I haven't read all the posts on this Discussion Board, so I very well might be repeating what someone else wrote.

How can anyone possibly compare Scooter Libby's lies to Bill Clinton's lies?  One man lied about an extra-marital affair
that  jeopradized the survival of a marriage.  The other man lied about leaking the identity of an secret CIA agent that jeopardized the life of person.

You obviously aren't either as exposed in your totally disingenuous characterization of both histories.

BTW, how many times do you hear people trying to compare and contrast crimes committed to those of Presidents OTHER than Clinton?

Let's see, Nixon and who else? Uhhhhhhh, NOBODY.
Clinton is in pretty good company, eh?

The discussion lately has been mostly about the legitimacy of Libby's pardon.

To be a little more complete, the Republican Senate, defacto "pardoned" Clinton.

Was her life jeopardized when her lying, disgraced husband decided to write a libelous article for the NY Times and bring this all on?  Considering that she got the unemployed putz the job, maybe he should have flew a little more under the radar since every SPECTRE agent in the world wanted her dead.  Perhaps her life was jeopardized when she did her Vanity Fair photo spread?  Or maybe one of the pencils she was pushing would have popped up and taken her eye out.

You fucking liberals kill me.  The only CIA agents you actually like are the disgraced ones that carry your water.  What was that word...."Sanctimonious"?

You make the same mistake as most other conservatives on this issue.  Libby had his day in court, went through a trial and was convicted by a jury. The alleged perjury case against Clinton imagined by Ken Starr was so weak that it never even went to trial so obviously Clinton was never convicted of perjury.

BTW, you forgot the national security crimes committed by Reagan and Bush I related to Iraq Contra.

1) I think you meant Iran-Contra. Iraq was an allie (sort of) at the time.

2) How can I be guilty of a mistake in a comparison that I NEVER MADE?

3) By your OWN logic (or lack thereof) in your first paragraph (i.e. that Clinton was never convicted), you then turn around in your second paragraph and try to draw some parallel stating crimes by people that were never committed, never indicted, and so obviously never convicted.

Oh, BTW, did Clinton just volutarily give up his license to practice law? Heavans no, HE WAS DISBARRED!!! Certainly no evidence of wrong doing there.

Stick with your "over the top" comments. You are much more amusing when doing so AND you are much better at it.