If Libby had not been hauled in for questioning, who would have been indicted? And for what? This doesn't mean he has not committed a crime, it just is kind of ironic that the crime is a result of the investigation process, not a result of anything that was actually being investigated.
And then there's the Incredible BomToszr mind-reading trick revealing what the Left's thinking. Worked as well as it always has, but I don't have time to write pages of corrections.
"Just speaking for yourself" is right. If you think you're typical of the bilious hatestream that's been running across my screen for the past few months, you're mistaken. There are leftists out there who approached psychosis in their lust to have Fitzgerald clear out the entire White House with SWAT teams. You might be content with the outcome, but you can bet they're not, and like Lindy, most of them are retreating into the fantasy of "wait until NEXT Fitzmas."
Flame » in reply to "there would have been no crime"?
I think you may have missed the point.
The whole thread (34 posts)
- Twas the Night Before Fitzmas...
- Wait for it. (n/t)
- Waited, waited, waited, opened, saw. Happy. (n/t)
- You know, with this general a statement...
- I told you so (n/t)
- re: You know, with this general a statement...
- If Libby hadn't lied, there might be PROOF of a crime
- So you are saying, then, that the Clinton impeachment was unfair? (n/t)
- Shall we now speak of "moral relativism"?
- "If the investigation had never taken place, there would have been no crime."
- "there would have been no crime"?
- " If the investigation had never taken place, there would have been no crime"
- Wait for it. (n/t)