Libby Scooter belongs in Jail

[Bucky]

As we prepare for a network TV onslaught on the Scooter Libby conviction today, remember that on March 2, 2000, an aide to the Vice President was convicted of illegal funneling foreign money to Democrats, crimes that benefited the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign. Her name was Maria Hsia (pronounced like Shaw). Vice President Gore at that time was the all-but-certain Democratic nominee for president. Coverage was minimal. ABC gave it 19 seconds and CBS gave it 23 seconds. On NBC, Tom Brokaw skipped it. A few days later on the "Imus in the Morning" show, Brokaw had this telling exchange on Gore.

Imus jumped in: "He acted like he barely knew that this Maria Hsia, didn’t he? Like he was ready to drag her up out of a park someplace." Brokaw agreed: "Oh, I know, yeah, it was: ‘Did I miss that?’ It was as if he were saying, ‘Did she get convicted?’ He said, ‘It's still in the courts.’ It's no longer in the courts! The jury has ruled! Guilty! Five counts! Imus shot back: "Well, if he's watching NBC News he missed it." Brokaw conceded: "Yeah, well that's true." Imus: "And he only saw 19 seconds of it with Dan [Rather]." Brokaw: "Yeah, I know."

[Bucky]

Maria Hsia wasn't an employee of the government. She was a fund-raiser and immigration consultant. Her involvement in the campaign finance scandals got ample press in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN, long before and through her actual conviction. In any event, a vice president's chief of staff (not just a fund-raiser) lying to a grand jury and successfully obstructing an FBI investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity seem a bit more significant, don't you think? And, for good or ill, it's obviously sexier from a "news" standpoint than a campaign finance scandal since it involves questions about the motivations for entering a war we're still in.

P.S.

The "market" was up 2% today. Not even a small, insignificant headline in the liberal press. Times and perception sure was different back in 1999. Such a day on Wall Street would have warranted a full blown headline story on all major news networks.

[Bucky]

P.S.

The "market" was up 2% today. Not even a small, insignificant headline in the liberal press. Times and perception sure was different back in 1999. Such a day on Wall Street would have warranted a full blown headline story on all major news networks.

NCT, tell me....which quote is "worse". (personally, I think both are just as disgusting)


"John Edwards is a faggot"

"“I’m just saying if he did die(Dick Cheney), other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.”


One of these quotes comes from a mainstream journalist who has their own prime time show and is a champion of the "free press", and the other quote comes from a vile, angry, and racist conservative.

Take a guess who these quotes belong to.

[Spice1]

while Mahr certainly leans to the left on many issues, I have seen him call out the left for some of their misdeeds on many occasions. And yes, he is a comedian/social commentator.

[Bucky]

First of all, the market's surge yesterday got headline mention on CNN yesterday, and I suspect it got similar treatment on other mainstream networks. They talked about how it was the largest one-day increase in 18 months, or whatever it was.

Second, Bill Maher is a mainstream journalist? Are you f***ing kidding me? He's a stand-up comedian! A comedian! He's paid to make people laugh. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, is a political analyst paid by the likes of Fox News to offer political commentary. (She was too chicken to show up for her appointment with CNN this week, and advertisers are pulling out of her website.) And when she dropped that particular "f-bomb", she was being paid by a mainstream, influential conservative political conference as a lead-in to one of the GOP's leading presidential candidates.

Both were in egregiously poor taste, but there is absolutely no question which was worse. You have got to be kidding me.

And it's not really that Coulter said something vile. That's her M.O. The disgusting part is that her use of such a charged and insulting word amused her audience. It's as bad as if she made a joke about Obama and threw "nigger" out there. The people who laughed should be ashamed of themselves (I know Coulter has no shame). And you misquoted her, by the way, although you got the Maher quote right.

I'm still laughing at your characterization of Maher as a journalist, by the way. No wonder you have such a skewed vision of journalism. You don't even know what it is.

Bill Maher has his own POLITCAL show. Jon Stewart has his own POLITICAL show. Al Franken had his own POLITICAL show. They may cloak themselves as comedians, but they are just as political as Ann Coulter. Al Franken is running for the United State Senate.

So if Ann Coulter suddenly had a comedy tour, what she said would be acceptable? Maher has a free pass from the mainstream press because his idealology is more in tune with the media's than Coulter.

