Democrats & Liberals Archives

Libby's Sentence Commuted: A Response to the President

President Bush, you probably have already figured out what I would say, so I’m not going to say it outright. Instead, I’ll explain my reasoning here. A court of law both convicted Libby of perjury and obstruction of justice, and sentenced him for it, and the sentencing guidelines for this were laid down by Congress.

He was a member of your own administration, and somebody whose actions generated considerable shame for your Administration- if you still knew what that was.

Shame, it seems, has become an endangered species in modern politics, but no more so than in your administration. Shame requires that one be willing to admit mistakes, not just bury them in the backyard of your mind. you shamelessly shamelessly told the American people that the leakers, if found would no longer work in his administration, that if they broke the law, that they'd be taken care of. I agree with the writer of that blog, you've shown what taking care of the leakers really meant.

Libby only resigned once he was indicted. Armitage went out with this friend and boss, Colin Powell, the president never making good on his promise all those years ago. And Rove? Well, despite all the skullduggery, and a political strategy that played its part in the full reversal of his party's majority, he's still there. Yes, the leakers, the people who knew they were peddling sensitive information, but really did care, surely have been taken care of.

The only thing it seems will make someone radioactive to you, Mr. President, is a public disagreement with you. Not running a war into the ground with their micromanagement. Not firing US Attorneys for failing to pursue politically charged cases without evidence for crimes being committed, not telling you whatever you want to hear so you can be a law to yourself in running the war on terrorism.

And now you're telling judges and legislators that a sentence made in accordance with the law is bogus.

Well, thank you Mr. President. You didn't dare to overturn a verdict by a jury of his peers. Pardoning Libby might have made it blaringly obvious that you were going out of your way to do him a favor.

But how much less obvious is it, now that you've gutted the harshest part of his sentence? And why the commentary at all? Commutations are rarely made with comment about the character of the sentencing, much less the case. And aren't you too close to him? Isn't there a conflict of interest here? Doesn't it make you look like you're condoning his breaking the law, by making sure he spends no jail time for lying to a grand jury, for lying to investigators, for all that other stuff?

You've shown America your true colors. Blow the whistle on the hollowness of your policy, and your people will retaliate. And when one of those retaliators lets out secrets that are sensitive to more than just your political career, you will fight tooth and nail to keep them on your staff, and when they are convicted by a jury of their peers and sentence by a judge in accordance to the sentencing guidelines your party is so fond of, you'll bail them out. After all, they're on your side, aren't that, and that's what counts.

I pity you. I look at all you've done, and see that you have damaged your party for the next generation and beyond with your behavior. You thought that if you could stand firm on your ideals long enough, people would come around. But you're not the only force in this game, and your power, your temporary, limited power is nothing next to the power of the people you've alienated with your policies and your indifferent arrogance.

Go ahead and pardon, go ahead and commute the sentences of all your friends now. Show us what Conservative respect for law and order is really made of. Go ahead: each of your friends you help out will be another nail pounded into the coffin of your party's political fortunes. Just think of all the people who will have to forgive the party for you to vote for it ever again.

I guess as a Christian, I've learned to accept that sometimes justice must be done in the next world, rather than in this one. As a Democrat, though, I'm confident justice will be done on your administration in the world that comes after your term, the world you've handed to my party on a silver platter with your shameless behavior.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2007 7:01 PM
Comments
Comment #224604

Stephen
As I have said many times I don’t claim either party so I can say this without prejudice. Both parties have shamed this country and are driving it down the toilet. Both parties do their share of lying, cheating, and stealing. IMO we should fire all the politicians in DC. But I don’t think that will ever happen.

Posted by: KAP at July 2, 2007 10:18 PM
Comment #224606

Wasn’t it a Republican judge that passed the sentence? Interesting.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 2, 2007 10:31 PM
Comment #224607

If it will never happen, don’t worry about it. Look, what’s happened in this world is that we have reached a critical information density; that is, people find out things quicker, learn details quicker, and in greater quantities, and it’s harder to keep things secret.

Bush and many like him are still operating, as if there is a comfortable cushion of secrecy around them, as if they can get away with these things.

The question remains who will bend their knees under these mountains of revelations: them or us?

It is we who give up, then the corrupt and all the rest keep power. But if we decide to be thorns in these people’s sides, to use the way that information now washes so quickly across the system to make fierce and immediate reactions to wrongdoing a fact of these politicians lives… Well, then we make life difficult for those who don’t get the results we need.

But we should be careful of one thing. It’s not as if Republicans and the right, and folks like you didn’t have much of the information at hand about these things, as they were going down. Unfortunately, folks focused on politics, rather than what politics is supposed to do: negotiate the economics of how shared government behaves.

We can get so insistent on what our party wants that we crave for, and struggle for more political power, and grip it in our hands even when it harms us, even when our needs as people, as a nation are not met, even when, at long last, possessed by our political greed, we no long register how badly we’ve fallen from our own political ideals.

I go into the new Democratic Majority Years with hope, but not unreserved optimism. We’ve not been long enough in the wilderness for all the folks who were part of the ‘94 screw-up to fade out of political life, nor has that time in the wilderness left us entirely pure on the issues.

Our one clear advantage, likely the reason Americans have turned to us Democrats, is we have no more desire than they to wallow further in the disasters of Bush policy. To the extent that job approval ratings are down for Congress, it’s that they haven’t quite put their money where their mouth is yet. Hopefully they will, soon enough.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2007 10:35 PM
Comment #224608

It is an outrage and slap in the face to every law-abiding American citizen. The time for another revolt against ‘King George’ is at hand.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 2, 2007 10:37 PM
Comment #224609

David, I agree. Wasn’t the republican party upset with purgery a few short years ago? Now it’s an ok thing?

What a joke, every time I think I am as disgusted with the politicians running this country they find a way to make me even more sick.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 2, 2007 10:40 PM
Comment #224610

Stephen
Don’t the polls show that the American people are unhappy with this Dem. congress as they are with the President? If I were you I wouldn’t get my hopes up with your party or at that matter with the Reps. either. We need new blood in congress. Not the BS crap we get now from congress.

Posted by: KAP at July 2, 2007 10:45 PM
Comment #224613

Stephen, the “be taken care of” link is broken.

Feel free to delete this comment once you’ve fixed the problem.

Posted by: LawnBoy at July 2, 2007 11:09 PM
Comment #224614

January 2009 can’t come too soon.

On another forum, someone noted that the commutation instead of full pardon means that Libby still has reason (and therefore the right) to invoke the Fifth Amendment if he’s called to testify further. I don’t know if it was done intentionally, but Bush just covered his a** completely while sending the message that he’ll cover for those that cover for him.

I’m furious.

When did it become acceptable for the President of the United States not to care at all about the law?

Posted by: LawnBoy at July 2, 2007 11:14 PM
Comment #224615

LawnBoy,

Well, I can’t remember a president in my lifetime who did care about the law… And I’m not young. One of my first memories is sitting on the couch with my grandmother watching the president resign… *sigh* Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Carter… Even Ford pardoned Nixon and though I understood his reasoning it didn’t make it a pleasant thing to see done.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 2, 2007 11:19 PM
Comment #224616

Stephen,

As always you did an excellent job.

While I’m certainly not surprised I am disappointed and I’m not disappointed in Bush & Co. This is what I’d expected. (Well, I actually expected a full pardon)

My disappointment is in the Pelosi House!!!!!!!!

She rode into power on a sort of “peaceful revolt” and almost immediately she neglected to pay attention to what those of us leading the revolt were after: King George’s head on a stick!!!!!!!!

I’ll grant you she pulled off the first 100 hours doing just what she proposed to do, but she’s not stupid and she knew how far most of that would go once it reached the Senate. At the same time she virtually ruled out any attempt at impeachment or any effort to hold Bush & Co. responsible for their misdeeds.

Like it or not “we the people” have been let down all the way around. I fear it’s too late to rise above the dishonesty associated with American politics. Our offspring will likely debate some day just how we could have let the whole thing fall apart.

And I’m sure Paris Hilton’s name will be mentioned.

Posted by: KansasDem at July 2, 2007 11:21 PM
Comment #224617

Who will the the president commute next,O.J,Scott Peterson,or Richard Blake.This president is Satan himself.

Posted by: the libertine at July 2, 2007 11:23 PM
Comment #224620

Can a president pardon themselves? Really.

Posted by: BillS at July 3, 2007 1:18 AM
Comment #224621

Kansas
Nice to hear from you.

What Pelosi or anyone else needs for impeachment is solid evidence of high crimes and misdemeamors. Knowing Bush lied is not enough. Knowing he falsified reports is not enough.Knowing he is running a corrupt regime is not enough.Without solid evidence it would never be possible to impeach. With it,as Nixon would have faced,many Reps would vote to impeach.Wether or not the Dems can come up with such evidence before Bush’s term is up is an open question.I thought it was a mistake to get rid of the special prosecuters office. This commutation makes it clear that his henchmen are free to obstruct investigations with little risk.

Posted by: BillS at July 3, 2007 1:39 AM
Comment #224622

KANSASDEM,

Here is the very beginning of a very long list of pardons by Bill Clinton found here:
“>USDOJ

Kristine Margo Beck D. Idaho 1981 Bank embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. § 656
David Christopher Billmaier D. New Mex. 1980 Possession with intent to distribute amphetamines, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Terry Lee Brown E. D. Ky. 1962 Interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Joe Carl Bruton N. D. Tex. 1979 Conspiracy to commit mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Nolan Lynn DeMarce W. D. Wis. 1983 Making false statements to obtain bank loans, 18 U.S.C. § 1014
Jimmy C. Dick N. D. Calif. 1976 Conspiracy to manufacture counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Edward Eugene Dishman W. D. Okla. 1983 Conspiracy to defraud the United States and Oklahoma counties, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Brenda Kay Engle S. D. Ind. 1983 Conspiracy to commit theft from interstate shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Mary Theresa Fajer D. Oregon 1980 Conspiracy to commit bank embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 371
Albert James Forte D. Dist. Col. 1973 Making and subscribing false and fraudulent income tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)
Fendley Lee Frazier S. D. Ala. 1965 Interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Robert Linward Freeland, Jr. N. D. Ind. 1983 Forcible rescue of seized property, 26 U.S.C. § 7212(b)
Ralph Leon Furst S. D. Calif. 1966 Embezzlement of United States mail (U.S. Code section not cited)
Barbara Ann Gericke W. D. Wis. 1984 Conspiracy to introduce contraband into federal prison, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1791
Billy Joe Gilmore N. D. Tex. 1982 Mail fraud and aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
Loreto Joseph Iafrate N. D. W. Va. 1976 Failure to record receipt of firearms, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(m) and 924(a)
Carl Bruce Jones W. D. Mo. 1983 Distribution of marijuana and use of telephone to facilitate marijuana distribution, 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 843(b)
Candace Deon Leverenz N. D. Calif. 1972 Unlawful distribution of LSD, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)
George William Lindgren S. D. N. Y. 1975 Bank embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. § 656


I would be equally angry at Hillary for her squishy position on ending this war.

