Libby Indicted, resigns

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

It's amazing though, for all that has gone wrong with this administration I actually blame Bush the least. It really seems as if he is in way over his head, I don't think he ever envisioned his presidency being like this. He's a decent man, I just don't think he was ever qualified to be president of the United States.

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

Which part of that does he not fit?

That was a poor response. Common sense tells you that when someone talks about being "qualified" for a position (president, baseball player, executive, etc.), they're talking about having the neccesary skills and expereince to do the job effectively.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: zendari

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

Which part of that does he not fit?

That was a poor response. Common sense tells you that when someone talks about being "qualified" for a position (president, baseball player, executive, etc.), they're talking about having the neccesary skills and expereince to do the job effectively.

6 years of being Texas governor not good enough?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

It's amazing though, for all that has gone wrong with this administration I actually blame Bush the least. It really seems as if he is in way over his head, I don't think he ever envisioned his presidency being like this. He's a decent man, I just don't think he was ever qualified to be president of the United States.

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

Which part of that does he not fit?

I think Sudheer was saying that he doesn't believe that the Dub is mentally up to the challenge of being President and that his past performances have shown that to be the case. Because of that those whom he trusted to help him run the ccountry have failed him and the citizens of America and they are more at fault than the Dub reallly is. At least that's how I read it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: zendari

6 years of being Texas governor not good enough?

I guess it depends on how you look at it. Texas' constitution ensures that it has the weakest governor of any state in the Union - this was an outgrowth of the Reconstruction.

What I find troubling about President Bush (okay, ONE of the things) is that he had never really done anything of consequence with his life until middle age. He ran a series of failed businesses, until some of his father's cronies cut him in on a sweetheart deal for joint ownership of the Texas Rangers. During both his gubernatorial and presidential service, he has worked relatively very few hours, and taken generous workout breaks and vacations throughout.

Ultimately I want a leader who shows, well, leadership, and an appropriate sense of urgency toward his job. As far as I'm concerned, President Bush is a Type B personality and tends more toward followership than leadership. It seems to me President Bush is good for a lot of bluster but not a lot of performance.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

It's amazing though, for all that has gone wrong with this administration I actually blame Bush the least. It really seems as if he is in way over his head, I don't think he ever envisioned his presidency being like this. He's a decent man, I just don't think he was ever qualified to be president of the United States.

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

Which part of that does he not fit?

That was a poor response. Common sense tells you that when someone talks about being "qualified" for a position (president, baseball player, executive, etc.), they're talking about having the neccesary skills and expereince to do the job effectively.

I think running Texas for a few years was good enough. Certainly looked better than Clintons near last place Arkansas in terms economic activity and growth.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

6 years of being Texas governor not good enough?

I guess it depends on how you look at it. Texas' constitution ensures that it has the weakest governor of any state in the Union - this was an outgrowth of the Reconstruction.

What I find troubling about President Bush (okay, ONE of the things) is that he had never really done anything of consequence with his life until middle age. He ran a series of failed businesses, until some of his father's cronies cut him in on a sweetheart deal for joint ownership of the Texas Rangers. During both his gubernatorial and presidential service, he has worked relatively very few hours, and taken generous workout breaks and vacations throughout.

Ultimately I want a leader who shows, well, leadership, and an appropriate sense of urgency toward his job. As far as I'm concerned, President Bush is a Type B personality and tends more toward followership than leadership. It seems to me President Bush is good for a lot of bluster but not a lot of performance.

Can anyone here honestly say that his Presidency has been one that will be remembered fondly?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

It's amazing though, for all that has gone wrong with this administration I actually blame Bush the least. It really seems as if he is in way over his head, I don't think he ever envisioned his presidency being like this. He's a decent man, I just don't think he was ever qualified to be president of the United States.

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

Which part of that does he not fit?

That was a poor response. Common sense tells you that when someone talks about being "qualified" for a position (president, baseball player, executive, etc.), they're talking about having the neccesary skills and expereince to do the job effectively.

I think running Texas for a few years was good enough. Certainly looked better than Clintons near last place Arkansas in terms economic activity and growth.

How can you blame economic activity/growth solely on the governor? That's ludicrous and you know it.

If you really believe what you just posted, it should be quite an amazing feat how Clinton balanced the budget and brought about the biggest surplus in US history. For all the right-wing bashing of Clinton, he will always be remembered fondly by the majority of Americans. Can't say the same for Bush.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Apparently Libby said he was informed by the newspaper but was actually informed by Cheney.

