President Bush said in his weekly radio address, "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax."

That turned out not to be true. According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an unspecified number of low- and middle-income families received no tax cut at all because they'd been excluded from an expansion of the child-care tax. --Timothy Noah, 06.03.03

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

for just these three, which can be verified from link on that site

0

the_Lizard 7 years, 5 months ago

Most if not all low income families don't even pay income taxes (remember Bush said people who PAY income tax) and as for middle income families...what is the child care tax ?

0

id04sp 7 years, 5 months ago

JQ,

Kielbasa has taken something I thew out off the cuff (I wouldn't miss the forum if it went away) and interpreted it to mean that I agreed to stop posting.

This is what you call your, "wishful thinking."

Close the forum. Who cares? Shut down the Pilot website. Who cares? (The advertisers care. Look at the ads on this page. That's why it's here).

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 5 months ago

Lizard-

That depends on what you consider "low" income. My wife and I make less than $70,000 a year, no kids. In Steamboat, that's low-middle income. Compared to the national average, I'd say we're closer to middle-middle. Most that are considered low income still have to pay taxes. Even the $0 to $15,100 jointly range pay 10% of the amount over $0.

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=150856,00.html

0

the_Lizard 7 years, 5 months ago

Of course there is the EITC for the low wage earner. I suppose you could move to Iowa if you want to be middle-middle with 70,000 income (and they do have at least one ski area there ;-)) Otherwise you are not considered low income and I imagine you did get a tax break when Bush lowered income taxes...right? Otherwise what is that child care tax you were talking about?

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 5 months ago

No, we actually ended up receiving less with the tax breaks. We used to average $800 a year on federal returns. Last year, after steady declines in our refund, we got $200 back.

The Child Care Tax Credit is a tax break for people putting children under 12 into types of daycare or hiring of nannies.

www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=106189,00.html

0

the_Lizard 7 years, 5 months ago

Ohhhh, it's a credit, not a tax at all....

Odd you are paying more in taxes, as the tax rates were cut and the marriage penalty was reduced. Maybe you need a new accountant.

0

Jon Casson 7 years, 5 months ago

Bush doesnt lie?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19728346/

On another note....

Earlier in this thread, id04sp remarked:

"You don't care that Bill Clinton cheated on Hillary? If a man will lie and cheat and show so little respect for his own wife, how can we think he has OUR best interest at heart. We're strangers who mean NOTHING to him."

Yet the repubician's still support Giuliani?

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 5 months ago

Lizard- My wife's the one who does our taxes and we use Turbo Tax. Granted, our income has slowly increased over those years, but we take any and everything available to us. We have yet to move to a new tax bracket, even when they were readjusted. (the wording was verbatim from the site I linked. They left the "credit" off the statement.)

Nope- we're one of the ones that all the new tax stuff didn't do anything for.

0

dundalk 7 years, 5 months ago

Just 10: As a conservative Republican I can attest that I will NEVER vote for Mayor Rudy Guiliani. I realize he's been married before, and that he was fooling around with the second wife Judith before he was divorced from the first wife.

I agree with the poster who makes mention of the sanctity of marriage, and its very important clause of being faithful, etc. If Bill couldn't keep his pickle in his pants for the sake of his wife, why should he have given two hoots about all of us Americans who were subjected to countless terrorist attacks here and abroad.

That being said, my irritation with Bill Clinton comes more from his utter disdain to adhere to the oath he took as a lawyer, President and of course spousal oath. I could have, perhaps, forgiven the 1st transgression, but he had his pickle out of his pants more than any other deli counter man I have seen.

I will NEVER vote for Rudy because I feel he has neither the experience nor the international record which is necessary to lead our great nation. Rudy was the right man for the job during one of the most wretched moments in U.S. history. However, that does not make him presidential material.

He is also pro-choice. As a conservative Republican and someone who is adamant about the protection of the unborn, I could not, in good faith put my vote to someone who doesn't believe that unborn life is worth saving.

As it is now, the field is looking barren and I am deeply concerned with the notion that Hillary the doormat or Obama could be our next President.

I remain hopeful that either Fred Thompson will throw his hat in the ring or that Ann Coulter decides she is the correct woman to lead this country from the despair which might arrive if a liberal was put in office.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 5 months ago

Even I would vote for Hillary Clinton before Ann Coulter. Sorry, dundalk!

