More News That’s No Surprise
Once again a prominant politician gets a pass on prosecution. The SOB committed a federal offense by participating in illegal interstate commerce - he made arraignments in NY to provide his skinny ass with a hooker in DC.
That’s the way to promulgate respect for the law among us peons.
Posted by sig94
11/07/2008 at 10:17 PM
I be wondrin how many of them IRS and FBI guys got the service they required to come up with nothing illegal about his doings?,,Hmmmmmm
Eliot made a mistake, and he resigned from his position. Punishment was handed out. If people are going to make such a huge deal out of a man getting his dick wet… one has to ask.... how about getting thousands killed in an illegal war? All crime is wrong, but some are far worse than others. Ever wonder what a Democratic President and Democratic controlled congress might do if the notion is pursued to find wrong doing with the Iraq war prelude? It will make that dick wetting look like nothing.
Illegal in precisely what manner? Please be specific.
Grumpy,
There was I time not all that long ago when I (and most Americans) believed that a time to kick some ass was upon us. The fight we took to the Taliban for not giving up Bin Laden was just, and nobody I know had any problems with it. The fight we took to Iraq was and is unjustified by many Americans today. I remember the tanks lined up on the border to Iraq long before any bombing began and though to myself, wow, it really does not matter what the inspectors find in Iraq, we are going in there. This is probably the biggest part of what I am talking about, the tone was set and I could see it was gonna happen even before the knowledge of weapons of mass destruction was determined, and any link to Al Queda was proved. I think Sadam Hussein was a nasty guy, and in that part of the world, that is what it takes to keep order. But if we are to take out every leader that suppresses its people to hold control, than we are certainly out of minds, we know this can not be done. Now we all know shit flows downhill and information handed to the president from supposed intelligence (sometimes ignorance) agencies was not as accurate as it should have been. It was still the decision of the President to attack Iraq. What I think is going to happen is that when Bush gets out of the way here soon, a order will be given to investigate just what this information was and if it was conclusive enough for a decision to be made as to invade Iraq and take the lives of so many, not to mention our soldiers.
The fact that we still have not gotten the guy (Bin Laden) that we all think was responsible for the attack on American soil (9-11) is just unbelievable! Yet we have killed thousands and thousands of Iraq citizens for what, they did not have anything to do with 9-11. I actually believe that if we wanted to go over and make a point of kicking some ass for the events of 9-11, that Iran would have been a better target for the Beirut bombing and killing of our Marines. I don’t think that I am mistaken when I suggest Iran funded the group that did this, and they also are funding the Palestinians aren’t they (Hammas)? Or how about all the materials used for the resistance in Iraq to blow up and kill our soldiers there. When you consider the fact that the Iran-Iraq war killed over a million people (that’s right...they seem to have no problem killing each other) and this was not long ago either, I do not believe that we will ever sustain a peace in this region under American Democracy.wow, it really does not matter what the inspectors find in Iraq, we are going in there.
On that one note you are correct, Late. We invaded Iraq because of their non-compliance with the treaty from 1991. The WMD thing was an ancillary reason. The war was completely justified in that we were carrying out the words explicit in the UN treaty and umpteen UN resolutions passed in the interim, even if the UN itself would not carry out their own threats. We later found out that their reason was because they were all bought off by Saddam. “Regime change” was US policy for Iraq laid down by Bill Clinton. Was Iraq’s non-compliance an excuse, when the US was looking to beat up on some country? Could be, but that’s really a side issue to my point. OTOH, extensive research has shown that Saddam was supporting terrorism but being very sly and sub-rosa about it.
My point is that the progressive media, the MSM, seized on the WMD angle to the exclusion of every other bit of reason, and has harped on that every since. Do not be fooled by their deliberate obfuscation. This is the same root lie that lead to “Bush lied!!!!” in regards to a short sentence in a speech he gave. The “lie” was him reading that he had been told that UK intelligence had been told that Saddam had WMD. That is not a lie. At the very worst he and they was misinformed, as was the rest of the entire world, and even probably Saddam himself. Both of these false beliefs (Iraq was only about WMD, and Bush Lied!!) have been hammered into everyone’s brain by the ultra-left media running dogs. Neither are at all true. Oh, and since we can’t just invade a country overnight, they knew we were coming. Recall the satellite pictures of Russian truck convoys streaming over the Syrian border just before the invasion. If Saddam had WMD it is very likely that they were sent over to the Bekka valley in Syria, where another B’aath party is running the show. That’s another bit that everyone turns themselves inside out to ignore.
Drew,I think you need to let lateforwork2 know that this thread was about spitzer,Not the Iraq war meme. Stay on point LFW. Stop drinking the koolaid .
lateforwork, even if every tiniest bit of what you posted is true (not saying it is or isn’t), none of it answers the question. Bill Clinton allowed the sale of missile technology to the Chinese, too. The only reason he wasn’t stood against a wall and shot for that is because, regardless of how you feel about how (wrong, immoral, unethical, treasonous, pick yer adjective here_________) it all was, the fact remains no one was able to PROVE *what laws had been broken by Bill Clinton*.
That’s what I meant when I said “be specific”. Politicians all over, in both US parties and doubtless all over the world and throughout history, are known for their ability to tapdance around the letter of the law. What you have posted says a lot of things: Ill-informed, looking for any excuse, suckered by poor intel, deceptive in how he got the American people to go for it… but ‘looking for any excuse’ is a judgment of his motivation that can’t under any circumstances ever be more than a guess, and the other 3.... well, that’s EVERY leader going to war, is it not? Look at Bosnia or Somalia and tell me how the same labels could not just as easily be applied. Or ANY war, for that matter.And regardless, none of the above, nor all of them put together, show any evidence of *breaking any laws* so far as I can see. If the line hadn’t been drawn between “it’s just wrong” and “it’s ILLEGAL”, Bill Clinton would never have made it through his first 6 months as President, much less 8 years.
And why is the line drawn *there*? Because breaking laws is objective, it can be proven. “Immoral”, “wrong”, “ill-advised”, “unethical”, and all those other loaded adjectives are subjective, they are nothing but expressions of the observer’s personal prejudices. No matter how many of us agree that something is “wrong”, there is no way to objectively PROVE it.
If Congress tries to start basing impeachment, war crimes trials, etc. on such subjective criteria, they are inviting a system whereby the only thing difference between Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama as leaders and the same people as traitors is the personal prejudices and agendae of those accusing and defending, and the ever changing blend of prejudice and sloppy thinking that is modern political thinking.Be careful what you wish for.
I’ll tell you what I wish for Grumpy, I wish this was not true:
People killed by firearms in USA:
35,000 are killed each year in the USA and about 100,00 are injured.I think you, earlier, in a post said you can see why a lot of conflicts come to death by firearms.
When people feel wronged and can not find justice any other way, the act of violence is sometimes the only means that they have left. Sad but very true!
"When people feel wronged and can not find justice any other way, the act of violence is sometimes the only means that they have left. Sad but very true!”
Exactly, late. And which makes such responses more likely? A system of laws, where everyone is judged according to the same rules, those rules are written down and anyone can read and find out what they are?
Or a system of guidelines and ideologies, where your livelihood and your freedom are dependent on the heart and empathy of those adjudicating?The hardware doesn’t matter. If we are wearing loincloths and wielding rocks, there still *cannot* be any peace so long as the majority of people don’t see any difference between justice and revenge.
