Nice dodge. You’ll have your black belt in lawyer-fu in no time!
This is not a dodge. My accusation was hypocrisy; you responded with disbelief and suggested it was I being hypocritical. Since the entire thrust of my point is that I am treating both “friends” and “enemies” precisely the same, while your crowd is denying that Clinton committed perjury while sceaming that Gonzales did.
I have said before, and will repeat here again, that Clinton’s perjury was appropriately punished by his loss of his law license, and that Libby’s was appropriately punished by a prison sentence, so yes, obviously I recognize a difference in the seriousness of the subject matter.
But I also recognize that both men committed perjury, because I am willing to apply the same standards to each. You are not. You claim that you are. That makes you a hypocrite.
“The same standards” meaning “wasn’t charged” equals “convicted and sentenced”"? :dubious:
Even your trademark technicalityspeak doesn’t permit that much stretch to reach a tu quoque.
Come on now. You’re not fooling anybody but yourself, and probably not even yourself either.
Wait. Clinton voluntarily surrended his law license (and paid a fine) as part of a agreement with the prosecutor. The question of his guilt in the matter is irrelevant.
Just how many liberals can you find that say that Clinton shouldn’t have lost his law license? Is there even one? I think it’s more likely that you’re just assuming that we hold a position that we actually don’t, in order to confirm your own bias against us.
Just look at it logically, here. You disagree with liberal politics. You also find liberals personally distasteful, implying that they’re more hypocritical than conservatives. Do you suppose that one has a connection to the other? Do you honestly believe that one’s political beliefs align with their likelihood of hypocrisy?
Gonzales is being confronted for his role what looks likely to be the most devious and dangerous federal government scandal since the Grant admin, and you’re pointing out that we’re all hypocrites for being more angry about this than we were about Lewinsky. How in the world does that make sense? Why the hell isn’t EVERYONE up in arms about this?
Because, if a Democrat had done the exact thing it would have been worse.
Q.E.D.
(duh)
-Joe
How many can I find that say Clinton did not commit perjury? There’s at least one is this thread. I’ve talked to many more, both here and in real life.
Who said I find liberals personally distasteful?? I said: “It perfectly exemplifies the hypocrisy that I believe permeates a certain slice of the left here.” I wasn’t smearing all liberals, nor even all liberals here.
I freely admit that hypocrisy may be found in somewhat equal measure on both sides of the aisle, perhaps even in larger measure on the right, simply because the right seems to include more people willing to offer opinions about how others should lead their lives.
But when a poster here twists, turns, bends, and leaps to deny the basic and obvious fact that Clinton lied under oath, we could assume he’s either very forgiving about perjury or very hypertechnical. Nothing wrong with that. When the same poster opines that Gonzales is a perjurer, though… what’s left but an accusation of hypocrisy?
Again, where do you get “we’re all” hypocrites? If you don’t balk at the proposition that Clinton perjured himself, then you’re no hypocrite. If you maintain that Clinton didn’t perjury himself – and NEITHER DID GONZALES – then you’re no hypocrite.
But if you maintain that Clinton didn’t and Gonzales did…
(“It almost seems pathological.” – Chuck Schumer)
It’s not a set of Articles of Impeachment, just a preliminary step, calling on the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether AGAG should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Uh oh, looks like Gonzo got thekiss of death:
Remember when Cheney was the last guy supporting Rumsfeld? Cheney is like that cat in the nursing home.
ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease!
[quote-Bricker]
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3348429&postcount=23)
So what happened in the meanwhile? Besides the appearance of something else a Clinton-did-it-too was needed for, that is?
:dubious: Not in the Justice Department! The very existence of a secret program there (not Abscam secret, but Black Ops secret) would be reasonable grounds for suspicion of an impeachable offense, if not an impeachable offense in its own right! Remember COINTELPRO?! That thing for which Hoover should have been crucified?
Universe, I know I haven’t been a very good pantheist…
Secret NSA programs. I don’t know if that’s considered part of the Justice Dept. or not.
It isn’t. It’s part of the Defense Department.
Gonzales to senators: ‘I may have created confusion’:
If Gonzales confused all those who are knowledgeable about the NSA activities, what did he do to the rest of us?
I can’t think of a good or honorable reason for giving that type of testimony. Can anyone?
National Intelligence Director Mitch McConnell now is defending Gonzalez – saying he did not lie, and confusion arose about his words simply because, since Bush’s secret executive order in late 2001, there are many secret surveillance programs other than the one whose existence has been disclosed.
How reassuring.
Dude, what do you think the NSA does-- sell Girl Scout Cookies?
At any rate, considerably more than it did before 2001 – but we don’t know exactly what.