But I do believe I made this point many times towards the beginning of the year:

The far left also lost in the last election. Not only were the traditional far left voices (Moore, Streisand, you know the ones)silenced before the election. The people voted in a healthy crop of moderate democrats.Not far left democrats.

I also said that when the far left figures this out they will turn on their leadership. They have!


SO WHEN YOU SAY:

Like it or not “we the people” have been let down all the way around.

You tell me that you believe that because the President is at a 30% approval rate that 70% of the american public agrees with you and your principals.

I think you will find that a fairly small % of the American public want to go through an impeachment.
I dont think 70% believe that we should just draw up our troops and go home.

“Yesterday” we learned that not “ALL” of the scientist are on the same page as Al Gore on “Global Warming”

Today we find that the majority feel that Al Gore over hyped “Global Warming”

Heres a link :

Scepticism over climate claims

The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.
Look the rest up! Its fun!

I would like to predict that “Global warming” when all the facts are straight will be “Global Breathing” and that “Global warming” goes by the way of “politically correct” as “Global cooling” did within my lifetime.


Posted by: scottie1321 at July 3, 2007 1:54 AM
Comment #224623

How long can a person continue to fight before reaching the point of total and complete lack of caring?
I’d say that if todays news didn’t push me over the edge, then it will take very little more to do so.
We were given the opportunity…..no the direction by majority, to make changes, to bring this administration to a level of responsibility and accountablity. It isn’t happening, it didn’t happen and it looks like it won’t happen. This is the kind of stuff that gets conspiracy theorists going. What the hell is everyone so afraid of about this twit, that makes us wilt at the thought of taking him down????
Everyone so far has touched on all the right responses….and I’m still sitting here with my mouth hanging open at the idea that this happened.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 3, 2007 2:12 AM
Comment #224626

Bill S.

Bush took an oath of office. He’s failed to uphold that oath. PERIOD! That in itself is an impeachable offense. Would that set a new precedent? Well, possibly, but how many new precedents have Bush & Co. set?

My complaint with Pelosi is that she took the reigns with a declaration that impeachment was “off the table”! It’s time to take the “swagger” out of this corrupt administration. As it is we have an executive branch that’s totally out of control.

Actually our whole damn government, all three branches, are totally out of control! It’s time for the populace to take back OUR government, BUT we must first get past Paris Hilton, the I-Phone, and Anna Nicoles baby daddy! We’re stuck on stupid and the elite are running away with our government.

Then again we can always say, “Clinton………Clinton……….Clinton! Remember the BJ?” Stain……….stain…………stain.

Yeah and I have no great love for either Clinton. I voted for Bill in ‘92 but not in ‘96 because I thought he caved too easily to the Gingrich gang on a number of issues. In retrospect the two best presidents of my adulthood were Carter and Clinton, in that order!

And……….I can explain all of my stains!

Posted by: KansasDem at July 3, 2007 2:27 AM
Comment #224627

“What the hell is everyone so afraid of about this twit, that makes us wilt at the thought of taking him down???? “

Sandra,

That’s what puzzles me. There must be something we don’t know!

Perhaps the “Mad-Hatter” scenario. If we push too hard he does have that red phone nearby! Not that he’d personally stage Armageddon. I mean he’s not some religious nut or something………..sigh:’(

Posted by: KansasDem at July 3, 2007 2:35 AM
Comment #224629

LawnBoy- The fifth amendment would not apply if

Special prosecutor Fitzpatrick calls him back

in front of a grand jury, which he can an probably

will. He can do this because Scooter Libby did not

receive a full pardon. Do you think he would lie

again???

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 3, 2007 3:08 AM
Comment #224630

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=4b5255b9-3878-4082-b7d0-160d8ddcd52e

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 3, 2007 3:13 AM
Comment #224631

scotti1321- Were any of those people you have listed

in any unfinished proceedings ?

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 3, 2007 3:15 AM
Comment #224632
We were given the opportunity…no the direction by majority, to make changes, to bring this administration to a level of responsibility and accountablity. It isn’t happening

That’s because there isn’t really a clear Dem majority in Congress. Don’t forget that Lieberman votes with the Republicans on everything.

And that’s why Congress has such low approval ratings. Despite the fact that Dems control the committees, they don’t have enough votes to get anything done that Republicans don’t want done.

We saw that with the Iraq War, immigration reform, stem cell research, Alberto Gonzales, etc., and we’d see it with impeachment charges as well.

Heck, without Republican support, we can’t even get the White House to turn over documents relating to domestic wiretapping or how they subverted the Justice Dept.

BTW, think of what it must be like for our covert CIA operatives. They now know Bush will betray them to the enemy if he can score a cheap political point off it.

And anyone who wanted to inform on Iran, N. Korea or al-Qaeda would be a fool to cooperate with the CIA, knowing that their involvement will probably be exposed by Bush for political gain.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 3, 2007 3:16 AM
Comment #224633

david

Maybe? Most likely! It is a very very very long list. But many of them aren’t unfinished precedings


Kansasdem;

I can also explain my stains and Bush can explain his stains.

Just explain how the far left spent so much time saying they won the last election.

See you would call me a religious nut too. we will let history bear that one out. But so far in 6 months , history is quickly bearing out that you might not be so right on “global warming” The two arguments are kind of tied together aren’t they?
When you guys switched from global “cooling” to “warming” you kind of shifted the burden of proof eh?

Posted by: scotytie at July 3, 2007 3:51 AM
Comment #224634

BillS - A case of High Crimes an Misdemeanors,
in the case of outing A covert CIA agent Valery Plame, should be pursued against those who outed
her, an show our Government employees an every
one else that we do care about the rule of law
no matter who was involved. We must as a Nation
decide now if we are still that Country that most
other Countries try an emulate. We must also hold our Government officials feet headed in the direction of the most honorable path possible.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 3, 2007 4:00 AM
Comment #224635

So David,

Do you have that same passion for rule of law when it comes to our immigrants?

You do realize that Scooter Libby was not the one who ousted Valarie Plame.

You do know who actually did and under what circumstances?

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 3, 2007 4:05 AM
Comment #224636

AP- excellent post

-

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 3, 2007 4:06 AM
Comment #224637

scottie1321
1-yes
2-Scooter Libby lied to the grand jury
3- I don’t know who you mean nor what circumstances
you are talking about.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 3, 2007 4:13 AM
Comment #224638

David-

1 Good Thank You!
2 In a case that ceased to exhist
3 Better look it up! Kinda blows the Bush co ousted a cia agent theory. Think Fitzgerald agreed, no outing by Bush Co. Thinks me remembers Valarie Plame bluntly lying to the congress and the american people on camera and in procedings.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 3, 2007 4:19 AM
Comment #224639

scottie1321-
Armitage told Novak
Chaney told Rove
an Rove or Chaney told Libby an Libby told a reporter an I can’t remember her name, but
she went to jail for not revealing her name.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 3, 2007 4:20 AM
Comment #224640

should be his name-sorrry

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 3, 2007 4:22 AM
Comment #224641

An I don’t believe Plame lied to any one.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 3, 2007 4:25 AM
Comment #224642

David,

Wouldn’t you love for it to be that easy.

I’m not trying to convince the far left. i wouldnt even try.
Those who arent “in the extreme” can see a little clearer. I talk to them in our conversation.

And She went to jail to protect the news media’s “right” to use and pull facts from “un-named sources” Un-named sources just wreaks of a lack of wisdom.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 3, 2007 4:31 AM
Comment #224643

David,

Thank you,

you are so right.

You don’t believe Valarie Plame lied. I know it. I don’t expect to change your mind. That doesn’t make your version true.

Look for facts folks!

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 3, 2007 4:33 AM
Comment #224644

scottie1321i - The fact is that the head of the CIA
MADE A STATEMENT TWO WEEKS AGO that Plame was indeed
a covert agent at the time she was outed. My statements are never taken out of context like with
most people who repeat the B.S. they hear from
Rushy,handy an foxy an other nitwits! An besides,
If I did ever need to back up what I say, which I
generally will not do, simply because my folks
taught me at a very early age what happens if you
tell lies, if you get my drift!

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 3, 2007 5:00 AM
Comment #224645

Doesn’t change the fact that Valarie Plame lied to congress and thus the American people.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 3, 2007 5:16 AM
Comment #224646

David

I never asked you to back up anything you said. I would prefer people look it up themselves. That goes for anything I say also!

look it up folks.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 3, 2007 5:17 AM
Comment #224647

Time line of events in CIA Leak Case.

AP News on Yahoo White House News.
-

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 3, 2007 5:56 AM
Comment #224648

scottie1321- good debate an I must leave. thanks
-

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 3, 2007 6:01 AM
Comment #224649

With only one day away from our nation’s celebration, what better way to celebrate our independence from tyranny but to shred our judicial system.

Bush has again proven that that he has no respect for this nation’s constitution.

All hail Bush the Dictator!

Posted by: john trevisani at July 3, 2007 7:28 AM
Comment #224650

John,

While I despise what Bush did, he didn’t do anything unconstitutional in any way. How did his using the powers vested to him by the constitution show he has no respect for it exactly?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2007 7:41 AM
Comment #224651

Rhinehold:
Bush was one that said that the Constitution was “just a g*ddammed piece of paper.”

He only uses that ‘g*dammed piece of paper’ when it suites his needs. In this case, it was to save one of his most loyal henchmen from spending, well-deserved, time behind bars.

Martha Stewart was convicted of the same crime. She, too, had no history of criminal offenses. She, too, was a first-time offender. Yet, she served her sentence. Now the main difference between Libby and Stewart was that Stewart did her lying to federal investigators for her own greed, whereas Libby did his lying to out a covert CIA operative for the betterment of the political party.