For a comedian, Bill Maher is a routine guest on several political shows. Bill Maher could say anything he wants, but he would never get the treatment that Ann Coulter got this weekend. Multiple hour long shows were devoted to her insane comment.



By the way. Bill Maher can joke about the Vice President being dead, and get his entire audience to feverently applause. That's ok, he's a comedian, (or he's one of us). But if a few people laugh at Ann Coulter's offhand remark about John Edwards sexuality, they should all be "ashamed" of themselves! Your hypocripsy is incredible.


I have never read any of Ann Coulter's books, but I have seen her on TV enough to know that she tries her best to be a comedian. Her comedy might not be as funny as Bill Maher, and obviously isn't alligned with your political thinking, NCT, but I am telling you that Coulter and Maher are one in the same. The only difference is that Maher is loved by his friends in the press, while Ann Coulter has been dogged by the media for years.

[HellYeahHokie]

One of these quotes comes from a mainstream journalist who has their own prime time show and is a champion of the "free press", and the other quote comes from a vile, angry, and racist conservative.
.


No, one comes not from a mainstream jounalist, but from a comedian with a political round table show, in which politically incorrect jokes are the norm. The second comes from a complete lunatic speaking at a fundraiser.

Both were wrong. But context matters.

[Don]

You can't discuss anything with him without it turning into a liberal vs conservative discussion. Unless you agree with him you are labeled a "liberal" so just move on. I've given up already. I'm guessing that it's only a matter of time before he begins labeling people who say things against OSU as "liberals".

[HellYeahHokie]

what she said would be acceptable? Maher has a free pass from the mainstream press because his idealology is more in tune with the media's than Coulter.

For a comedian, Bill Maher is a routine guest on several political shows. Bill Maher could say anything he wants, but he would never get the treatment that Ann Coulter got this weekend.


This is such a classic example of how conservatives are so convinced that the liberal media is out of control, they ignore evidence to the contrary.

You are flat wrong here Bucky. Bill Maher used to have a show on ABC (before that on Comedy Central) called "Politically Incorrect". On that show, sometime after 9-11, he made a comment about how people are calling the terrorists cowards, when in fact it takes a lot of courage to kill yourself by flying a plane into a building.

He was completely raked over the coals. His comments were the subject of every news network and outlet. Sponsors pulled their ads, and the show was cancelled.

But you can't seriously believe that people like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher have the same role as people like Ann Coulter. These are comedians with political opinions. Comedy can be edgy because its in context. Ann Coulter is a political commentator who tries to be funny (which she should stop trying to do, because she's not). When they are interviewed, they have completely different roles. Jon Stewart leans left, but so much of his show is a cry for honest political discourse, not that idiocy that comes out of people like Coulter's mouth.

[Don]

P.S.

The "market" was up 2% today. Not even a small, insignificant headline in the liberal press. Times and perception sure was different back in 1999. Such a day on Wall Street would have warranted a full blown headline story on all major news networks.


This is why it is a waste of time to argue with you. You want everyone to jump up and down because "The "market" was up 2% today.". There are so many things objections to with this statement.

First, what exactly is "the market". Are you referring to the DOW? Probably but one doesn't know. I hope you are not referring to the Nasdaq as the Nasdaq is still below the average when he took office in January 2001. Secondly, if you were referring to the DOW I must point out that at no time on March 6 was the DOW up 2% from the closing on March 5 (or the opening on March 6). The daily high on March 6 was 12,252.61 which is only 1.678% up from the previous closing. By the end of the day the DOW was at 12,207.59 or up 1.304%. Why jump up and down over a 1.304% increase? since 1933 (when the DOW finally began to come out of the Great Depression) the DOW has had 1435 days out where the increase has been higher than that. That works out one of these increases every 2 weeks. Is the media to blare the trumpets 26 times each year?

[Bucky]

I am in no way defending Ann Coulter. I am thankful that we will see less of her on TV in the future. She is a complete idiot. She said a bad joke at a bad time, and is getting roasted by the leftist press.

The list of offensive remarks Maher has made would fill 10 of these pages. In November he called President Bush a "retarted child emperor". He, Jon Stewart and Al Franken are liberal flame throwers. They are in the same class as Ann Coulter. They all try to be funny and go way over the line with their jokes. The only difference is that Stewart, Franken and Maher for the most part get a free pass from the press, because after all they are "comedians". While Coulter is a "bad comedian".