0

dundalk 7 years, 5 months ago

Another Local: Would we consider your posts worth "ignoring"? I enjoy your posts although I do not agree with the majority of them.

Keep the sentences coming.

0

another_local 7 years, 5 months ago

I wish this forum had the feature that allowed for "ignoring" the posts of certain users. Some of them are simply not worth reading.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 5 months ago

Just 10 years- use my post above on this thread documenting a couple of lies. Of course, even in print, SBvor won't admit they were lies.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 5 months ago

Hmmmm...SBvor still hasn't answered whether or not SBvor pays out of pocket only for personal health care. Is SBvor afraid to admit to using Socialist programs??? Somebody's still in the closet!!

0

JazzSlave 7 years, 5 months ago

Calling all liberals & BushHaters -

John Kerry, John Edwards, both Clintons, Al Gore, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Gerhard Schroeder, Jacques Chirac, Vladimir Putin, et al, sounded the Iraqi WMD alarm, in far stronger terms than the President ever used. Senator Edwards went so far as to characterize the Iraqi threat as "imminent" (something the President never claimed).

Are any of these people liars? If not, why not?

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 5 months ago

SBvor-

1) It' not a misquote on Bush's part. He quoted the person who misquoted Castro properly. This means, imagine this, BAD INTEL!! Where have we hear that before? Lie.

2) Confirms facilities...not weapons at the time he "found them." Lie.

3) Link worked yesterday. Not sure what happened. Since TheLizard asked me, I can show my tax returns since I'm not anonymous. Where would you like to meet? Lie.

0

Jon Casson 7 years, 5 months ago

svbore-

The Libby case has nothing to do with the list of Clinton pardons or any other President. Every President (R or D) over the last 2 decades has pardoned friends and associates during their terms. This has NOTHING to do with that nor does it have anything to do with what Plame actually did for the CIA. You asked for anyone to provide real evidence that Bush has lied or acted dishonestly about anything related to this case.

From Whitehouse Press Briefing, October 7 2003. " Q Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

MR. McCLELLAN: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this, there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. ....... They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved....." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031007-4.html

Furthermore.. " MR. McCLELLAN: If someone sought to punish someone for speaking out against the administration, that is wrong, and we would not condone that activity. No one in this White House would condone that activity. I've made that -- I made that clear last week. But that's --

Q But engaging in innuendo --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- it's absurd to suggest that the White House would be engaged in that kind of activity. That is not the way this White House operates. " http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031007-4.html

Oh and in case your response is that it isnt Bush directly lying, its his Press Secretary.. "MR. McCLELLAN: .....I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants. And what he wants is to get to the bottom of this matter, the sooner the better........" http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031007-4.html

From Bush directly- "THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html

Maybe the White House does condone such activity and taking appropriate action means commuting the sentence of the one person legally convicted by a jury of his peers to have had any involvement in the matter. And, yes, I know that Libby wasn't convicted directly of the leak- only Obstruction of Justice and Perjury....

How does this fit with your narrow definitions of ethics and morals that you apply to everyone else?

Do you still assert that Bush and his administration acted in a completely honest, forthright and ethical manner?

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 5 months ago

SBvor-

1) Misquote caused the context to change as to what Castro said. It's the equivalent of "..." which we know you hate from past threads. It was a lie. Toldja you couldn't admit it.

2) Quote was May 29, 2003. All your links point to May 2004 or later. It was a lie at the time. Toldja you couldn't admit it.

3) My tax return is just fine and not botched...AND I'M WILLING TO PROVE IT!!! It's not my fault you are too scared to verify it because you'd actually have to leave your computer. So, it's verifiable and it's was still a lie. *do I need the tagline again??

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 5 months ago

1- It changed the context of what he said, plain and simple. That was purposely falsifying the statement. The statement Castro gave said,

"There are hookers, but prostitution is not allowed in our country."

Bush said he "welcomed" sex tourism. That was an out and out lie as to what Castro ACTUALLY said. It changes the context of what was said. It's the exact same thing you railed against in past posts about "trust me, I know what I'm saying." Paraphrasing, by definition, does not change the context of the sentence. Again, nice try, Mr. Clinton. We'll move on to "is" later.

2- "SOMEONE" lied...but not Bush. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!! Bush said it and it was a bold faced lie at the time. Bad intelligence blamed again? Sound like Bush is too trusting of everyone handing him lies to pass on. Nice!!!!

