Libby indicted-What do you think?

John Thompson's picture

On Friday afternoon, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announced five indictments against Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff Lewis Libby, including perjury and obstruction of justice charges.
Which is worse; these charges or similar charges against President Bill Clinton? What's your opinion and why?

John Thompson's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Fri, 10/28/2005 - 6:52pm.

I think that the Clinton abuses were far more serious. First of all, Libby is a staffer and he resigned within hours (if not minutes) of the inditement. Clinton was not a staffer - he was President of the United States! His lies were "about sex" but still lies when he was Head of State - pardon the pun.

Clinton never resigned, admitted wrongdoing or showed any sincere remorse. Hope that answers your question.


Submitted by Thomas Finnegan on Sat, 10/29/2005 - 7:14am.

If anybody thinks that Libby dreamed this all up by himself they've had too much of Uncle Karl's Kool-aid. And trying to spin it back to Clinton is just that, spin. Lying about extra-marital sex and lying to start an illegal and immoral war are two very different things, and that is what this is about. Not the outing of a CIA agent, but the lies that led to war.

If Bush had an honorable bone in his body, and if he was the good "Christian" that he claims, he'd fire Cheney and Rove and move on. Anything less is going to be business as usual in D.C. Seems like the right would love to re-elect Clinton just to impeach him again...better yet, let's dig up Nixon and give him the trial he was pardoned out of!

Robert W. Morgan's picture
Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Sat, 10/29/2005 - 7:36am.

Not spin Mr. Finnegan. I was simply answering the question posed by Mr. Thompson in his blog at the top of the page. he asked which was worse and why.

As a practicing Democrat, you made the typical leap from what Libby's lies were (where he heard about Ms. Plame or Mrs. Wilson) to the Democratic party line which is Bush Lied, Kids Died or in your words "lies that led to war". Mr. Fitzgerald very clearly stated what the accusations were against Libby and why. Iraq, the war, the events leading up to it were specifically excluded. It is also not about the outing of "covert" CIA agent per Mr. Fitzgerald - nor could it be since she hasn't been covert for over 5 years (read the actual law and you'll discover some interesting facts).

You are the one drinking Kool-Aid - a filthly liberal hate-filled mis-informed brew mixed by such great Americans as Howard Dean and John Kerry.

Submitted by Thomas Finnegan on Sun, 10/30/2005 - 12:03am.

Mr. Morgan,

Are you sure I'm a "practicing Democrat" or are you ASSuming? If there were no "lies that led to war" then where are the WMD? Where is the connection to Al Qaida? And where is Osama bin Laden? They were the reasons given for going to war. If you can't see that just keep drinking that Kool aid, ignorance is bliss. And by-the-way, at least Kerry was there - more than you can say about your chicken hawk Idiot King and his master, chicken hawk DICK.

Best regards,
Thomas Finnegan

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Sun, 10/30/2005 - 4:42pm.

I love how in 1992, when Kerry introduced Clinton the Democratic mantra was "It doesn't matter who served and how". You claim President Bush is a "chickenhawk" but unlike Clinton, he served in uniform and did not dodge the draft.

When I was serving, we despised Clinton, but respected the office. I have many friends still proudly serving and most respect President Bush. Instead of attacking non-veteran republicans take a look at your own house and ski-bum Dean. The fact that a president has military service or not matters little, if it did it would be required in the Constitution.

mudcat's picture
Submitted by mudcat on Sun, 10/30/2005 - 9:13am.

Yes you are and they even wrote an article about you nationally. Read and be proud of the movement you have joined.


scruffy's picture
Submitted by scruffy on Sun, 10/30/2005 - 8:06am.