So when a President swears to uphold the Constitution and do whatever in his power to protect the American people, what do you call it when he commutes the sentence of someone who is CONVICTED of giving away classified intelligence information?

i call it treason.

Posted by: john trevisani at July 3, 2007 7:59 AM
Comment #224652

Before the supporters jump at my last statement, let me correct it:
Yes, Libby was NOT convicted of giving away classified intelligence information. He was convicted of LYING to investigators.

If that makes everyone feel better; go right ahead. For me, it proves that Bush believes that the ‘law’ is for those ‘other’ people; not him.

Posted by: john trevisani at July 3, 2007 8:15 AM
Comment #224654

I think we all knew this was going to happen. Actually I expected a full pardon. Yet I still feel slighted angry and bewildered. This action only serves to confirm my belief that there exists a different code of ethics and justice system for the powers of this country. The rule of law does not necesarily apply to those who are connected. The only positive I see coming from this is that Bush, who I believe has no moral consience, did what he felt he had to personally do to atone for Libby taking the fall for he and Cheney. What did he have to lose? Nothing as far as I can see. There was very little if any hope of his admin regaining any integrity or respect before the end of his term.

Posted by: ILdem at July 3, 2007 8:52 AM
Comment #224655

Sorry, John, but your attitude is what puts a lot of people off from the democratic party and why the Congress’ approval ratings are so low. Bush did nothing untoward to the consitution and was well within his rights to do what he did. I disagree COMPLETELY that he should have done it, but he in now way ‘shredded the constitution’, he acted within his power given to him by the constitution to do just what he did.

By going completely over the top on your criticisms of the current administration, which appears to many to be fueled by hatred and not rational objections, you end up drowning out legitimate complaints and outrage against anything that this administration does. Even if your argument was valid it would be put aside by many because it is just more of the same howling from the left that is based in hatred.

You can read my post The Sad Cost of Crying Wolf to see more of my point…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2007 9:34 AM
Comment #224656

I don’t think that a lot of people are surprised by the libby pardon. We just did not know exactly when it would happen. The sad thing is that we all know that most of the crimes committed by the bush/cheney crime family will never see the light of day. How many crimes have been successfully covered up??? It seems to me that every action they take is over the line or borderline criminal acts. Now that they have annexed the department of justice as part of their corrupt political party, they can get away with any crime they want.
The democrats can do nothing to stop them. Who will investigate or prosecute these crimes??? One of the crime family members appointed by carl rove??? It does not look like anything can be done till after the next election. How much can be done even then I do not know. This crime family has set them selves up for permanent occupation of our government. This was the plan of carl rove to render useless or convert to a political tool all branches of our government. They have dug in deep for the long haul. It will take a generation to root out their evil offsprings. Welcome to the dark side brought to you by the bush/cheney crime family. I hope we all survive till 2009. Just remember they are working on spin for the Iran war at this time.

Posted by: Outraged at July 3, 2007 9:37 AM
Comment #224658

I am surprised. I am surprised he commuted the sentence before Libby even spent one day in jail. I am surprised he commuted the sentence rather than give him a full pardon. When Susan McDougal was in jail, Clinton waited until the final hours of his presidency to pardon her. Bush couldn’t look more guilty.

Posted by: Max at July 3, 2007 10:34 AM
Comment #224659

Max:
Statistically about 95% of all Presidential pardons (acts of clemency) are post-sentence clemency.

Posted by: john trevisani at July 3, 2007 10:48 AM
Comment #224660

How much more can this country take? While it is true that both parties have no leadership and do not listen to the will of the population they allegedly represent, no one has done more harm more often and with more disregard than George W. Bush. I have zero sympathy for people who state that Libby wasn’t the source of the leak, that no crime was committed on his part, and that Bush was right in what he did. Sorry, but Libby was convicted on four counts of perjury (also upheld by the appeals court) and was given a sentence consistent with federal guidelines. Period.

How much longer can this country remain narcotized to a President who consistently believes he and those of his ilk are above the law? What else does this arrogant, incompetent man and his “not part of the Executive Branch” sidekick have to do to wake people up to the fact that he is, as Helen Thomas correctly stated, “The worst President in all of U.S. history?” This should be the final straw to finally begin impeachment proceedings against this buffoon.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at July 3, 2007 10:49 AM
Comment #224661

Max:
Statistically about 95% of all Presidential pardons (acts of clemency) are post-sentence clemency, where they serve their sentence and are active members of society for a period of time before they apply for a Presidential pardon.

Clemency before time is served is rare.

Posted by: john trevisani at July 3, 2007 10:51 AM
Comment #224663

The illusion of some form of accountability for our government is quickly fading.

We can all plan on seeing more blatent law breaking swept under the rug and thousands of more behind the doors secret meetings that don’t ‘concern’ the american public.

Posted by: jrjr at July 3, 2007 11:00 AM
Comment #224664

To the peril of our nation, we the people, have allowed actions such as these to become nothing but political fodder. Defense of the action comes to the front and the action itself ceases to be the focal point.
Just because politicians put party before country, does not mean we have too.
If clintons corruption angered you, but you are now silent, you are wrong.
If you ignored clintons corruption, but now want action, you are wrong.

Thankfully for the Republicans, Bush cannot run again. But unless you all want to be swept like the Dems were, you better make sure your candidate is nothing like him.

Posted by: kctim at July 3, 2007 11:05 AM
Comment #224665

Strange that Clinton got away with the exact same thing and democrats never said a word about justice when it happened. Instead they tried to place some degree of guilt based on what Clinton lied about. Now they proclaim the law is the law. Very hypocritical. Very typical.
PEOPLE, if we dont stop this destuctive politics in Washington we the people will NEVER be the focus.

Posted by: john at July 3, 2007 11:06 AM
Comment #224666

People, people, people. We have already “cussed” and dis-cussed this before.

The Democrats will not try to impeach the president because it is politically expedient to keep him in office so that he may be demonized and be the “whipping boy” for the Democrats rolling up to the 2008 elections.

It is NOT politically expedient to impeach Bush and have Cheney take the office. He would then be able to appoint the “anointed” successor (Rudy, John, Fred, whoever) who could then use the “bully pulpit” to further their campain aspirations.

Same thing would happen if you impeached Cheney first.

Remember…keep Bush and Cheney in office and you’ll have someone to throw rotten tomatoes at.

Impeach them, and you may have someone in office who could be popular enough to win another election for the Republicans.

So, as you see, doing the “right thing” for percieved “high crimes and misdemeanors” by this administration is simply not politically expedient for the Democrats…and therefore will not happen.

Politicas as usual. Get over it.

Posted by: Jim T at July 3, 2007 11:10 AM
Comment #224667

john:
Read up on clemency (do a google search). You’ll find that clemency is a very common thing for Presidents. And yes, Hamilton (who supported having a King of the United States) was the main architect for Presidential pardon powers in the Constitution (although the Const, just mentions crimes against the US).

However, what makes the Libby case different from most (including the pardons of Clinton) is that it happened before Libby served time. It’s different because Libby was convicted in a case centered around the exposure of a CIA operative (involving National Security).

The vast majority of the modern acts of clemency involve commuting of drug offenses, white color crime, etc…

Posted by: john trevisani at July 3, 2007 11:15 AM
Comment #224668

Ooooops!

In my post where it says…

“So, as you see, doing the “right thing” for percieved “high crimes and misdemeanors” by this administration is simply not politically expedient for the Democrats…and therefore will not happen.”

…please change that to read…

“So, as you see, doing the “right thing”, impeaching Bush and/or Cheney for percieved “high crimes and misdemeanors” by this administration is simply not politically expedient for the Democrats…and therefore will not happen.

Also…the last line…

“Politicas as usual. Get over it.”

…change that to read…

Politics as usual. Get over it.

Sorry about that…

Posted by: Jim T at July 3, 2007 11:16 AM
Comment #224669
Strange that Clinton got away with the exact same thing and democrats never said a word about justice when it happened

Really? At what point did Clinton commute or pardon before time was served for someone in the administration whose crime was obstructing an investigation into the administration itself?

Oh, I see. It’s just the “Clinton did it, too” defense, divorced from reality and accountability.

Nothing to see here.

Posted by: LawnBoy at July 3, 2007 11:17 AM
Comment #224670

It is obvious that the “rule of Law, the Constitution, the Geneva Convention etc” are only guidelines for this Administration. They, especially the Occupant of the White House, believe that loyality trumps everything else. However, everyone else must follow ALL the laws, or at least the interpertation of the laws according to the Bushies.

Several good things will come about because of our present Administration. William Jefferson Clinton will be viewed as a GREAT President and Buchannon will no longer be viewed by historians as the worse President of our Republic.

I am beginning to miss the Nixon Administration.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at July 3, 2007 11:58 AM
Comment #224671

No, Clinton pardoned anyone who had the money to pay into his campaign, totally different.

I would say, personally, that BOTH are pretty sad, but that doesn’t help the partisans make their political points.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2007 11:59 AM
Comment #224672

Tell me, C.T. Rich. How is what Bush did, as pathetic as it was, violate ‘the rule of Law, the Constitution, the Geneva Convention etc’? What has it to do with any of that?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2007 12:00 PM
Comment #224673

Rhinehold, I agree with all your comments. No laws were broken in the commuting of Libby’s prison sentence.

What was preserved, however, was the practice of the politically powerful of favoring criminals close to their political position of power, while giving not a second thought to American citizens in general, especially those who have not contributed significantly to their positions of power.

In America, the ideal is that no person is above the law nor should any person receive preferential treatment by the powerful outside the jury box. That ideal has been violated, and with it, the trust of the American people in their political system. A democratic republic depends intrinsically upon the trust and confidence of the people to maintain law and order, and avert revolution or rapid and disrupting evolutions in the social and political structures.

Our American ideals were violated, not the laws, as you quite correctly pointed out.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 3, 2007 12:11 PM
Comment #224674

With approx 3k people sitting in jail for the same offence I dont believe the judge was to harsh on Libby. This is a splendid example of why most people believe there is 2 systems of justice in this Country and why the repubs are the soft on crime party. The Cons should be up in arms at this favoritism.