[TommyTrojan]

First of all, the market's surge yesterday got headline mention on CNN yesterday, and I suspect it got similar treatment on other mainstream networks. They talked about how it was the largest one-day increase in 18 months, or whatever it was.

Second, Bill Maher is a mainstream journalist? Are you f***ing kidding me? He's a stand-up comedian! A comedian! He's paid to make people laugh. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, is a political analyst paid by the likes of Fox News to offer political commentary. (She was too chicken to show up for her appointment with CNN this week, and advertisers are pulling out of her website.) And when she dropped that particular "f-bomb", she was being paid by a mainstream, influential conservative political conference as a lead-in to one of the GOP's leading presidential candidates.

Both were in egregiously poor taste, but there is absolutely no question which was worse. You have got to be kidding me.

And it's not really that Coulter said something vile. That's her M.O. The disgusting part is that her use of such a charged and insulting word amused her audience. It's as bad as if she made a joke about Obama and threw "nigger" out there. The people who laughed should be ashamed of themselves (I know Coulter has no shame). And you misquoted her, by the way, although you got the Maher quote right.

I'm still laughing at your characterization of Maher as a journalist, by the way. No wonder you have such a skewed vision of journalism. You don't even know what it is.

Mitt Romney praised Coulter only moments before her public slur. The context of this comment compared to Bill Maher's comments are very different given the venue where they were made.

Had Coulter made the comment in one of her books or on a Fox News show she and Bill would be equally wrong. A show that is known for politcal incorrectness vs. the biggest conservative conference of the year

[HellYeahHokie]

You are wrong about Jon Stewart. He makes fun of people who make fools of themselves, whether they be liberal or conservatives. His show tends to show more conservatives making fools of themselves. That's either because a) he is liberal, b) the conservatives are currently in power so they are front and center in the news, or c) conservaties just do more foolish things than liberals. [You believe (a). I tend to believe (b). I'm sure some lefties believe (c)]

However, Stewart will skewer the left as well when they do something stupid. He has, and will continue to make fun of idiots on the left. He is not a liberal flame thrower. A liberal flame thrower does not skewer the left any more than a conservative flame thrower like Coulter will skewer the right.

Al Franken I think is a fair comparison to Coulter, because he puts himself out there as a political commentator, more than a comedian. He just happens to be funny, where Coulter and Limbaugh aren't, despite their best efforts. But he no doubt is in the same role as Coulter. And he did take some heat from the press about titleing a book "Rush Limbagh is a Big Fat Idiot". So he's not immune.

I also think that Maher is just a flame-thrower who will also target either side, but he just feels so violated by this war and administration's lies, that he spends most of his time bashing them. He's liberal, but I think he's just more angry at things than he is left or right.

I think a fair comparison to Maher is Dennis Miller, who is now a champion for the conservative agenda. Dennis Miller gets away with some pretty edgy material, but it's all in context. He's a comediam (who is actually funny), and people know that part of his rants are schtick. He doesn't get the bad press for it.

Again, it's all context.

But if it makes you feel better that this is all the result of an out-of-control liberal media, then go ahead and believe it. What ever helps you sleep better at night.

[Bucky]

Stay in your left-wing fantasy world, please. Yesterday's guest on Maher's "comedy" show were: Major General Paul D. Eaton (Ret.), Dana Milbank who is the head politcal writer for the Washington Post, and former Special Assistant to the President David Kuo.


Moveon.org might be convinved that it is just a "comedy hour", but Bill Maher is a leading liberal commentator.
He is just as political, and just as nasty as Ann Coulter. Lucky for Maher, he has all of the lefties in the press, and devout lefties like you, NCT and Doc to cover his ass when he goes over the top.

So please, if it makes you sleep at night, keep believing that Maher and the like are just comedians offering a few witty jokes every night.




Here's a great bit from Maher on Friday night. Please I would like to hear the Maher appologists comment on this one:


"The Republican Party, besides Rudy Giuliani, Bush likes to dress up. He likes to be a cowboy, or Iceman from “Top Gun.” And they have something very gay, excuse me, going on with Ronald Reagan. I mean, they love Ronald Reagan in a way that’s just gay. I’m sorry. But, I think they want to put him on a stamp so that they can lick his backside."

[EvilVodka]

Stay in your left-wing fantasy world, please. Yesterday's guest on Maher's "comedy" show were: Major General Paul D. Eaton (Ret.), Dana Milbank who is the head politcal writer for the Washington Post, and former Special Assistant to the President David Kuo.


