The Bobcat Nation

It cost $60 million to get Clinton in trouble back in '99, it has cost well under $1 million for Plamegate investigations and indictment. Anyone care to explain that.

kenneth star was hell bent on getting clinton at any cost.

iaafan wrote:It cost $60 million to get Clinton in trouble back in '99, it has cost well under $1 million for Plamegate investigations and indictment. Anyone care to explain that.

in that figure are you figureing in these:

1) exposing clinton jr to a subordinate in a hotel room (sexual harassment)

2) all the legal work clinton has tried to do to worm his way out of that mess

3) appeals in monicagate

4) and ect....

if star was trying to get clinton at any cost possible he had a complying clinton willing to get into trouble...

Hell's Bells wrote:in that figure are you figureing in these:

2) all the legal work clinton has tried to do to worm his way out of that mess

Now that's interesting. Instead of trying to "worm his way out," what do you think Clinton should have done in response to Whitewater / Monicagate. Not defended himself? Just laid down and died?

Should Tom Delay stop trying to "worm his way out" of the trouble he's in now as well?

iaafan wrote:It cost $60 million to get Clinton in trouble back in '99, it has cost well under $1 million for Plamegate investigations and indictment. Anyone care to explain that.

As for the explanation, here's mine: the Plamegate investigation is nowhere near over yet. I don't know if the price tag will ever get as high as the Clinton scandal was, but if we want to compare apples to apples, we should probably wait until the current situation has run its course...

Grizlaw wrote:

Hell's Bells wrote:in that figure are you figureing in these:

2) all the legal work clinton has tried to do to worm his way out of that mess

Now that's interesting. Instead of trying to "worm his way out," what do you think Clinton should have done in response to Whitewater / Monicagate. Not defended himself? Just laid down and died?

just one month....all i ask....for clinton to retire....move to the playboy mansion i here heffner would love to donate to hillpac

From the figures I mentioned above it would appear that sexual affairs are about 100 times more serious than outing a CIA agent. Sure the price tag on Plamegate may go up, but I doubt it. From what Fitzpatrick has done so far it wouldn't seem so. He basically did what we already knew re: Libby. I doubt we'll see anything 'big' revealed from this case.

iaafan wrote:From the figures I mentioned above it would appear that sexual affairs are about 100 times more serious than outing a CIA agent. Sure the price tag on Plamegate may go up, but I doubt it. From what Fitzpatrick has done so far it wouldn't seem so. He basically did what we already knew re: Libby. I doubt we'll see anything 'big' revealed from this case.

the outing of non-covert cia agents? are you serious?
she "flew a desk" for the cia

I wonder it obtaining the tail numbers of CIA planes, and tracking their movements through flight logs obtained through an undisclosed person and disclosing that information is a crime?

grizbeer wrote:I wonder it obtaining the tail numbers of CIA planes, and tracking their movements through flight logs obtained through an undisclosed person and disclosing that information is a crime?

i wonder why noone is wondering who/what/where/when leaked to the press about the existance of secret cia prisons located in eastern europe...wait before anyone answers i will answer for them...it can hurt bush


man i am glad i am tired/sarcistc today!!

Hell's Bells wrote:

iaafan wrote:From the figures I mentioned above it would appear that sexual affairs are about 100 times more serious than outing a CIA agent. Sure the price tag on Plamegate may go up, but I doubt it. From what Fitzpatrick has done so far it wouldn't seem so. He basically did what we already knew re: Libby. I doubt we'll see anything 'big' revealed from this case.

the outing of non-covert cia agents? are you serious?
she "flew a desk" for the cia

That'd be a good point if that was all she ever did. Unfortunately, Libby has put her "life" and that of anyone that she worked with in jeopardy. But, yeah, Clinton having sex with an intern is much worse.

It makes me really uneasy hearing people trying to justify the outing of a CIA agent for political purposes. Methinks that if a Democrat did something similar, same said people on TV/radio (and those who recite what they say word for word) would be making allusions to treasonous liberals and painting Democrats with broad brushes and unpatriotic terms. Now, they can't even bring themselves to admit wrongdoing of a handful of people within their own party for fear of losing some of their own power.

That kind of thing seriously bums me out. I just want a little integrity in government and within the political parties, that's all I ask. When someone within the party does something wrong, it should be their own party that chases them out instead of trying to protect them by spreading half-truths and outright lies about the messengers. If that happened more often, then maybe people wouldn't be so cynical about politics. Instead, we're stuck with two teams that are trying to win at any cost, and the well-being of America seems to be a distant after-thought.