I suspect the difference between neo cons and cons can be summed up as Libby and Liddy (as in G Gordon). I have much more respect for G Gordon. I would also find suspect what the cons really mean when they say family values. It seems visions of Tony Soprano come to mind much more often now.

I would think that when we laugh at what W says as if it is just a typical abuse of the language, we should learn that we do need to realize he is sayin exactly what he means. Libby was indeed taken care of.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 3, 2007 12:12 PM
Comment #224675

David:
Could Libby’s conviction, although not defined as treason, be construed as part of a treasonous act? Since he was convicted of perjury and lying to federal prosecutors and investigators in a case that involved the wanton release of classified intelligence?

Posted by: john trevisani at July 3, 2007 12:24 PM
Comment #224676

Rhinehold,

You know…

“The rule of law” (End run around the courts in wiretapping)

“the Constitution” (Illegal wiretapping)

“the Geneva Convention” (Abu Ghareb, Guantanimo).

Yada, yada, yada, yada.

More “Politics as usual”.

And by the way…

In my lifetime, there were no presidents that didn’t hide or back-stab or cover up or just simply didn’t know what the hell they were doing.

Eisenhour (banging his secretary)

Kennedy (banging ANYTHING with a skirt on…supported Bay Of Pigs until he backstabbed the operation with no air support)

Johnson (My personal pick for the WORST president of all time. 1,200,000 of our best and brightest sent to the meat grinder in Viet Nam…58,209 who would be slaughtered…another 2,000 missing)

Nixon (Watergate)

Ford (Pardoning Nixon before he was ever convicted and ever served a day in prison)

Carter (Incompetance. Period.)

Reagan (Iran-Contra)

G.H.W. Bush (Same as above)

Clinton (Where do I start? Not enough room here)

G.W. Bush (Same as above)

Posted by: Jim T at July 3, 2007 12:30 PM
Comment #224677

LAWNBOY:

I was not refering to Clinton pardoning anybody. i was refering to Clinton lying under oath to a grand jury and getting away with it. Democrats, not surprisibngly, dont want to discuss that in the same context as calling for Scotters head for the excact same offense.

Posted by: john at July 3, 2007 1:27 PM
Comment #224678

Jim t

FYI: Most Vietnam deaths occured under Nixon.


Lying about an affair that was not criminal does not belong in the same context as lying or covering up a criminal act that effects national security.

Posted by: BillS at July 3, 2007 2:02 PM
Comment #224679

john,

So, by “exact same thing”, you meant something completely different.

Thanks for clarifying.

Posted by: LawnBoy at July 3, 2007 2:05 PM
Comment #224680

If you feel a need to ignore the truth of Clintons lie under oath and at the same time call for Libby to go to prison for it, then full speed ahead brother. Anyone reading this knows what it means.
I didnt agree with either result, but at least i understand the hypocricy in ignoring one incident and cryinhg foul on the other.

Posted by: john at July 3, 2007 2:12 PM
Comment #224681

What Libby did was lie under oath. That is what he was sentenced for. What Clinton did was lie under oath. That is what he WAS NOT sentenced for.

Posted by: Andy at July 3, 2007 2:13 PM
Comment #224682

Nothing is ever “in the same context” when one is attempting to justify a crime only for political reasons.
All these weak attempts to defend perjury only shows why this nation is set on a course to ruin.

Posted by: kctim at July 3, 2007 2:19 PM
Comment #224684

BillS,

Thanks for the F.Y.I.

Unfortunately, it’s wrong. According to the National Archives, 36,075 American troops died from 1963 until the end of 1968. From the time that Nixon took office (Jan. 1969), until 1973 the death toll was 20,863. That’s a difference of 15,212.

Go to the site and add up the numbers.

Now, here’s one for you.

F.Y.I. American troop strength was 1.2 million in 1968 (Wikipedia), the peak of our troop involvement…under Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Nixon took office in Janaury, 1969.

I stand by my original statement.

Lyndon Baines Johnson, the WORST president in my lifetime.

Posted by: Jim T at July 3, 2007 2:36 PM
Comment #224685

Sorry about the busted link.

Here it is…

National Archives

Posted by: Jim T at July 3, 2007 2:39 PM
Comment #224686

KCTIM

I was not trying to justify anything. Just pointing out the duplicity. I already stated I didnt agree with either result.

What should we do? we should learn to ignore party lines and kick the people out of officre that foreget WE are thier cause, not thier party.

Right now i want my money back. This democrat congress has failed miserably to do one single thing they promised because they are out for personal payback instead. we need to let them now that is UNACCEPTABLE. Vote them out. Vote independant and 3rd party.

Posted by: john at July 3, 2007 2:50 PM
Comment #224687

Jim T

I stand corrected. Thank you.

However between the two its still a close,very sad race.Unfortunately the race for worst president ever is still in progress.

Posted by: BillS at July 3, 2007 2:56 PM
Comment #224688

John
The fact that people cannot be sure of which side I am talking about, just shows how silly and confusing this “defend for one, condemn if for another,” game really is.

And while you and I may find it “unacceptable,” most people only do when it is the “other side” who is on the chopping block.

Posted by: kctim at July 3, 2007 3:02 PM
Comment #224689

BillS,

“However between the two its still a close,very sad race.Unfortunately the race for worst president ever is still in progress.”


Unfortunately for all of us…that is, sadly, VERY accurate.

Posted by: Jim T at July 3, 2007 3:14 PM
Comment #224690

scottie-
First, lets establish the facts: pardons and commutations are within the power of the President. Second, you can’t exactly avoid the subject of a pardon being a convicted criminal. It’s by definition what a pardon is. Same thing for commuting a sentence.

The issue is not that the president had no power to commute Libby’s sentence, but rather that he’s too close to Libby, and benefited far too much from what Libby did. It seems something like a quid pro quo: impede an investigation, and I’ll insulate you from the legal consequences of what you did in my service. It brings up the possibility that the president just committed an act of obstruction of justice, but even failing that, it reinforces a point Bush hardly should be reinforcing: the appearance that he believes himself and those that serve him to be above the law.

The question here is whether you can justify what’s being done on first principles, or whether you’re having to justify everything based on the fact the opposition dislikes your people, or based on what polls suggest.

As for Global Warming? That’s another subject.

Rhinehold-
Liberal hatred is a red herring. If the charges are unfounded, you can slap the liberals around for being wrong. If they’re right, then it makes their hard feelings rather more rational. Focus on the facts; they mean more to the legitimacy of the charges than the politics.

kctim-
There’s nothing liberals can do to take back the fact that they supported Clinton. I was one of the people who defended, who he lied to. That is a large part of my political skepticism today.

It is not wrong to now demand justice, having ignored Clinton’s corruption, if you are prepared to admit that you are wrong.

It is wrong, if you think Bush is wrong, to either continue to apologize for Clinton’s misdeeds, or to be silent about Bush’s because of the fear of being made to look like a hypocrite.

It is also wrong to blunt criticism of the actions of Bush now, based on that. How the hell do we expect to get anywhere if our first impulse is still to punish the political opposition for their past hypocrisy? Nobody’s perfect, nobody’s without sin. Only when we forgive people for doing what partisans naturally do, can we appeal for universal and mutual reform.

Or, put another way, only when we recognize that the corruption is a human, common problem, and that both sides are equally vulnerable, and equally victimized by it, can we act as one people, one culture, to push it back, rather than let the mutual disrepect we have for each other justify the corruption of our own sides on account.

Jim T-
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like LBJ all that much. That said, LBJ was much like this president in terms of making this mistake; he didn’t intend to get us into a losing war. Nixon is worse, because not only did he continue that losing war, acknowledging to the public that we needed to get out of it, but he also exacerbated the divide at home for political benefit, not to mention committing some pretty atrocious illegalities to gain re-election.

Of course, Bush has done all three: gotten us into a losing war, spending years denying it was that bad; acknowledged to the public that things were not working, but then escalating the war; lying to the American people and committing illegalities in order to get re-elected.

At this point, nobody in the Republican party can escape the shadow Bush has cast on it. Republicans were so rigid about standing behind him, that his failure has become theirs.

The Political expedience at this point, is for the Republicans to dissociate themselve from Bush, but I can’t really blame them or fault them for wanting to do that now. I just wish they would have done that earlier, and saved America from the policy nightmare.

I don’t believe America is on its way to destruction. I think such pessimism feeds the problem by making it seem pointless to resist the downward slide. Only when stop treating that slide as inevitable, and acknowledge that we’re making choices that contribute to it, can we break free of the decadence that paralyzes and smothers us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 3, 2007 3:19 PM
Comment #224691

Libby’s sentence was commuted…..Clinton was impeached…. sounds similar.
Violation of National Secuity….violation of wedding vows…again, similar.
No wonder so many people are still confused and think Bush is wonderful…..

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 3, 2007 3:27 PM
Comment #224693

Sandra:

Interesting the way you bypassed the perjury charges against Clinton by refering to some sort of imagined degree of guilt. One charge is the same as the other uder the law. And yet after making this absurd statement you probably imagine you could still argue a “double standard” efectively. I stand in awe of you.

Posted by: john at July 3, 2007 3:35 PM
Comment #224694

Bush just pardoned someone who he admits led this nation astray regarding the reasons we went to war….

That’s pretty incredible. I don’t care what president you compare it to.

Posted by: Max at July 3, 2007 3:43 PM
Comment #224695

john, my comment was in response to this…but thanks anyway.

What Libby did was lie under oath. That is what he was sentenced for. What Clinton did was lie under oath. That is what he WAS NOT sentenced for.

Posted by: Andy at July 3, 2007 02:13 PM
Clinton received punishment, Libby received a reward.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 3, 2007 3:49 PM
Comment #224696

Jim T, Worst prez has to be GWB. His administration is so low it even screws the returning servicemen and women injured in action. LBJ wasnt quite that bad.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 3, 2007 3:53 PM
Comment #224697

That is why I included BOTH point of views in what I said Stephen.
And while it may be wrong to be so critical about the lefts “concerns” now because they did not care then, the criticism against your party is valid.

Does that mean you all should not speak up? Of course not.
It simply means you better step up when its your partys turn and most of us know that will not happen.
And while people such as yourself believe things are only going to get better when power shifts to your party and that “your side” now deserves another chance, many of us are tired of the game as it is being played.