Moveon.org might be convinved that it is just a "comedy hour", but Bill Maher is a leading liberal commentator.
He is just as political, and just as nasty as Ann Coulter. Lucky for Maher, he has all of the lefties in the press, and devout lefties like you, NCT and Doc to cover his ass when he goes over the top.

So please, if it makes you sleep at night, keep believing that Maher and the like are just comedians offering a few witty jokes every night.


Here's a great bit from Maher on Friday night. Please I would like to hear the Maher appologists comment on this one:


"The Republican Party, besides Rudy Giuliani, Bush likes to dress up. He likes to be a cowboy, or Iceman from “Top Gun.” And they have something very gay, excuse me, going on with Ronald Reagan. I mean, they love Ronald Reagan in a way that’s just gay. I’m sorry. But, I think they want to put him on a stamp so that they can lick his backside."

If you're so offended by Maher, why are you watching him?
Relax and change the channel, politics isn't worth having a heart attack over

[Bucky]

Here's a comment: Bucky, you get the I-refuse-to-get-it-but-keep-insisting-someone-explain-it-to-me award. I'm tired of spoon-feeding.

2 weeks after Coulter's slur and the buzz hasn't died down. Yahoo.com still has her as a front page, headline story.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070311/ap_en_tv/ap_on_tv_ann_coulter


Please NCT, I need some spoon feeding. How is this still a story?

[Scarlet Hayes]

Just a few general comments/observations.

1. Ann Coulter has been doing this "what's good for the goose..." schtick for close to 10 years now. What I find funny is that it seems to be lost on so many people--especially those on the left. i.e. SHE'S DOING THE EXACT SAME THING THE LEFT HAS BEEN DOING TO THE RIGHT FOR EONS now. Yes she is shrill. Welcome to the party, liberals.

2. I read Bill Maher's quote and heard the recording. I'm sorry, but it didn't shock or disgust me at all. Seriously, I didn't hear anything that sounded like a wicked wish of death onto someone. I just heard a guy making what he believed to be a pretty cut and dried observation. Maybe I need to listen to it again, but it didn't really send shock waves of disgust through me. Bill Maher is a liberal that has the opinion that Cheney is one or THE driving force of our Iraq policy. Like any other movement, if its leader is gone maybe the movement/policy goes with him. Just a "politically incorrect" statement IMO. Nothing wrong with that. Let's not cry wolf everytime someone says something we strongly disagree with. Not singling you out Bucky. I've heard many others say the same.

The bottom line on Maher, for me anyway, is that the comments didn't seem as viscious or as personal as Coulter's. Maher seemed to be making more of an observation/playing devil's advocate than anything else. That's how I see it anyway.

As for Coulter's remarks being mean spirited and personal. They were. But the f-word itself didn't bother me personally. I could care less either way.

[Bucky]

Hm... Maybe because Yahoo News carries her column and wants to keep interest up so it can make more money. Maybe it's because lots of people in this country were sufficiently outraged by her recent statement, considering it a "last straw" that they want to make their point and keep talking about it. For example, dozens of companies have pulled advertising from her website. Maybe it's because she's still out there spewing bile in her syndicated column and lots of people are still sick of her.



Excellent points.

Coulter is on the wrong side of the debate. If only she consistently attacked Republican's with death wishes and anti-gay slurs. If only she had her own political television program. If only she was a regular commentator on the main stream networks that attacked Republicans and not Democrats......if only.....maybe then there wouldn't be so much backlash against her incredibily stupid remarks.




"The Republican Party, besides Rudy Giuliani, Bush likes to dress up. He likes to be a cowboy, or Iceman from “Top Gun.” And they have something very gay, excuse me, going on with Ronald Reagan. I mean, they love Ronald Reagan in a way that’s just gay. I’m sorry. But, I think they want to put him on a stamp so that they can lick his backside."

- Bill Maher 3/8/2007

[Scarlet Hayes]

"The Republican Party, besides Rudy Giuliani, Bush likes to dress up. He likes to be a cowboy, or Iceman from “Top Gun.” And they have something very gay, excuse me, going on with Ronald Reagan. I mean, they love Ronald Reagan in a way that’s just gay. I’m sorry. But, I think they want to put him on a stamp so that they can lick his backside."