So Kerry was in Vietnam? I believe I heard that somewhere before. Well I was there too - for a full 13 months and I didn't shoot a kid in the back, myself in the hand to get a medal - nor did I discard those medals and turn into a male Jane Fonda. Yes Mr. Finnegan, I was there because of Eisenhower a naive Republican who started it (meaning our involvement), Kennedy an idealistic Democrat who escalated it, Johnson the Democrat who really lied about it and when I was there - Nixon a crooked Republican who had domestic distractions that did not involve a woman - unless you count Rosemary Woods.

Robert is right - you are wrong and you continue to miss the point that Libby's lies (allegedly) only had to do with info given to whiney, liberal Democratic reporters for the commie New York Times (circulation and advertising revenue dropping like a rock).

Submitted by Investq on Sun, 10/30/2005 - 11:45am.

First, I must correct obvious error. Scruffy--- get the facts before you put the mouth in gear. Eisenhower did not commence American involvement in Vietnam. The roots of our country's policies with respect to French Indochina can actually be found at the conclusion of WWII. You malign Ike unfairly.

I am interested in John Thompson answering his own question. How would compare the Libby Indictment to the Clinton Impeachment and Trial ?

This current crisis is no worse than Clinton and neither of these two is any worse than the Nixonian Whitehouse. (To that extent I agree with Scruffy). I guess the bigger question is "Has it always been this way and if not, when did it start?"

Submitted by Thomas Finnegan on Sun, 10/30/2005 - 10:55am.

I'm sure you served with Kerry and have first hand knowledge of what you claim, just like the swiftboaters. While you were there Bush was smoking pot in Texas and DICK was busy with "other priorities". I'm sure they both thank you for your service. But this isn't about Kerry or Clinton. It's about a President who's been manipulated by his VP and doesn't have the backbone or brains to know it. It's about a government that lied in order to go to war, just like sucessive governments did during Vietnam. It's about willfully ignorant citizens who could care less (unless their kids get tapped to serve). Go ahead and call me names, that's the M.O. of the fascist right, and enjoy yourself. In the end you will be wrong just like all the other Vietnam apologists, and there will be thousands of GI's because of it, and Iraq will be led by an Islamic strongman. The only difference is that Exxon, Halliburton and other big companies (and Republican donators) will be vastly richer. That's something to be proud of!

Where are the WMD? Where is the connection between Saddam and Al Quaida? Where is Osama bin Laden?

Thomas Finnegan

P.S. - This is fun, just like "free speech" you can spout off without using your real name, right? Are you afraid to use your real name??

scruffy's picture
Submitted by scruffy on Mon, 10/31/2005 - 10:44am.

Yes, I am afraid to use my real name. I'm either a candidtae for elected office or the President of a large company in Peachtree City - so no names.

But no, my service in Vietnam did not coincide with Kerry's in either time or place. If it had, you would have heard of a fragging incident in the early 70's and then nothing more from Kerry - ever.

More to the point, however is your loyalty to the Democratic party's looney left wing playbook. You even found a way to mention Halliburton. The party of sodomy, abortion and aetheism is proud of you.

scruffy's picture
Submitted by scruffy on Sat, 10/29/2005 - 10:59am.

You da man Bob. Tell him like it is.

Robert W. Morgan's picture
Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Sat, 10/29/2005 - 6:38pm.

Robert is my name; logic is my game.

Cal Beverly's picture
Submitted by Cal Beverly on Fri, 10/28/2005 - 4:22pm.

The New York Times has started quietly, nervously backing away from [Judith] Miller, like hikers trying to escape a rattlesnake. The rest of the media are fleeing without restraint. She's not a good poster child for the cause. But the cause itself remains somewhat bewildering.

Why should you go to jail to protect the identity of a source who has used anonymity systematically and successfully to deceive you and your readers?

Why should Scooter Libby go to jail—involuntarily—for having a conversation with you that you think the Constitution should protect and even encourage?

Either this whole prosecution is nuts, or the mainstream media's view of reporters' rights is nuts. Which is it?

(M. Kinsley is the former editor of the Los Angeles Times and former editor of Slate.)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.