I want the Democrats to take power again if for no other reason than that it would give them a chance to abuse power for awhile and even things out and spread out my angst more evenly between the two parties. I like most of the Republican (excluding those that are hypocritical, obviously) ideals ... it's just the Republicans themselves that seem to annoy the piss out of me.

Bay Area Cat wrote:It makes me really uneasy hearing people trying to justify the outing of a CIA agent for political purposes. Methinks that if a Democrat did something similar, same said people on TV/radio (and those who recite what they say word for word) would be making allusions to treasonous liberals and painting Democrats with broad brushes and unpatriotic terms. Now, they can't even bring themselves to admit wrongdoing of a handful of people within their own party for fear of losing some of their own power.

That kind of thing seriously bums me out. I just want a little integrity in government and within the political parties, that's all I ask. When someone within the party does something wrong, it should be their own party that chases them out instead of trying to protect them by spreading half-truths and outright lies about the messengers. If that happened more often, then maybe people wouldn't be so cynical about politics. Instead, we're stuck with two teams that are trying to win at any cost, and the well-being of America seems to be a distant after-thought.

I want the Democrats to take power again if for no other reason than that it would give them a chance to abuse power for awhile and even things out and spread out my angst more evenly between the two parties. I like most of the Republican (excluding those that are hypocritical, obviously) ideals ... it's just the Republicans themselves that seem to annoy the piss out of me.

You're damn skippy. What a novel approach....."we'll police ourselves." It seems admitting you're wrong is a sign of weakness in politics, instead of a sign of being secure. Be secure enough to admit when you're wrong. The next step is getting people to be able to forgive.

It's also possible that there's less to "PlameGate" than the media, and the Democrats in particular, think/insinuate.

'93HonoluluCat wrote:It's also possible that there's less to "PlameGate" than the media, and the Democrats in particular, think/insinuate.

To paraphrase a sports analogy, "I guess that's why they do the investigations and hold the trials."

Bay Area Cat wrote:

'93HonoluluCat wrote:It's also possible that there's less to "PlameGate" than the media, and the Democrats in particular, think/insinuate.

To paraphrase a sports analogy, "I guess that's why they do the investigations and hold the trials."

But in this case, the investigation, while still on-going, has not netted the "big fish" some (the Democrats, in particular) wanted to catch--Karl Rove. The investigation may not be uncovering as much as was found by Mr. Starr with the Clinton investigation--that is one reason why the disparity of investigative costs may exist.

I have no qualms sending any guilty party/parties to jail--"do the crime, do the time"--but let's investigate people before we call them guilty, shall we? We built a country on innocent until proven otherwise--and too many people (on both sides of the aisle) forget that.

'93HonoluluCat wrote:It's also possible that there's less to "PlameGate" than the media, and the Democrats in particular, think/insinuate.

funny thing is they charged libby with obsrtuction of justice of a crime that nobody has been charged with....

the vp's top guy is not a big fish? that's about as close as you can get to the vp. i'm enjoying libby using the ollie north "i can't remember" defense.
Reagen administration perfected it, clinton administration used it, now bush administration adopted it.

Hell's Bells wrote:

'93HonoluluCat wrote:It's also possible that there's less to "PlameGate" than the media, and the Democrats in particular, think/insinuate.

funny thing is they charged libby with obsrtuction of justice of a crime that nobody has been charged with....

Now don't start using that set of talking points ... unless you are preparing to say that the Clinton impeachment was wrong in the same breath. Consistency ... it's making things really icky for the talking heads these days. (Hint: It's about lying. That thing that was bad when it was about a blowjob, but now seemingly okay when it is about an investigation of treason).

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Hell's Bells wrote:

'93HonoluluCat wrote:It's also possible that there's less to "PlameGate" than the media, and the Democrats in particular, think/insinuate.

funny thing is they charged libby with obsrtuction of justice of a crime that nobody has been charged with....

Now don't start using that set of talking points ... unless you are preparing to say that the Clinton impeachment was wrong in the same breath. Consistency ... it's making things really icky for the talking heads these days. (Hint: It's about lying. That thing that was bad when it was about a blowjob, but now seemingly okay when it is about an investigation of treason).

BAC lets use some simple logic here

who has charged anyone *other then scooter's obstruction of justice charges* with crimes...the media

all that i had sarcistically retorted was that scooter libby was charged with trying to cover up a crime that nobody has been charged with yet

it does not take and reading of talking points to figure that one out. if there is obstruction of justice there has to be a crime and as far as you can tell by who has been charged with what there was no crime comitted