3- My tax return DOES prove what I'm saying...unless you are too scared to verify it. You can't say it doesn't until you verify it. Just like Bush, saying it doesn't make it so.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 5 months ago

Not me! I've got it in print, with my links and you links. You may need to change that prescription for your eyes. Sitting too close to the computer screen.

Where's your definition of "paraphrasing" to dispute mine, eh? Can't find it in Never-Never Land? Again- just saying it doesn't make it true. Thanks for playing. Next time, stick to "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader." It's probably more to your intellectual level...but I doubt it. Maybe a nice game of checkers in the park is more your speed.

0

Jon Casson 7 years, 5 months ago

Svboring-

First of all, my citations are not from journalists, but direct quotes from White House Press Briefing transcripts. The citations are directly from the White House website. www.whitehouse.gov.

Secondly, it doesnt matter whether the initial crime was committed or not! The DOJ investigation was to determine IF a crime was committed and who might have committed it. Libby was convicted of Perjury and Obstruction of that investigation. Is that what the White House meant when they said they would cooperate "fully" with the investigation. Once again, found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers. If the White House had no involvement, why lie?

Third, "...I could come back to you and say that they were not involved...."- Scott McLelland, WH Press Secretary

If "they" (referring to Rove, Libby and Abrams) weren't involved, why would Libby lie?

Lastly from the same press briefing 10/7/2003 "it's absurd to suggest that the White House would be engaged in that kind of activity. That is not the way this White House operates. " -McLelland

"No one in this White House would condone that activity." -McLelland

and most recently.... "I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person" -George Bush July 12, 2007

Get your head out of the sand and admit that EVERY president plays dirty politics. Not everything that is unethical is illegal. You claim to be so smart and well educated, yet you refuse to believe that the White House played any unethical role in this issue. Do you honestly believe that the Bush administration is lily white and completely honest about everything? If you do, you're so extraordinarily naive, its pitiful.

0

Jon Casson 7 years, 5 months ago

It also doesnt matter whether Plame was the best or the worst CIA agent in history. Libby was convicted of obstructing the investigation and lying to the grand jury conducting the investigation. Of course the whole issue of the "outing" is idiotic.

The bottom line, which you are trying very hard to obscure and cloud, is that a close White House aide perjured himself and obstructed justice in an investigation that the White House pledged full cooperation. After the White House claimed not to condone that type of activity and would take appropriate action against anyone that does, they commute the sentence of the one person found guilty of any involvement in the affair. Those are the FACTS and they are not in dispute. Quit skirting around the issue.

0

Murray Tucker 7 years, 5 months ago

Let's be fair in quoting les sbvor, your "article" says the following: "Let me say two things. I am not speaking [in this indictment] to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. ... And we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent."

Those are the words spoken by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald on Friday, October 28, 2005, at his hourlong press conference where he laid out the charges against Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

A jury found Mr. Libby guilty of lying, just as the House found under the other fornicator, Newt Gingrich found Bill Clinton lying and almost had him impeached by the Senate.

I'm glad that W commuted this sentence on the grounds that it was "excessive." There are too many individuals in federal prison at $50,000 a year who have excessive sentences and who should be paroled.

0

another_local 7 years, 5 months ago

dundalk,

Thanks. I would not use it to ignore people I disagree with; I can handle realistic and useful debate. Besides, I have yet to find anyone who I disagree with on all issues. I often find that those who I agree with on local economic issues are those I disagree with on national issues (an vice-versa). How many can you find here who will be happy to see both our city council AND the Bush administration gone. (maybe more that I think?)

Bombastic, name-calling, closed-minded idiots who can not resist shouting down all opposition is another thing altogether.

In any case.. it was just an idle day-dream. I just skip over reading the ones I am through listening to and was just being lazy with my proposal.

0

another_local 7 years, 5 months ago

sbvor, if the shoe fits..........

BTW, if you knew me better you would not consider me liberal. Libertarian is a lot closer to the mark. That is generally considered right of center in case those of you who call yourself "conservative" have lost touch with how the word used to be used.

0

muscleman 7 years, 5 months ago

sbvor Do you pay personally for your health care expenditures? For once I agree with you. Health insurance for my employees finally made me close shop. Fortunately for me, I am over 65 and Medicare covers most of my needs. If it's socialism, maybe we need more of it!

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 5 months ago

SBvor- You didn't answer muscleman's question: Do you pay personally for your health care expenditures?

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.