Too bad the definition of perjury only applies to Republicans. For Democrats it is "lying under oath" and "justifiable."

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

It's amazing though, for all that has gone wrong with this administration I actually blame Bush the least. It really seems as if he is in way over his head, I don't think he ever envisioned his presidency being like this. He's a decent man, I just don't think he was ever qualified to be president of the United States.

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

Which part of that does he not fit?

That was a poor response. Common sense tells you that when someone talks about being "qualified" for a position (president, baseball player, executive, etc.), they're talking about having the neccesary skills and expereince to do the job effectively.

I think running Texas for a few years was good enough. Certainly looked better than Clintons near last place Arkansas in terms economic activity and growth.

Zendari and Genx

That wasn't my point. Go back and read Zendari's comment that I responded too. A post was made that was quite resonable saying that the person didn't think bush was qualified. Zendari replied by stating that age and citizenship as written in the constitution were the only valid criteria for judgeing a persons qualifications. Do you think that's true? I don't, and I simply stated that. My post had nothing do with whether, I believe bush is quilaified, just that there's a little more to being qulaified than age and citizenship.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

If you really believe what you just posted, it should be quite an amazing feat how Clinton balanced the budget and brought about the biggest surplus in US history. For all the right-wing bashing of Clinton, he will always be remembered fondly by the majority of Americans. Can't say the same for Bush.

Funny. His presidency is barely over half finished. You must be one of those people who calls the ballgame after the 5th inning.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

It's amazing though, for all that has gone wrong with this administration I actually blame Bush the least. It really seems as if he is in way over his head, I don't think he ever envisioned his presidency being like this. He's a decent man, I just don't think he was ever qualified to be president of the United States.

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

Which part of that does he not fit?

That was a poor response. Common sense tells you that when someone talks about being "qualified" for a position (president, baseball player, executive, etc.), they're talking about having the neccesary skills and expereince to do the job effectively.

I think running Texas for a few years was good enough. Certainly looked better than Clintons near last place Arkansas in terms economic activity and growth.

How can you blame economic activity/growth solely on the governor? That's ludicrous and you know it.

If you really believe what you just posted, it should be quite an amazing feat how Clinton balanced the budget and brought about the biggest surplus in US history. For all the right-wing bashing of Clinton, he will always be remembered fondly by the majority of Americans. Can't say the same for Bush.

I think governors probably have more control over their local economies than any president does over a national economy.

You cant blame Bush for a bad economy while saying Clintons terrible economic record in Arkansas was out of his control.

 

[Genx87]

btw I will say this, bbonds response in this thread was one of the funniest I have seen in P&N in a few months.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

the bottom line is this: Bush has not produced results. you can come up with any number of excuses you want, but at the end of the day all we have is failed ventures from Bush and his admin.

1.) Iraq - Failed to construct an exit strategy, have made little progress towards stopping the insurgency in the 3 years we have been there. Took out one evil dictator and replaced him with a cesspool of Islamic fundamentalists and insurgents. Wasted billions and billions of dollars in the effort, when that money could have been spent in countless other places.
2.) Social Security - has made no progress whatsoever on his bold SS initiatives.
3.) Tax Reform - has made no progress on his comprehensive plans to reform our tax code.
4.) Fiscal Responsibility - FAILED MISERABLY

the list goes on and on. unless he pulls a rabbit out of his hat I don't see this presidency going anywhere. I think it's sad that Bush's crowning achievement is 9/11.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
the bottom line is this: Bush has not produced results. you can come up with any number of excuses you want, but at the end of the day all we have is failed ventures from Bush and his admin.

1.) Iraq - Failed to construct an exit strategy, have made little progress towards stopping the insurgency in the 3 years we have been there. Took out one evil dictator and replaced him with a cesspool of Islamic fundamentalists and insurgents. Wasted billions and billions of dollars in the effort, when that money could have been spent in countless other places.
2.) Social Security - has made no progress whatsoever on his bold SS initiatives.
3.) Tax Reform - has made no progress on his comprehensive plans to reform our tax code.
4.) Fiscal Responsibility - FAILED MISERABLY

the list goes on and on. unless he pulls a rabbit out of his hat I don't see this presidency going anywhere. I think it's sad that Bush's crowning achievement is 9/11.

His difficulty in passing anything is suprising given that the republicans have a golden upportunity by controlling the house and senate too.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
the bottom line is this: Bush has not produced results. you can come up with any number of excuses you want, but at the end of the day all we have is failed ventures from Bush and his admin.

