Oct
30
30
Is that a bad thing?
On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece bearing this headline:
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn’t committed.
Reminds us of the headline of their op-ed piece during the Clinton years:
Clinton is charged with lying about something that isn’t a crime.
Oh, wait.
mdh?tter said,
October 30, 2005 at 17:53
but she was jewish!?! Are you sure there’s no law against that?
mdh?tter said,
October 30, 2005 at 17:53
insofar as he was baptist, of course
a.j. said,
October 30, 2005 at 18:25
yeah the republican talking point of the moment is “libby is not charged with the underlying crime but with lying and covering up the crime (which may or may not have actually been committed).” makes perfect sense…
then again, if there was no crime, then WHAT THE FUCK WAS HE LYING FOR??
Jillian said,
October 30, 2005 at 18:44
Rut roh…..
Looks like Pharyngula is beating you to the good stuff at Renew America today.
Are you going to take that lying down?
Brad R. said,
October 30, 2005 at 18:48
PZ can take Renew America on Sundays if he wants. I’ve got too much football to watch.
Pinko Punko said,
October 30, 2005 at 19:33
That Renew America article was so bad your head would have exploded. I was looking for the guy’s e-mail so Three Bulls! could call him a ****ing cobag. We would just be DYING for the column that claimed “ad hominem” attack. Au contraire, mon frere, if every single utterance out of your mouth is mind-bleedingly insane, that makes you a ****ing cobag. The appellation is a factual description not a subjective attack.
tigrismus said,
October 30, 2005 at 20:03
The Left is terrified of a thinking conservative’s powers of reason
I’ve seen stronger evidence for the existence of leprechauns. Creepy, unnerving, bloodcurdlingly terrifying leprechauns… *shudder*
a.j. said,
October 30, 2005 at 20:59
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9865902/site/newsweek/
and msnbc informs us that the bush white house is now “flying blind” after the myers & libby situations…as if for the past five years there has been competent, rational leadership in the executive branch and only problems of this magnitude can throw such a steady ship off its path…sheesh.
Brad R. said,
October 30, 2005 at 21:05
I’ve seen stronger evidence for the existence of leprechauns
Aye, laddy- Michael Gaynor.
Hey AJ are you still a Lions fan? Or have you finally given up? (Though to be fair, they’ve been OK this year.)
a,j, said,
October 30, 2005 at 21:32
eh, i still like em for sentimental, barry sanders related reasons, but i don’t really follow them closely. if they win, cool. more of an eagles fan now…of course, the french know about as much about football as they do about prevailing in armed conflict, so i’m pretty much out of the loop altogether over here.
melior in France said,
October 30, 2005 at 21:35
This calls to mind the classic Sherlock Holmes story, The Adventure of Silver Blaze, and the dog who did not bark.
Inspector Gregory:
“Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.
Brad R. said,
October 30, 2005 at 21:39
more of an eagles fan now
Yeah, me too when they’re not playing the Pats. I also like the Steelers and the Giants.
aaron said,
October 30, 2005 at 21:41
Hey a,j, ever hear of a guy named Napoleon?
melior in France said,
October 30, 2005 at 22:00
Yeah a.j., remember that class called ‘history’ that you slept through?
You must have missed the story of how
(before you were born, likely) those wimpy French military forces already had their own version of the Bush Manly-Man Iraq Debacle(TM), complete with quadrillage, mobile hit-and-run anti-insurgency ops campaigns, bombing civilians in villages in order to save them, and yes, even the most manliest of all: torturing of prisoners! Muslims, no less!
Those damn French may just not be ready for a second helping of quagmire just yet. Wimps.
a.j. said,
October 30, 2005 at 22:16
guys, it was a joke. i’m studying here in paris. i’m on your side. relax.
and thanks a ton for the quickie history lesson buddy….je suis americain mais je ne suis pas stupide. (note to self…never mock the french on brad’s blog…)
p.s. brad, i still hate the pats. grr..
Sadly, No! said,
October 30, 2005 at 22:38
Le blog de Brad? Malheureusement, non!
a.j. said,
October 30, 2005 at 22:41
ok. ok. on “sadly,no!”
mea culpa.
Dan Someone said,
October 30, 2005 at 22:58
Let’s not back down too quickly on the whole dissing the French thing, guys. Sure, they may have been great militarily when Napoleon was around… but even then they knew nothing from football! So a.j.’s point is perfectly valid, and you guys owe him an apology. Or an appeasement.
Sadly, No! said,
October 30, 2005 at 23:11
Or a good old oil for food bribe at least.
GuinnessGuy said,
October 30, 2005 at 23:54
Or an under the table deal in some Iraqi Reconstruction contracts.
(Daaaa Bears! We’re above .500 for once and, incidently, on top of our shitty division, w00t!1!!1!)
Hysterical Woman said,
October 31, 2005 at 0:43
Napolean was Italian. I win this thread!
GuinnessGuy said,
October 31, 2005 at 0:51
He was Corsican. Ethnic differances aside, he was a French citizen, and therefore the French have as much right to count him as we have to count John Paul Jones.
Call it a draw- the case can be made either way :)
Hoosier X said,
October 31, 2005 at 1:35
I thought Napolean was a kind of ice cream. (And I always wondered why it was spelled N-E-A-P-O-L-I-T-A-N. Just one of those mysteries of my youth.)
Beth said,
October 31, 2005 at 1:42
What I’ve learned from the WSJ:
1. If a prosecutor investigating a possible crime says that further investigation is needed, that means no crime was committed.
2. If you ever find yourself under investigation by a grand jury, you should try to impede their progress any way can (lie, destroy evidence, beat up the prosecutor, kill a few witnesses, hell, burn down the courtroom if that’s what it takes). If you succed in running out the clock, you will be completely exonerated of the original charges, and that means your “delaying techniques” shouldn’t count as crimes either.
3. If you ever find yourself investigating a crime involving politicians, whatever you do, don’t indict anyone. That would be “criminalizing politics,” which is a very, very, very bad thing.
4. “Perjury” is a useless concept because there’s no way to ever really know whether someone was lying.
5. The perjury indictment against Libby is especially tenuous. It’s really just a classic case of he-said-three-other-people-said.
Anonymous said,
October 31, 2005 at 3:07
I recall no such conservative grumbling about “lying about a crime that was not committed” when Martha Stewart was sentenced. No one every said that Stewart had been an inside trader, only that she lied to investigators. Seems awfully familiar.
Marq said,
October 31, 2005 at 3:22
Mmmm, delicious, delicious* Napoleons!
*actually, kinda gross.
aaron said,
October 31, 2005 at 14:20
I started a ruckus! Now where did I put my white flag?
Not a Dem or Repub said,
October 31, 2005 at 18:56
“The Left is terrified of a thinking conservative’s powers of reason.”
Lets run that through the Reality Filter(tm):
“People are terrified of my powers of psychotic reasoning.”
Yup…