The Dems and the Reps have proven that real accountability and reform will not come with a simple change of party.
Sure, people will decide what is right and wrong based on who it is levied against, but that in no way fixes the problem.
Real accountability and real reform will only come about when we finally start respecting the US Constitution again and when “We the People” stop voting for what is best for party and start voting for what is best for the country.

Posted by: kctim at July 3, 2007 3:57 PM
Comment #224698

Sandra,

What punishment did Clinton get by being impeached? Also, do you think Clinton getting a bj could have been a breach of national security. Men have been known to tell many secrets in the sack.

Posted by: Andy at July 3, 2007 3:57 PM
Comment #224699

Comment Deleted for extensive profanity and violation of the Critique the Messenger policy. Similar postings will be treated accordingly.

Posted by: the libertine at July 3, 2007 4:00 PM
Comment #224700

Off the meds today libertine?
No need to respond in kind
-Editor

Posted by: Andy at July 3, 2007 4:09 PM
Comment #224701

Man, you Conservatives really need to stop accusing those peaceful loving liberals of “hate.”

Goodbye the libertine, nice to have blogged some with you.

Posted by: kctim at July 3, 2007 4:09 PM
Comment #224702

There is nothing wrong with (hating conservatives) it is not even bad,makes me warm and fuzzy inside.

Posted by: the libertine at July 3, 2007 4:20 PM
Comment #224703

The GREAT punchline in all this, for the folks who keep bringing up Marc Rich, comes in the form of a question -

Who was Marc Rich’s attorney from 1985 through 2000? Who testified as to his belief that prosecutors misconstrued the facts and that Marc Rich had not violated any laws?

The Scooter!

Posted by: CPAdams at July 3, 2007 4:27 PM
Comment #224705

Real accountability and real reform will only come about when we finally start respecting the US Constitution again and when (We the People) stop voting for what is best for party and start voting for what is best for the country.

Posted by: kctim at July 3, 2007 03:57 PM

kctim,

Yaaa!!!

I will buy that. I think you have something there.

Everyone have a great Independence Day!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at July 3, 2007 4:34 PM
Comment #224706

I guess for some folks lying about/having extra-marital sex is just as bad as lying about national security issues and obstructing an investigation into the same.

Whose business is anyone’s sex life anyway?

Posted by: womanmarine at July 3, 2007 4:34 PM
Comment #224707

Stephen,

Some good points. There are several other reasons I don’t like LBJ, but I must say that GWB is coming close to his (LBJ’s) abortion he called an administration.

As far as Nixon, he was a polarizing figure if there ever was one. Those on the left (in the public) considered him Satan. Those on the right (in the public) knew that he could do no wrong. Those on the left in Congress didn’t know what to do with the guy, as he was always doing liberal things to piss off the Conservatives, and obviously the Conservatives were in a quandry as Nixon rarely sided with them.

If it weren’t for the good and historic things that Nixon did, I might consider him the worst prez in my lifetime.


Except for one thing that puts him totally out of consideration as far as I’m concerned.

In 1972, my draft number was 84. They said they were going to take the first 100 anyway. I was staring being a grunt in Viet Nam straight in the eyeballs. Then, Nixon cut off the draft…and when I woke up the next morning with the biggest hangover I have ever had, I found myself to be the biggest Nixon fan on the planet.

Screw Watergate. I’m still breathing. To me, that’s waaaay more important.

Posted by: Jim T at July 3, 2007 4:46 PM
Comment #224708

I’m tired. I’m tired of being angry. I’m tired of watching with my mouth open as our government can do what they want to do, when they want to, and get away with it. When someone says the Bush administration “thinks” they are above the law, they are wrong. They ARE above the law. Why? Because no one does anything about it. If there are no consequences, just like for a child, what is to prevent them from doing the same thing over and over and over. If a rapist never gets caught, never has consequences, why not do it again?

I see the Clinton lying argument popping up again. That’s understandable… however, he was impeached, and NOT found guilty. Libby WAS found guilty and commuted. (I expect a full pardon before Bush leaves office.) In addition, you can see it both ways here… no, you didn’t hear the Dems crying out for justice when it was Clinton, however, you don’t hear the Reps crying out for justice today either. The reps voted to impeach Clinton for the same thing, but are now patting Scooter on the back… Just more hypocrisy, the other way around.

Yes, Clinton and Libby were prosecuted for the same crime (lying) but do I think that what the lie was about was even remotely as dangerous as one another? Not a chance, and no one can convince me otherwise. Clinton should have not been impeached, or held under oath at all for a crime against his own personal marriage vows.

I have come to the conlusion that complaining or being angry doesn’t matter anymore. It’s all about what you would like for dinner. If you want a load of crap on your plate to eat, keep backing the current administration. If you would rather have nothing on the plate and starve, then the new congress is for you. What do you prefer? No one is serving steak. Don’t ask.

I’m tired.

Posted by: TheKdd at July 3, 2007 4:52 PM
Comment #224709

kctim,

I agree with your point, about country over party, but we do have a nasty little conundrum - getting Bush and the GOP out of the White House is good for the country.

It’s also good for Democrats.

I think the hesitance to pursue impeachment comes from a perception that the coalition of indies and dems is weak. I’m not sure it is, but I can understand after Florida in 2000 and 2004 that people want to make sure that this sucker stays down in 2008. That he’s not replaced Rudy Romney.

It’s not unlike how I felt before November last year. I thought we were in good shape but I was VERY hesitant to believe any optimistic forecasts.

I think we want so desperately for these folks to be gone, not so much for the good of the party - I am liberal and vote Dem but I don’t drink Koolaid - but because the Dems are a better alternative than the GOP. For the good of the country.

I SOOO want Bush impeached, but not if it means that the GOP’s chances of winning in 2008 go up even one percent.

I believe the wildcard in all this, the thing that has kept everyone at bay, is fear of the fourth estate - the Washington press corps. The worst thing that could happen is the impeachment of Bush being reported as party politics as usual by writers who pander to him.

I want them GONE. And if that means holding my nose for sixteen more months, then that’s what I’ll do.

Posted by: CPAdams at July 3, 2007 4:52 PM
Comment #224710

TheKdd -

I don’t see that it’s the same thing. The underlying issue with Clinton was Whitewater, which turned out to be nothing. Clinton lied (poorly) to protect his privates. It was awful to watch. But it was just all about getting the Clintons on something. Anything.

On the other hand, the underlying thing in this case is bad -

Iraq.

And the other intermediate underlying thing - exposing the identity of an undercover agent - that’s illegal. Even Bush admitted as much (in that way that he admits nothing).

I am disgusted that people dare to equate Monica Lewinsky and Iraq. Folks, they are not the same thing. Any GOPer who says otherwise is preying on guilt about Clinton (a guilt that I don’t share).

Posted by: CPAdams at July 3, 2007 5:09 PM
Comment #224711

Thats where we differ the most CPAdams.
You may believe the Dems would be better for our country, I do not. You may think there is a difference, but there is not. The only thing that will change will be that the Dems will pass a few token things to make you all think they are working for you, but overall, the Constitution will still be ignored and our freedoms will still be disappearing.

You worry so much about the GOP winning in 08 and I can tell you that it doesn’t matter. I had the same beliefs about the Dems winning in the 90’s. I literally feared what liberalism would do to this country.
My fears proved true, but what have the Republicans done to fix anything? NOTHING!

Posted by: kctim at July 3, 2007 5:14 PM
Comment #224712

Again,

lying about screwing around and lying about a dead body buried in your back yard - they’re both lies.

But the problem is the body.

There’s another problem in this revisionist memory that equates Scooter and Monica. Actually, there are MANY problems with the comparison but I will limit myself to this last one.

Ken Starr and Pat Fitzgerald. Um…they’re both Republicans.

Staunch conservative Ken Starr + Democrat Bill Clinton = partisan investigation

Republican Pat Fitzgerald + Republican Scooter Libby + Republican appointed Judge Reggie Walton DOES NOT EQUAL partisan investigation.

Posted by: CPAdams at July 3, 2007 5:19 PM
Comment #224713

Sorry, CPAdams, but for many of us it was not about ‘getting clinton’ on anything, it was the FACT that he lied under oath in a sexual harassment trial. By doing so he denied Paula Jones’ right to a trail to hear her accusations. The worst part, before Clinton was elected in office, asking an accused sexual harasser their past sexual history was off-limits, until he HE signed into the law the ability to do so.

It was NOT about ‘Clinton getting a BJ’. It *WAS* about lying under oath in a sexual harassment case in which he was the accused.

Unless people like womanmarine and Sandra Davidson are willing to say that sexual harassment is no longer a serious topic?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2007 5:26 PM
Comment #224714

kctim,

I hear you but can’t agree.

I understand your frustration with politics. I look at our own political history - as far back as Marbury v Madison - it was always politics.

The problems with entrenched politicians interested mostly in saving their own asses - that’s real. But it’s always been the case.

I love the fact that Newt’s contract failed on question setting term limits for Congress - seems like he couldn’t overcome a GOP majority in the House to get that one through. It’s a perfect example of the limits of reform when facing true power and our governmental structure.

The Constitution was written with all of this insanity in mind. The opportunity to fix all this comes up every two years. Write the name that matters to you as I will.

Impeachment? It’s an extraordinary remedy. Just one in the first two hundred years of the republic (OK, 197 years), and now contemplating a third one in the last 33 years.

I say give it a rest. Does he deserve it? Yep. Without hesitation. But there have been others.

Hell, he’s not even the first to invent a war in furtherance of economic gain for cronies. Forget LBJ: let’s talk about the Indian wars of the 19th century.

Anyway, doing away with parties isn’t the answer. Not in a representative democracy, anyway. But kick em out every once in awhile. Get new blood in there. If people are really sick of these two parties, that’ll change too.

Posted by: CPAdams at July 3, 2007 5:41 PM
Comment #224715

Rhinehold, you’re as good as ever in stretching to make a point, but even for you, this is way off course and ridiculous !

Unless people like womanmarine and Sandra Davidson are willing to say that sexual harassment is no longer a serious topic?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2007 05:26 PM

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 3, 2007 5:49 PM
Comment #224716

Hi Rhinehold,

knew I could count on you to ignore the point.

Ken Starr was appointed by a Republican congress to investigate a Democratic sitting president. He replaced Robert Fiske, another Republican who wasn’t zealous enough for Newt Gingrich.

Pat Fitzgerald had no political ax to grind with this White House. He’s just a plain vanilla prosecutor with a reputation of being a very straight shooter.

