They are the epitomy of hypocracy, that's why. They don't care about Clinton and wanted to see him hanged, but if it's one of their own....OH WATCH OUT! HERE COMES THE WRATH!
At least Clinton didn't commit treason. Outting a CIA operative is treasonous, especially for the reasoning behind it.
2007-03-09 01:14:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Groovy 6
·
4⤊
2⤋
I am a Republican, have been registered as such since 1982, and have voted in every election...
I don't want Mr. Libby pardoned, I don't want his sentence commuted, nor do I want any sentence reduced. He did a crime, now he must do his time.
I shed no tears for former Representative Duke Cunningham either.
What I DO get annoyed with is those who claim that President Clinton didn't COMMIT a crime... he DID, Perjury, (and technically Adultry under the UCMJ), but was simply never TRIED for his crime as a matter of political expediency.
2007-03-09 09:32:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by mariner31 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Actually, there isn't even a comparison between Libby's perjury and Clinton's.
Clinton lied about a sexual act, a very personal and private thing that is nobody else's business.
Libby lied in order to stimy an investigation into treason. Treason is every American's business.
2007-03-09 09:38:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by Vernon 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think a better question would be 'why do left wingers think Libby is treasonous for committing perjury about what conversation he had with what reporter and when, when they didn't want clinton to even go to trial for purposely committing perjury and also suborning perjury just to hide a sexual indiscretion?"
2007-03-09 17:27:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by dsl67 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
It's not the same, Clinton wasn't convicted of any crime.
Also, right winger feel it is okay to bread the law if you are a republican. Hypocrites.
2007-03-09 09:17:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Maybe they just want to follow the example set by the Democrats in Congress after Clinton was impeached... They ran outside and held a "rally" for their man. Celebrating the fact that he was a scumbag.
2007-03-09 09:15:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋
it's part of that whole "don't do as i do, do as i tell you-OR ELSE!" mentality that allows them to accept as a folk hero a gay porn star, accept tens of thousands of dollars from the porn industry, have an IM'ing underage boy-stalking perv as their point man for protecting kids from internet porn, hold up as leading lights in their media efforts a drug addict (who, in between filling 'scrips loves to talk tough about drug criminals), a sexual harassing sicko who, when not dreaming about being someone's loofah or drooling and panting over the phone to his 'stalkee' makes up 'news' items out of the clear blue sky to support his agenda, a twisted freak of undetermined gender who, when not publicly hanging all over the aforementioned gay porn star, is babbling incoherently about the widows of 9/11 victims and f@@@ots...
2007-03-11 19:54:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by spike missing debra m 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
our guy is a repub,therefore we want him out...your guy is a lying sneaky pedophile womanizer...we want his head
2007-03-09 09:14:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