1.) Iraq - Failed to construct an exit strategy, have made little progress towards stopping the insurgency in the 3 years we have been there. Took out one evil dictator and replaced him with a cesspool of Islamic fundamentalists and insurgents. Wasted billions and billions of dollars in the effort, when that money could have been spent in countless other places.
2.) Social Security - has made no progress whatsoever on his bold SS initiatives.
3.) Tax Reform - has made no progress on his comprehensive plans to reform our tax code.
4.) Fiscal Responsibility - FAILED MISERABLY

the list goes on and on. unless he pulls a rabbit out of his hat I don't see this presidency going anywhere. I think it's sad that Bush's crowning achievement is 9/11.

Your concern for Bush is noted.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

If you really believe what you just posted, it should be quite an amazing feat how Clinton balanced the budget and brought about the biggest surplus in US history. For all the right-wing bashing of Clinton, he will always be remembered fondly by the majority of Americans. Can't say the same for Bush.

Funny. His presidency is barely over half finished. You must be one of those people who calls the ballgame after the 5th inning.

even in the best case scenario, his effectiveness as president ends in 2006. he won't be able to force congress into line with his agenda when half of them are running or thinking about running to be the next president.

 

[Moonbeam]

SoG: Hardly. The deflection from the point was from you. Your "holistic" only view diverted attention away from the person making the morally repugnant statements.

M:

1 The topic of the thread was that Libby was indicted and Rove will continue to be investigated. Not much in the way of topic at all but just a factual statement. WhipperSnapper made a sarcastic remark and Corn jumped him for it and I asked Corn to look at the context. Where is the diversion and what was I diverting from? The subject as I saw it was what is morally repugnant. I think you charge diversion because you didn't like the implications and didn't land the indictment where you wanted it. If you had your way every winning argument, like mine, would be labeled a diversion from a false track and therefore only a diversion.

2 WhipperSnapper made a sarcastic remark about this White House staff. Implied in his remark, I think, is that Republicans are both big on prison,where anal rape is well known and commonly wished on despised people, and anti-gay. There is a certain abstract poetic justice that such people, if criminals, would find themselves in jail, no? It's fine for the rest of us but they never imagine it will happen to them. To see this and to find it amusing is not the same, really, as wishing it would actually happen and that was not, I think, WS's real intention. It was, I think, an emotional reaction to Republican stupidity and hypocrisy stereotypically. It was a morality judgment against bad people, no? Do you want people with horribly evil beliefs whose answer to everything is prisons to escape from the consequences of their hypocrisy if convicted. Do you not want them to suffer the same fate as any other criminal and steep in their own kind of justice. I don't, but I think Republicans would readily wish that on Democratic criminals. WS made a moral accusation against something morally repugnant. It is a wish that hypocrites eat their hypocrisy. Don't you wish that?


Society nor America doesn't change the repugnance of his statement, nor does it absolve him of responsibility. You people who only view things as "holistic" do much damage to personal responsibility when you provide people this means of escape. Where does your "holistic" view stop? Why not blame the world? Why just America? I think we all know the answer to that one.

Anyway, if you wish to discuss societal issues, then I suggest you present your argument in a thread discussing such things instead of diverting attention away from what was specifically being addressed.

SoG: Wishing for pain, death, etc these people is morally repugnant no matter how much you try to divert attention from it or attempt to provide cover for it.

M: Hehe, you are diverting from the fact that that was not the real implication of the comment. It is one you and Corn made up to get morally exercised over.

SoG: You see, there are moral absolutes in this world, but for some reason it seems there are some people like you who want to skip over that part in your so-called search for the "holistic" view.

M: Oh boy, aren't we noble. Unfortunately I am a moral absolutist too and find the state of American prisons appalling. What is worse. To condemn people who build evil institutions and promote them as solutions or to condemn people who wish that those who create them suffer their injustice? Avoiding which realization is the larger diversion?

SoG: Not everything needs that view, and this case is a good example of one that doesn't need it here. Again, if you wish to address it holisitcally, I have no problems with you attempting to make an argument, but it doesn't have a place in this thread, except for diversion.

M: Sorry but you don't determine what I will say or how it will be defined. You are free to try to twist what I say and I am free to try to untwist it again. Thanks.

SoG No, why would I be "happy"? The only one who seems to be happy is WS, despite your continued attempts to provide him cover. Irony? Give me a break. It's repugnant regardless of how you try to spin it.