His comments about the commupardon speak volumes.

Posted by: CPAdams at July 3, 2007 5:50 PM
Comment #224717

GWBush showed what he thinks of our justice system. He did not even wait until the end of the year and put Libby in with packing peanuts. What do you expect from a guy who married an SMU pot dealer?

Dick Durbin made the comparison to P Hilton.

LBJ at least called the parents of some of the casualties. I knew someone who received a call from him, thanking her for her sons service, and she felt consoled by it.

Joseph Wilson sounds like he is looking for someone to start impeachment proceedings, so maybe something will happen along those lines anyway.

Posted by: ohrealy at July 3, 2007 5:52 PM
Comment #224720

Sandra,

I’m stretching no point. Is sexual harassment a serious thing or not? Is therefore lying during a sexual harassment trial a bad thing or not?

Let me know, it would be refreshing to hear you admit that the Clinton perjury offense was a serious thing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2007 6:07 PM
Comment #224722

CPAdams,

I am not defending Bush or Libby, I was just pointing out that your assertion that the Cinton perjury incident was “Clinton lied (poorly) to protect his privates. It was awful to watch. But it was just all about getting the Clintons on something. Anything.”

For you, maybe. For some republicans, maybe. But for those of us who were disgusted by the behaviour and above the law attitude that Clinton portrayed (wagging that finger for instance) it was about so much more.

That you discount those of us in that camp is telling…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2007 6:10 PM
Comment #224725

Rhinehold:

I’ve never seen sexual harrassment equated with national security. Surely you see the difference?

Posted by: womanmarine at July 3, 2007 6:30 PM
Comment #224726

thanks womanmarine… I was about to say much the same thing. Of course, what we are seeing here, now…is the incredible ability of the cons to twist the target and divert the attacks.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 3, 2007 6:54 PM
Comment #224728

CPadams, you and I agree. I too do not believe for a minute that these two lies should be compared. I was trying to make the point that reps seem to cry hypocrisy, while not looking at their own when it comes to the lie. While they look on in “disgust” over the screwing around lie, they are patting Bush on the back for commuting Libby, all the while calling Dems the hypocritical.

Rhinehold - Did Lewinsky claim sexual harassment? I thought I read that she said it was consensual. The lie was “I did not have sex with that woman.” So he lied about consensual sex he did have, not a sexual harassment claim. That’s what I recall anyway, if I am incorrect and you have a link to where it says otherwise, I would be more than happy to stand corrected on that, really.

Posted by: TheKdd at July 3, 2007 7:12 PM
Comment #224729

the libertine,

Posted by: the libertine at July 3, 2007 04:00 PM

thank you,

You prove a point I make all the time about many of the the far left.

I think the point is obvious.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 3, 2007 7:26 PM
Comment #224730

At least obvious to all of us with an understanding of the basic debate.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 3, 2007 7:27 PM
Comment #224731

TheKdd,

No, Paula Jones claimed sexual harassment. That people don’t know the details of the issue and believe the rhetoric that this was ‘all about a bj’ is what makes it hard to have intelligent conversation about this…

Womanmarine and Sandra Davidson,

I don’t think one really stands above the other, does it? Aren’t they both pretty bad behavior? Shouldn’t they both be treated with the importance that they deserve instead of trying to claim one is more important than another in order to make political points?

Please, just answer the question: Is sexual harassment still a serious issue? Shouldn’t someone who is accused of sexual harassment be expected to NOT commit perjery under oath? It would seem like a serious thing to me, if we allow the President (well we did actually) commit perjury for that how can we expect all of the men in the US to be held to that same standard? Are we now allowing those who are accused of sexual harassment to lie under oath?

Oh, and again, that you suggest I am a ‘con using diversion’ is hilarious when the first thing I said in this thread is that I am disgusted by the actions of Bush in comuting the jail time. Exactly what am I ‘deflecting’ here? Bush is a scumbag who should never have commuted the sentence. Can you say that Clinton is a scumbag who shouldn’t have lied during a sexual harassment trial, especially when he was the accused?

It’s not about deflection by me, it’s about defending hypocrisy by those who still support Clinton but want to attack Bush…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2007 7:28 PM
Comment #224732

Rhinehold,

To me it was about Clinton looking in that camera at ME and saying “I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN!”

But of course libertine says im wrong on everything so i must be wrong on that!

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 3, 2007 7:30 PM
Comment #224733

TheKdd,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

This might help a bit…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2007 7:33 PM
Comment #224735

john trevisani- i call it treason. me [two]!
Great post.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 3, 2007 7:53 PM
Comment #224736

It’s about time the Democrats and Republicans quit defending their respective parties and realize that both are as corrupt as the other. Especially those of you who are diehard Dems and Reps.

Posted by: KAP at July 3, 2007 7:55 PM
Comment #224737

Managing editor,

Please check libertine’s rant to see if it violates the rules for participation. IMO, it does

Post has been deleted. If he tries anything again, managing editor gets the next message. His kind of language and insults will not be tolerated from anybody.
-Editor

Posted by: John Back at July 3, 2007 8:01 PM
Comment #224738

Blogmeister,

That’s comment #224699.

Posted by: John Back at July 3, 2007 8:03 PM
Comment #224739

“How can parents instill values and morality in their children?” asked a befuddled Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE). “How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America – one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?”

Former Senator Bill Frist joined Hagel in slamming Bush’s actions, saying the commutation amounted to unfair treatment. “He is not above the law,” said the clearly enraged Republican from Tennessee. “If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail.”

You would think, of all places, President Bush would find some love in his home state of Texas — but no so. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison said the Libby communion jeopardizes the nation’s entire legal system.

“I very much worry that with the evidence that we have seen that grand juries across America are going to start asking questions about what is obstruction of justice, what is perjury,” the senator said. “And I don’t want there to be any lessening of the standard. Because our system of criminal justice depends on people telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system and I don’t want it to be faded in any way.”

Fellow Republican Texan Tom Delay, himself indicted, nonetheless issued a scathing attack on the commutation.

“No man is above the law, and no man is below the law,” Delay said, choking back tears. “That’s the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.”

Of course, these people weren’t talking about Libby at all. They are real quotes, all made during the Clinton impeachment.

Posted by: Timmer at July 3, 2007 8:11 PM
Comment #224740

John Back- People who live in glass houses

should not throw stones!

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 3, 2007 8:16 PM
Comment #224744

Rhinehold: You said “No, Paula Jones claimed sexual harassment. That people don’t know the details of the issue and believe the rhetoric that this was ‘all about a bj’ is what makes it hard to have intelligent conversation about this…” and “TheKdd, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

This might help a bit…”

I didn’t need education on the actual trial. I know what the trial was about as I am educated, and choose not to just listen to rhetoric. If I did need an education on it however, Wikipedia would not be my first choice. I was asking about the actual lie itself. Yes it was under oath, and yes it was during the above said trial, but what I was saying was the lie was not about sexual harassment itself, it was about whether he had or had not had consensual sex (or sexual acts) with Monica Lewinsky. What I was asking you to clarify, if I was wrong, is if Monica herself claimed it was sexual harassment. I don’t believe it was just about a blow job, so feel free to have an “Intelligent conversation” with me.

As a woman, I will answer the question posed to others that you asked. Yes, sexual harassment is a very serious issue. One that for sure should be looked into and prosecuted if indeed it did happen. However, I also think that it is a private issue between parties, not one that will ever lead to the deaths of 1000’s.

Should Clinton have lied about have sex with her? Probably not, although I still think the issue should have been between him and his wife and the appropriate party/partys involved. Consensual sex should have never been brought into a sexual harassment case.

In my very first, original post, what I was trying to convey was that although reps are trying to claim hypocrisy on this issue bringing up Clinton, they are being hypocritical themselves, backing Bush on this. (Read Timmer’s last post. Thanks Timmer) They were quick to want to impeach Clinton for the same thing, a lie, but that was a lie with far less consequences. Agree?

Posted by: TheKdd at July 3, 2007 8:52 PM
Comment #224745

rhinehold……Libby’s trial was not about sexual harassment, Clinton’s impeachment was not about sexual harassment, and this post most certainly is not about sexual harassment. If we ever encounter that subject on here, I’d be more than happy to share what I feel about sexual harassment at that time…..until then, stick to the subject, which is: who all, and what, is Libby protecting to find himself a “free” man..
Bush has once again defied the law, and made his own special agenda, that which we all have to swallow. If Bush doesn’t do us all a favor and resign in light of that fact, than let the clamor for impeachment find someone who will start the process!!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 3, 2007 9:01 PM
Comment #224747

DAVID,

I neither live in a glass house nor throw stones. I was asking for a determination from the blogmeister if Libertine had crossed the line. If I used the same language in one of my postings,I would expect someone to ask the same question.

Posted by: John Back at July 3, 2007 9:18 PM
Comment #224748

John Back - Sorry about the lack of communication
on my part I was referring to the person who
#224699 was talking about.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 3, 2007 9:27 PM
Comment #224749

Sandra
It was well within Bush’s right to pardon whom ever he wishes. Whatever the reason was that we will probably never know. If I think it was right I don’t know, but Libby would probably serve his time in a country club prison anyway.

Posted by: KAP at July 3, 2007 9:44 PM
Comment #224750

Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Libby, republican, democrate, it really doesn’t matter who did what or why. What every person on this blog and in this country should be angry about is the fact that there quite obviously is a differnt set of rules for the politically connected than for the rest of us. These people are conciously dealing in deceptions and corruptive practices. And what makes it all the worse is that they throw it in our faces knowing that the rest of us peons have no recourse in doing anything about it. There is no longer honor in government. The thought of the state of our government seriously sickens me. I wonder just how pathetic we as a nation must look to the rest of the world. GWB has done absolutely nothing to bolster our credibility. Sad sad sad!

Posted by: ILdem at July 3, 2007 10:41 PM
Comment #224752
Consensual sex should have never been brought into a sexual harassment case.

Yet it was, as a matter of practice, because of a law that Clinton championed and signed into being. It was pushed by the likes of NOW and other women’s organizations that past and/or recent sexual behavior can help bolster a sexual harassment case by showing a propensity by the accused. Clinton agreed and signed the law. Then, when confronted with that law, he sidestepped it illegally.