- Bill Maher 3/8/2007


Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the type of stuff that spawned the Ann Coulter schtick that we all know and love. This is the type of stuff that went unchecked for DECADES. Again, welcome to the club my liberal friends. :D

[Bucky]

I appreciate that attacks from both sides get vicious in the name of comedy, or comedic in the name of viciousness (chicken or egg). I readily admit that I am less troubled by Maher's comments because I find him, generally, funnierand yes, I find his politics more agreeable.




Finally!!

No more spoon feeding.


Maher's politics are much more agreable to the main stream press. That has been my only point this entire time.

Both Coulter and Maher are total jackasses who do not help facilitate the solving of problems in the country in any way, shape, or form.

[Bucky]

That's fine, as far as it goes. But conservative politicians and pundits gave Maher a pass while condemning Coulter. That's conservative voices, not the mainstream press. So I guess Michelle Malkin is left-leaning now.

(To be fair, Malkin just wants Coulter's job. It's a bitch-eat-bitch world out there among the right-wingers.)



Mr. Maher was a political guest on Larry King Live tonight... The guy is a political activist who hides behind a comedian shell. He is a leading liberal commentator. One of the favorites of all the liberal pundits on CNN, CBS, MSNBC, etc.


Are you really comparing Michelle Makin to CNN and CBS etc. etc. ??????
98% of Americans have no idea who Michelle Makin is....surely you can do better than that.

[Bucky]

"ABC's World News separated itself from the media pack Thursday night. Though ABC's coverage was keyed to how e-mails supposedly show that Karl Rove was at “the center” of early 2005 discussions about replacing all 93 U.S. attorneys, anchor Charles Gibson pointed out how “these U.S. attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them at any time. So did anything really get done that was wrong?” Jan Crawford Greenburg answered, in a broadcast network evening newscast first, by informing viewers of how “President Clinton, in fact, fired all the U.S. attorneys when he came into office from the previous Republican administration.”

Meanwhile, NBC and CBS continued the obsession on the story for the third night in a row. NBC Nightly News anchor Campbell Brown breathlessly teased her lead, “The prosecutor purge: Did the idea of firing all U.S. Attorneys start with inner circle adviser Karl Rove? If so, what now?” The CBS Evening News led with two stories on the subject, starting with Jim Axelrod on Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher's call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign. Next, Bob Orr looked at how Gonzales “was tangled in controversy" before becoming AG. “As the President's chief lawyer, Gonzales sanctioned the widespread use of warrant-less wiretaps,”Orr thundered, thus “allowing the government to snoop on Americans without court orders.” Plus, “he also approved the so-called 'torture memo'” and “under Bush-Gonzales policies, prisoners were allowed to be held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay with no access to U.S. courts,” policies reflecting an “attitude,” Georgetown law professor David Cole charged, in Orr's words, which “led directly to the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.”



NCT fire away...let's hear the liberal MSM talking points.....

[Scarlet Hayes]

Remember when Clinton lied about his affair with Lewinsky because he didn't want to be judged on the truth of it? That was wrong. Lying about policy and personnel decisions has to be at least as bad as lying about a bj, doesn't it?


I have recently radically changed my opinion of the Clinton matter. I also admit to really never knowing what the hell was really ever going on. I mean, I know Starr was going after him for all sorts of crap (WhiteWater, et,al..), but.....why on God's green Earth did Starr continue an investigation that culminated with a lie about a BJ????

You lawyers feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

So after Starr concluded with a Clinton lie under oath, was congress pretty much duty-bound to proceed with impeachment hearings? Or was there a vote involved?

Now that a lot of time has gone by, I really wish Starr would've dropped his case after his investigation led him to where it ended up. If that's the best you can come up with, it's time to let it go.

Am I historically accurate here, or did I fill in with spin or leave some major stuff out?

I guess the main reason I felt like rehasing the impeachment situation was that it really sounds a lot like what's now commonly referred to as a "process crime." Did we really impeach Clinton for a process crime? Again, feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

[JamesHowell]

After 20 years of the Bush/Clinton/Bush administration, it is time for a breathe of fresh air - although not officially running (yet), I think that fresh air may come in the guise of Fred Thompson. Seems to be an increasing rumble in that direction. If Thompson, doesn't run, Rudy likely wins the general election. If Thompson runs, he destroys the competition in both the primary and general - everyone else running looks like intellectual midgets next to Fred. He is charismatic, intelligent, and articulate, but in a folksy kind of way. And he appears to be right on all of the issues.