M: Happy you aren't happy, but the rest is purely your opinion. WS can speak for himself but I gave what I think is more accurately his intention. I do not personally wish what he was suggesting although it is profoundly tempting, and I think that was his point. We wish all kinds of things we don't really, really mean. What we mean to do is insult. It is what Corn felt and how he too responded,,,,more insult, this time at a particular poster. I then expressed to Corn where I think a better place would be to put that anger. That insulted you and you went after me.

It is profoundly important, when seeking justice, that one be aware of ones personal motivations. It is too often about whose ox is gored.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
But I can join you on that: We all know Clinton sold military technology to China in exchange for campaign contributions. I'll let you have the treason charge on Bush if you let me have the treason charge on Clinton (and his wife). I would love to see them both put before a firing squad. Sound like a good deal to you?

If it's true, then go for it. I hated the Clintons when they were in office. They're also partially responsible for the destruction of our economy (NAFTA, mass legal and illegal immigration, foreign work visas, etc.).

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
But I can join you on that: We all know Clinton sold military technology to China in exchange for campaign contributions. I'll let you have the treason charge on Bush if you let me have the treason charge on Clinton (and his wife). I would love to see them both put before a firing squad. Sound like a good deal to you?

If it's true, then go for it. I hated the Clintons when they were in office. They're also partially responsible for the destruction of our economy (NAFTA, mass legal and illegal immigration, foreign work visas, etc.).

I second that. If its true then go for it. No one is above the law. Bush or Clinton.

 

[Moonbeam]

I for one will be hoping that Libby walks because the White House stated flat out the neither Rove or Libby were involved in the outing of a CIA agent.

If he is convicted then that claim means they lie. I just don't think I could handle that. Now let me think. Is there some story I can tell myself to lessen that impact. I've got an angle. He lied for the good of the country. Hey, this may not be so bad.

 

[JTWill]

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
Too bad if convicted he will go toa country club prison. Would be much more entertaining to see him get dropped into a real prison somewhere. With a nickname like Scooter you know he would be popular.

:thumbsup:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Apparently Libby said he was informed by the newspaper but was actually informed by Cheney.

Too bad the definition of perjury only applies to Republicans. For Democrats it is "lying under oath" and "justifiable."

Who ever said it was justifiable?

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

6 years of being Texas governor not good enough?

I guess it depends on how you look at it. Texas' constitution ensures that it has the weakest governor of any state in the Union - this was an outgrowth of the Reconstruction.

What I find troubling about President Bush (okay, ONE of the things) is that he had never really done anything of consequence with his life until middle age. He ran a series of failed businesses, until some of his father's cronies cut him in on a sweetheart deal for joint ownership of the Texas Rangers. During both his gubernatorial and presidential service, he has worked relatively very few hours, and taken generous workout breaks and vacations throughout.

Ultimately I want a leader who shows, well, leadership, and an appropriate sense of urgency toward his job. As far as I'm concerned, President Bush is a Type B personality and tends more toward followership than leadership. It seems to me President Bush is good for a lot of bluster but not a lot of performance.

Holy Mary Mother of God!

I think I agree with you! I wouldn't have until I picked up a copy of the Berliner Morgenpost, comparing the vacation time taken by six heads of state...and Bush had more vacation time than all...even Schroeder!

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I for one will be hoping that Libby walks because the White House stated flat out the neither Rove or Libby were involved in the outing of a CIA agent.

If he is convicted then that claim means they lie. I just don't think I could handle that. Now let me think. Is there some story I can tell myself to lessen that impact. I've got an angle. He lied for the good of the country. Hey, this may not be so bad.

Werd! That damn political hack Special Prosecutor and his obvious hidden agenda! Did you know he had over $38 in library fines in college? Respect for the law? Give me a break, the guys an amoral, socially deviant, near felon! And WHY, why does he hate America so! :|

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BBond
Mr. Tough Guy -- "Fitzie" -- proves to be just another in a long line of Bush administration lackies.

This is why America is in the fvcked up state it's in. Rove will skate because his attorneys met all week with the prosecutor and "helped" him determine that Rove did nothing wrong.

Bullsh!t.

Lackies will be lackies, Rove will continue to conduct what has laughingly become politics as usual in America, and America will continue to reap what Bush sews.

You people are going to wind up with exactly what you deserve but it really doesn't matter because you'll never even WTFU and realize it.

Pleasant dreams.

Tough guy Bond attacks the Prosecutor???

But I thought Rove was a sinking ship?

22 months of investigation, millions of taxpayers dollars wasted, and all we've got is a rush-rush last minute indictment to save face.