*shrug* You can dismiss it all you want but there are many who were ok with Clinton if not fans up until that moment in time. It isn’t rhetoric, it isn’t spin, it is the reality of history.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2007 10:50 PM
Comment #224753
Bush has once again defied the law

How so? According to the law everything he did was legal, I’m confused as to how this single action is ‘defying’ the law? It is wrong and shouldn’t have occured, but it most certainly wasn’t illegal.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2007 10:52 PM
Comment #224754
I know what the trial was about as I am educated, and choose not to just listen to rhetoric. If I did need an education on it however, Wikipedia would not be my first choice. I was asking about the actual lie itself. Yes it was under oath, and yes it was during the above said trial, but what I was saying was the lie was not about sexual harassment itself, it was about whether he had or had not had consensual sex (or sexual acts) with Monica Lewinsky. What I was asking you to clarify, if I was wrong, is if Monica herself claimed it was sexual harassment.

No, Monica did not. Paula did. It was within every woman’s right in a sexual harassment trial to bring to light the past sexual behavior of the accused, a right granted by law, one that Clinton championed and signed into being. Instead of answering the question honestly, he lied. As a result he was held in contempt by the court and settled with Paula Jones for nearly a million dollars. He also lied to the american public, but that is not illegal either. Of course, his lies are excused by some…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2007 10:56 PM
Comment #224757

Rhinehold - Again, I told you I agree that he shouldn’t have lied as well. Both should be held accountable.

However, you don’t seem to agree that one lie had a lot worse consequences than the other. One lie was about an extramarital affair in light of a sexual harassment suit. It affected him, the woman harassed, and a few people called to witness. The other was a lie that helped to get us into war, and kill 1000’s of people. It affected all of us.

I just feel that as Clinton should have been held accountable for his actions on a personal level, to the person he harassed, which in my opinion, since they settled, they got what they wanted from him (the private party suing). It should not have involved our government at all, rather Clinton and the one who was suing. I realize he bypassed that. The Libby trial on the other hand WAS truly a government affair and affected the lives of the people in the U.S. He should be held accountable as well, and now, he will not be.

Posted by: TheKdd at July 3, 2007 11:14 PM
Comment #224761

I’m not really all that pleased to come back and see what I saw coming out of Libertine today. I made sure that the offending post got deleted, and that appropriate warnings were given. As a contributing editor, I will not allow any entry I manage to become a flamewar on account of those on the left, or on the right. We can’t really avoid offending each other, the way we feel about some folk’s opinions, but we sure as hell can avoid attacking each other, especially with Libertine’s unacceptable language.

I was hit on profanity myself a while back, and I’m one of the leading writers, so I can counsel restraint on these matters from experience. Being a Liberal, A Conservative, an editor, or anything else will not grant you immunity from these rules, especially the policy of this site’s subtitle.

All this, I could say, ties in to what this debate is about. Conservative, Liberal, it shouldn’t matter. Some problems extend beyond politics.

Bill Clinton’s perjury in the Jones’ civil case, as understandable as it was, and as much as most people sympathized with it, was wrong, and no President should have a pass on complying with the law. It betrayed the trust and the support of those who argued on his behalf.

Now there’s a good argument that they never should have let the case go forward while Clinton was President, given the national security concerns and the duties involved; one part of the court reasoning was that it would not interfere with his duties. years later, we know it certainly did interfere, and at perhaps the worst possible time in our history.

But all that aside, Bill Clinton should have told the truth in front of that court. He wasn’t able to hide the truth about what he did in the end, any more than Bush has been able to hide the truth of his many screw-ups. Clinton could have admitted the truth, faced the response, and saved the nation a whole lot of trouble.

Neither Clinton’s lying, nor Bush’s has served the good of the country. It’s not even saved them from the political troubles they’ve hoped to avoid.

The Libby Commutation, while perhaps within his power, violates the old government principle about avoiding at least the appearance of impropriety, if not the actuality of it as well.

Bush’s commutation of Libby has conflicts of interest written all over it. It stinks of cronyism. As such, the vast majority of the nation disagrees with it. Maybe the base is cheering this on, but hardly anybody else. This is the act of an administration that thinks, perhaps, that it has nothing left to lose, politically, by doing what its done.

The Right has plenty to lose. Cementing a reputation for this kind of behavior only lengthens the period of their time in the wilderness.

There are some political victories that really aren’t worth the trouble. This is one of them. The history books have yet another solid example of quesitonable, if not illegal behavior. Bush famously asserted that he didn’t really think about it, given the fact that folks would be dead when history made its verdict.

He didn’t take into account one thing: the future generations of voters. They won’t be dead. And they will be the children and the grandchildren of my generation, the generation his people lost. The last time the Republicans lost a generation this way, they were in the wilderness for another several decades.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 4, 2007 12:41 AM
Comment #224762

TheKidd- As long as you keep letting these Rep.
revert back to Clinton, they don’t have to
deal with today’s major screwed up mess, this also
lets them excuse Bush an his accomplice’s as if
they did nothing that others haven,t done. High
Crimes an Treason are not the same, no do they
carry the same penalties !

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 4, 2007 12:43 AM
Comment #224763

Steven Daugherty=Good post, Thank you!

-

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 4, 2007 12:49 AM
Comment #224765

I’m just a little (not much) curious about what beans Scooter might have spilled had he not gotten this and whatever future deals he may be in line for.

And yes, Clinton lied about his sex life. Look out, that might be harmful to our national security.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 4, 2007 2:24 AM
Comment #224766

Thank you DAVID, for your reminder.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 4, 2007 3:00 AM
Comment #224776
The other was a lie that helped to get us into war, and kill 1000’s of people. It affected all of us.

How on earth did the Libby perjury help us ‘get into a war’ when it was well after we were already trying to police the overthrow of Saddam by the time it occured?

Again, Libby should be rotting in jail for his perjury but he isn’t and that’s wrong. Clinton should have spent some time in jail for his as well, and that was wrong. However, in trying to make the case that this perjury was much more important than the other you’ve gone out of the bounds of reality (and time travel) to give Libby’s perjury more weight than it deserves.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 4, 2007 10:45 AM
Comment #224778

Rhinehold-
Libby’s offense was serious, and the seriousness is part of what makes commuting the sentence so offensive.

Bush is essentially saying that what Libby did was such a minor thing, that Libby did not need to go to jail. That was his actual reasoning. Libby lied to keep knowledge of the extent and character of a national security breach secret from investigators. What about that strikes you as minor, in White House staff?

The point would be, is that investigators wouldn’t necessarily know what secrets Libby was trying to keep. His secrets might be worse than that his office was trying to crush the reputation of a leaker. His secret might be a connection to a foreign power, hypothetically speaking. Once we start treating cooperation with federal investigations into breaches of national security as minor, we open up the door to some serious blowback.

Folks can be equally wrong, without your having to claim that their wrongs were equal.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 4, 2007 11:33 AM
Comment #224784

I think the word IMPEACHMENT needs to be heard more often.

Nothing will get done in Congress until after 2008 so why not spend the time punishing this administration for their misdeeds?

I’m mad as hell—o.

Posted by: chuck at July 4, 2007 2:13 PM
Comment #224785

chuck- No need to Waite, Congressional Over site
Manual under {Inherent Contempt Powers} allows
the Congress or Senate to have all those who did not
comply with the subpoenas, charged with Contempt of Congress
by a U S Attorney an an brought before the Senate
or Congress by the Sargent-at-Arms an Tried at the Bar of the Body an can be imprisoned until they
comply with the subpoenas. This procedure is however, seldom used but due to the time lines an
arrogance of these folks, I think one of the two
branches of Government must take control of this Delinquent, corrupt White House!

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 4, 2007 4:15 PM
Comment #224788

No David, It’s time we took over the 3 branches of government by getting rid of the incompetent congress, executive and judicial branches of government. I know the judicial branch will be tough to get rid of but not impossible.

Posted by: KAP at July 4, 2007 5:02 PM
Comment #224794

Bush should have pardoned, not commuted.

As with the Clinton case, Libby was convicted for lying about something that was not a crime. As we now know, Fitzgerald knew from the day he got the job who the leaker was and instead of going after him, went on to create an investigation that could produce nothing except perhaps getting someone on a different crime like perjury.

This is very similar to the Starr case against Bill Clinton for lying. It should produce a similar outcome.

Posted by: Jack at July 4, 2007 6:38 PM
Comment #224798

I am quiet sure Patrick Henry was not contemplating

a government performing in the fashion as this one is when he said Give me liberty or give me death. I would say it would be more akin to what

Benedict Arnold would agree with along with all those who will defend Libby an all those involved
with this Treasonous Scheme.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 4, 2007 7:08 PM
Comment #224801

KAP-All we need to do is Vote in 08 an replace al
those in power who we all know. Voters must do their part by doing a little research into all those who they intend to vote for. Democracy is not free an we must work to preserve the legacy of our
Forefathers!

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 4, 2007 7:35 PM
Comment #224806

David
I hope you mean all those Dems and Reps who vote for the person because of party lines. IMO that’s the biggest problem we have. People don’t care as long as he is Dem. or Rep. they will vote for the person. I see it in both this column and the red column.

Posted by: KAP at July 4, 2007 8:07 PM
Comment #224815

KAP- I leave all voters an myself to completely
enjoy the privilege an honor to make one of the

most important decisions we as a people must make.
I also believe those who do not vote have no voice

or rights to comment on what happens regarding the
privileges we as voters have decided as [Patriotic

Americans.]Every one must decide on their own as
to who they vote for.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 4, 2007 9:03 PM
Comment #224818

David
I agree voting is the most important right we have. People should study the candidate before casting a vote, but a lot of people don’t. They vote on party lines which, IMO, is ignorant. I, myself vote for who I think will serve in the best interrest of me no matter what party he or she is from.

Posted by: KAP at July 4, 2007 9:30 PM
Comment #224834

Jack-
The Big problem here relates to your assertion that Fitzgerald knew early on that no crime had been committed. First, not every crime that comes before a prosecutor gets prosecuted.

Typically, they’ll only take on a case when they have reasonable certainty of getting a conviction. A lack of charges and indictments can indicate the lack of a crime, or it can indicate that a crime was committed, but that the threshold of reasonable doubt concerning the charges was not met.

Either way, you’re asking Fitzgerald to call off the investigaton, having not fully established the facts of the case, which are after all the only true measure by which we can establish whether behavior was criminal or not.