[HellYeahHokie]

The answer to that question is pretty obvious. Ken Starr couldn't convict Clinton on Whitewater, so he looked for anything he could to pin on him. Why did he keep on digging when he failed to find anything about Whitewater? I think you know the reason. Politics is a dirty business. And one side will do whatever it can to bring down the other. (Dems too).

The Clintons may or may not have been involved in improper dealings with Whitewater, but it became clear that Ken Starr was in witchhunt mode after failing to get a Whitewater conviction. Linda Tripp, who also hated the President, decided to turn over Lewinski to Starr. The rest is history. Clinton lied under oath about a BJ, and he got impeached because of it.

It's really quite pathetic. I understand that politics is dirty, but I don't think you mess with someone's personal life (unless they are doing something illegal). But when someone is lying about something actually related to the United States, that's impeachable. Reagan lying about Iran-Contra was an unbelievable violation. Reagan's administration violated the Constitution of the United States, and stooges like Ollie North were considered heros by the right. Clinton lies about an extra-marital affair that has nothing to do with the United States, and these same folks who consider North and Reagan heros for thier acts, have the nerve to villify Clinton for his lie. Hypocritical isn't enough to describe that. It's absurd.

[Scarlet Hayes]

Let's make sure we keep everything in historical context. A lot of/most of this witch hunt culture derived from the salivating, "get Nixon" crowd. Holdovers from that same crowd tried to get Reagan, who had the audacity to take on communism in South America (side note/rant/my understanding of the situation: a LOT of our liberal politicians were deeply in bed with South American communists. some even got together to write an apologetic note to, who was it, Ortega? Apologizing for the "misguided" Reagan administration. as for the details of Iran-Contra? This was 1986/87, I was 18/19. The closest I got to politics was chasing tail. To this day I couldn't tell you exactly what all the hubub was about.). Eventually everything came full circle and we had this misguided impeachment of Clinton.

Now, let's not go over the deep end and make it seem like Clinton was just a boy scout minding his own business. When a president behaves as recklessly as Clinton did, he opens himself up to, among other things, blackmail--which of course could compromise so many facets of American policy that it had to be taken seriously. But that said, Starr, and our congress at the time, are you guys serious??????? The Lewinsky matter could've been dealt with in a grown-up manner. I admit to salivating at the prospect of a destroyed Clinton presidency, but, viewing this years later, that was idiotic and never should've happened.

switching gears now, I'm definitely intrigued by the prospect of a Thompson run for president. the only problem is that he could really fracture support for a Rudy ticket if he (Thompson) decided to run as an independent. America can't afford the cast of clowns the dems have lined up for us. These are serious times. We can't afford misguided kids in the White House.

[HellYeahHokie]

prepare yourself for the mudslinging over his personal life. Though I think it will come from the right more than the left, because Rudy is pro-choice and has a pro-gun control background. That isn't going to fly among the right wing that controls the party.

And you are right about the genesis of the presidential digging starting with Nixon. Suddenly every reporter wants to be the next Woodruff and Bernstein. Nevertheless, what Nixon did and what Regan did were clearly illegal activites related to their position as POTUS. I wasn't any older than you, but I remember enough of the details of Iran-Contra (and I was far more conservative in those days). North et.al circumvented Congress (a violation of the Constitution) to secretly divert arms. I clearly remember Reagan giving TV appearances ensuring the American people that NO arms were traded for hostages....then when that lie was exposed, he came on again and looked the camera in the eye and said ~'small amounts of non-combat gear was sent' (general paraphrase). Another bold-faced lie. And just as much of a lie as Clinton staring in the camera and saying "I didn't have sex with that woman", though the context was considerably more serious, if you ask me.

[Scarlet Hayes]

yeah there's no doubt the context (of his lie), itself, was ridiculous involving Clinton. And I really think the 2 parties have both displayed utter contempt for American voters when they pull these impeachment games. I also believe that by the end of iran contra and hearing after hearing conducted by the dems (remember Clarence Thomas?) the Repubs were smelling blood with Clinton.


As a conservative, I remember being whipped into a frenzy over clinton. The hate for him was borderline irrational. Now we have THE EXACT SAME THING GOING ON WITH BUSH. We now have a political environment where half the country thinks the president is the enemy, not the terrorists. It's really sickening.

As I'm sitting here, I just watched IU blow a great comeback vs the Bruins. Bad coaching by Sampson right at the end. His kids looked shell-shocked by UCLA's press.