You’re essentially asking Fitzgerald to agree with your point of view, rather than investigate the case fully.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 5, 2007 12:14 AM
Comment #224839

The above post may answer your Questions

about Libby.[with out prejudice]
-

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 5, 2007 12:34 AM
Comment #224849

KAP, the encouraging news is that the DNC and RNC are both losing party line voters to the new rise of Independent voters, who reserve the right to vote for any candidate on the basis of their policy views and political record, regardless of party. This shrinkage in RNC and DNC loyalist voters has been shrinking on a trend line for quite a few years now, coinciding with ever growing numbers of voters who now describe themselves as independent voters, roughly 1/3 of all voters.

In 2008, I believe the split amongst electorate will run about 34% Democrats, 31% Republicans, and 35% independent. If I am proved correct, it will be the first time in American history the number of Independent voters outnumbered any other party numbers. I find that a very hopeful sign of big changes to come.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 5, 2007 1:55 AM
Comment #224850

Jack, Congress does not need a crime to exercise its oversight role and demand sworn testimony in its investigation. Lying to Congress is a violation of law regardless of whether ANY other crime is involved or not. Oversight investigation is a Constitutional DUTY of Congress. Courts require a crime or civil action to be enacted before issuing warrants.

You are very definitely failing to distinguish between these two very different roles of three very different branches of government. The Executive Branch of course is the third with its law enforcement authority and authority to investigate, proscribed by legal boundaries determined by the courts and Congress.

Congressional oversight and investigatory powers do not require that a crime be the center, or anchor, of their oversight and investigatory powers. Quite the opposite, in fact. Congress with its oversight capacity is supposed to be like the public presence of police, visible and vigilant as a deterrent to crime.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 5, 2007 2:07 AM
Comment #224868

So David,

When Valarie Plame lied to congres we hold her to the same standard, yes we do?

Thanks to Davids link to help show the proof.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 5, 2007 10:47 AM
Comment #224883

scottie- I seemed to have missed the part where
Valarie Plame lied to Congress, I would not presume
to have you verify that claim, but there is nothing
in my link to verify Valarie Plame Lied to Congress.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 5, 2007 12:57 PM
Comment #224902

Sentencing Memorandum Filed May 25- Fitzgerald
resolved the disputed issues of the CIA Leak controversy. (From the Memo)- First it was clear
from very early the investigation that Ms. Wilson
qualified under the relevant statute

[Title 50, United States Code, Section 421] as a
covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by
Public Officials, including Mr. Libby, To The Press.
At the time of the initial unauthorized
disclosure in the Media [7-14-03] Ms. Wilson was a
covert CIA employee whose identity was still
being concealed for her relationship to the

United States. Many News sources are still
publishing the misleading statements to the contrary an many on this Blog. site are still
miss representing the facts, some of this info
came from Media Matters.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 5, 2007 2:30 PM
Comment #224904

Ah, media matters, the liberal answer to newsmax.com….

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 5, 2007 2:36 PM
Comment #224930

Some folks would not recognize the truth if it
were to [Bite them on their
arss! I guess when a person fabricates long enough,
they begin to live an believe in something called
a Pathological instability when they are unable to
to distinguish fact from fiction. My definition for
Blogger who mislead an twist the truth with most
of the people they come in contact with.
Nothing personal meant to anyone in particular.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 5, 2007 5:22 PM
Comment #224933

-David-,

Weren’t you the one suggesting to a previous poster that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones?

Interesting…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 5, 2007 5:33 PM
Comment #224936

Rhinehold -My house is all thermopane glass, an I
do on occasion, throw a stone once in a while!

-

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 5, 2007 6:08 PM
Comment #224946

It is a ironic that Judith Miller spent 80+ days in jail protecting her source, Scooter Libby. Then Scooter doesn’t spend one day in jail for obstruction of justice. Bush will pardon Scooter in the waning days of his presidency, when the elections are done and his actions can do no more damage to the Republican Party.

But perhaps the damage is already done; two out of three Americans feel his commutation of Scooter was wrong. In other words, I believe the President has finally disenfranchised completely the moderates and the independents. Even if there was a complete turnaround in the quagmire that is Iraq, and the president tried to proclaim his success, who would believe him? Then really, who really cares about anything he has to say? He has finally become completely irrelevant.


Posted by: Cube at July 5, 2007 7:33 PM
Comment #225044

Rhinehold-
Media Matters typically makes its accusations with a relevant excerpt of the video program, transcript or new text available to the site’s visitors. It may be a partisan site, but it provides evidence to justify its interpretations.

Besides, the source is the Sentencing Memorandum. Primary sources are good evidence in cases like this.

Scottie-
What lies did she tell? Are you just going to offer up that charge, or are you going to prove it?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 6, 2007 1:28 PM
Comment #225156

steven,

Valarie Plame made a statement to congress. It totally conflicted with what she said to Fitzgerald.

Now one place or the other she lied.

To All!

Look it UP!

Stay away from the political sites and sites that collect facts and make conclusions. You can come to your own conclusions.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 7, 2007 5:04 AM
Comment #225257

Looks like the spinmeisters are back, up down, left or may be right one place or the other, an what is
the critical thought structure when maybe it is an
maybe it is not any of the above? I believe I
would rather be in a conversation than be the
conversation!

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 7, 2007 10:56 PM
Comment #225274

scottie-
Your response is a circular argument in the place of a real answer. You told me last time she lied to congress, then you told me this time that she contradicted what she said to Fitzgerald in Congressional testimony, which is not that much better, since we still don’t know on what factual basis you would say she lied.

You know that many of the folks you’re debating will not easily give credit to such accusations. Your one opportunity to break their stride is to provide good facts. If you’re short of it, your first opportunity to stop making this weakly founded claim is at hand.

As for your advice to “Stay away from the political sites and sites that collect facts and make conclusions.”?

Well, how do you expect us to look anything up? Nobody can filter out all the information and understand it well by themselves. Real world’s just too big and complex. Thinking for yourself is important, but it’s also important to think well and understand things accurately, and the days are long past when one person could master it all, all by themselves.

I try and look for things I can apply true and false values to, facts and opinions that are verifiable.

So, give me something about these supposed lies I can check out. If you can’t give me anything to research, if you can only give me point blank accusations, then I’m afraid you won’t get very far with that accusation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 8, 2007 1:21 AM
Comment #225413

Ok stephen

Here we go. It is pretty much common knowledge but Valarie told congress in no way did she recommend her husband for that trip. But you see Fitzgearld, for some odd reason, has a different set of facts.

So again to all, I say “Research” its out there.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 9, 2007 1:40 PM
Comment #225602

scottie- Her husband was the Ambassador in that
Country[Niger] an knew what was going on there. An
since when is anything at the CIA common knowledge.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 10, 2007 3:19 AM
Comment #225835

I did not say that “anything at the CIA common knowledge”

Don’t change my words that proves you came to a wrong conclusion.

And he lied too, that is easier to research.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 11, 2007 1:43 PM
Comment #225836

Again I am fully comfortable in letting the reader decide!

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 11, 2007 1:44 PM
Comment #225982

Scottie_ I am afraid that the only conclusion I
have formulated recently, pertains to the fact
that you unknowingly or knowingly, have a bad habit
of making attempts at disproving most every one
else’s statements with misleading, or even
total fabrications. “he lied to” “Ms. Wilson lied”
Please feel free to correct me any time you like
as long as you can verify from any source other
than your less than reliable sources you are now
using! Thank you

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 12, 2007 5:30 AM
Comment #226153

Ok now that we have had time to look ourselves, I will post two links. News links yes. But links to start research on something that the mainstream media has reported way more than once:

Wilson has also armed his critics by misstating some aspects of the Niger affair. For example, Wilson told The Washington Post anonymously in June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.” The Senate intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson “had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.”
Wilson had to admit he had misspoken.

and


That inaccuracy was not central to Wilson’s claims about Niger, but his critics have used it to cast doubt on his veracity about more important questions, such as whether his wife recommended him for the 2002 trip, as administration officials charged in the conversations with reporters that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is now probing. Wilson has maintained that Plame was merely “a conduit,” telling CNN last year that “her supervisors asked her to contact me.”

But the Senate committee found that “interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife … suggested his name for the trip.” The committee also noted a memorandum from Plame saying Wilson “has good relations” with Niger officials who “could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” In addition, notes on a State Department document surmised that Plame “had the idea to dispatch him” to Niger.

From the same article.I watch all three Cable news stations and C-Span.

This was all common knowledge in the media when this happened.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 13, 2007 2:18 AM
Comment #226194

Scottie- What is your point here.
Wilson was correct and Bush Prefabricated the
Yellow Cake stories in part to get the us in to this war with Iraq.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 13, 2007 12:52 PM
Comment #226201

My point is you said give me proof that “he “lied”. “she lied” Your post- #225982

I did!

Then you change the subject to Bush.

This was in response to Steven asking:
Scottie-
What lies did she tell? Are you just going to offer up that charge, or are you going to prove it?

I proved it!

Just say “thank you!”


Posted by: scottie1321 at July 13, 2007 1:37 PM
Comment #226207

If I recall correctly, that myth was based on a mistatement that was taken as fact by the Senate Intelligence committee: She didn’t suggest him, somebody else did, somebody familiar with work he had done for the agency before. The quibble is over whether she got him the job, which at her rank, she couldn’t. Somebody else brought up using him, she agreed with them, and then somebody above her made the decision to bring him in. And what does Wilson get for helping his wife? An all expenses paid junket to one of the dustiest cities on the planet, a third world vacation spot, to be sure.

Yeah, and all this motivated to take down the President, right? The fact that he sat on this information for well over a year after the trip, rather than bust Bush’s chops with it pre-emtpively should tell you just how hollow that is. This guy was no small critic of Hussein, and once when told by Hussein that he might be executed for not letting his staff be used as human shields, he showed up at a press conference with a noose tied loosely around his neck in a theatrical manner and said that if that were going to happen, he would “bring his own f***ing noose.”

Why are you guys so intent on seeing every person who runs afoul of this president as a far left looney motivated by hatred?

These people told the truth. You just didn’t like what they had to say. That seems to be the Republican criteria for what they do and do not accept, and in my opinion, its a preference they’ve paid for dearly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 13, 2007 2:27 PM
Post a comment