Democrats & Liberals Archives

Criminals Are Stupid

Scooter Libby paid his $250,000 fine today. He didn’t have to — the appeals process still hasn’t ended — but he whipped out his checkbook and paid it like you or I would write a check for a pair of socks at Wal-Mart. It’s no skin off his nose. In fact, he’ll probably be reimbursed from the five million dollar fund that Washington lobbyist and Hollywood elite, Fred Thompson, amassed for him. Don’t cry for Scooter.

Just think of how the conservative institutions have taken care of other traitors and criminals, like G. Gordon Liddy, John Poindexter and Oliver North. These criminals wrapped themselves in the loving arms of the criminal-loving right wing and they're doing fine. Despite Libby's 'taint', he'll find a happy and prosperous home in a think tank somewhere within a conservative movement that warmly welcomes traitors who know how to play ball.

Just the facts:
Scooter Libby and Karl Rove leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to the press. Leaking the name of a covert CIA operative is a crime. They leaked the name of a covert CIA operative under orders from Vice President Cheney possibly with the knowledge of President Bush. Libby lied and obstructed the investigation and kept the special prosecutor from pursuing a conviction for the leak -- Libby "threw sand in the umpire's eyes." Libby was convicted for obstruction of justice.

There was an underlying crime. We know that Libby leaked the name of a covert CIA operative -- as did Karl Rove and Richard Armitage. Armitage's leak appears inadvertent. Rove and Libby's leak appears to be at the request of Vice President Cheney and possibly President Bush as revenge for the covert CIA operative's spouse pointing out that President Bush deliberately misled America about Iraq's nuclear program.

Leaking the name of a covert CIA operative is a crime. Libby leaked the name of a covert CIA operative. President Bush Sr. called it the worst kind of treason, but President Bush Jr. made sure Libby didn't spend a single day in jail for his crimes.

It's not hard to conclude that President Bush kept Libby out of jail to keep him from implicating Cheney and possibly even President Bush himself in the leak. Libby originally intended to mount an aggressive defense. He said he was being made a scapegoat by the White House and threatened to call Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney and White House counsel Dan Bartlett as witnesses.

Two weeks later, Libby decided not to defend himself at all. He suddenly decided not to call any witnesses and accept a jail sentence for obstructing justice. Hours before Libby was to be incarcerated, President Bush commuted his sentence. Connection? It seems pretty obvious.

President Bush appears to have commuted Libby's sentence in return for his silence in an investigation that could implicate President Bush and Vice President Cheney in the crime of treason.

As for the title of this article, "Criminals are Stupid", President Bush's decision to commute Libby's sentence without consulting the Justice Department resulted in some unintended consequences. President Bush commuted Libby's jail sentence and upheld his two-year probation, but under the law, the probation refers to "a term of supervised release after imprisonment." Doh!

The White House also seemed caught off guard by comments from the judge in the case, Reggie B. Walton of Federal District Court. Judge Walton questioned whether it is legally possible to execute Mr. Bush’s call for a commutation of the sentence but continue the two-year probation that was to follow.

The law, Judge Walton wrote, "does not appear to contemplate a situation in which a defendant may be placed under supervised release without first completing a term of incarceration."

He directed the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Libby’s lawyers to file arguments on the point by Monday.

Some criminals get stuck climbing out of air vents, others don't consult their lawyers when they circumvent our legal system. Either way, criminals are stupid.

Posted by American Pundit at July 6, 2007 3:37 AM
Comment #225004

Yeah, it certainly smacks of quid pro quo.

Posted by: Gerrold at July 6, 2007 4:10 AM
Comment #225005

AP: Yeah you are right, absolutely right. But you forget about the ills of the pardons that the Dems have done in their history, especially Bill Clinton. The duopoly is disgusting you throw mud at one side, and the other side throws mud at you. But when it is your own you defend them, and when it is their own they defend them. Hooray for the duopolistic duo. America only has two opinions! Dee dee dee.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at July 6, 2007 4:18 AM
Comment #225010

I’m still wondering how the great educated Bush mind intellectually determined that Libby’s sentence was too onerous, considering it was in the mid-range for such illegal antics…

Posted by: Rachel at July 6, 2007 9:22 AM
Comment #225011

I’m still wondering how the great elitely educated democrat minds are still trying to determine how dumb ole Bush could get away with all this. He has to be guilty of something…Keep trying…don’t worry about the rest of the country or the world for that matter…Get Bush…

It worked in ‘06…keep going for it in ‘08…

Posted by: Cliff at July 6, 2007 9:35 AM
Comment #225016

So… how are the Clinton pardons in any way related to this matter? Clinton pardoned individual cases that didn’t implicate himself or his administration during an ONGOING INVESTIGATION. Marc Rich might have contributed to Clinton’s campaign but his offenses did nothing that PROTECTED Clinton in any way. Look through the lists of Clinton’s Presidential pardons.
They are interesting I’ll give you that… and many of them are unsavory… I can’t understand WHY he did that… I’m sure some could speculate and most likely be wrong… but there is one thing he didn’t do it for… to save his own ass.

AP is right in saying that Bushco were obviously doing the guy a favor in lieu of being implicated by his truthful testimony and so he lied. And the commutation of the sentence was part of the agreement… Way to go good soldier Scooter you scooted past the hard raps, no one besides Bushco will respect or trust you again… so thats punishment enough for being untrustworthy no need to keep punishing him like he were any other member of society who might lie under oath in an investigation of any magnitude…

I do think it is unfair to say this was in accordance with Republican wishes… It was a republican judge, prosecutor and mostly a repub jury… Plus most average republicans are just as in awe of this disregard for justice as most democrats… I’d rather say that this is neoconservativism at its best, this is Bushco at its most typical and this is an example of poor leadership responsibility once again.

Maybe I’m soft on the right… but I don’t want to bash them for this… some repubs did the right thing and agreed to give him an average sentence for his crime of lying under oath. Its a whole other group that are defending it… Bush loyalists… and whether its because they are blind to the obvious wrong here or they somehow benefit from it for some crazy reason or they just plain want to defend their beautiful president I don’t know… but lets stop pointing fingers all over the place so long as it is to our right and point them directly at Bush and his regime… they’re the ones lying to every political party out there.

It is interesting that Bushco totally forgot that the probation was created provided he actually spent time in jail… perhaps they were scrambling to make Libby happy and it slipped their minds… Maybe Bush knew that he would give a full pardon to Libby by the time he is out of office anyways and so it didn’t matter.

What I’m getting interested over is what are the legal ramifications of our President claiming an average imprisonment term for obstruction of Justice being too harsh…
I mean if the president can claim that on such a big case… can’t that be manipulated later on for cases of much less magnitude? hmm wonder when we’re going to first hear about those kinds of cases…

Posted by: Squire at July 6, 2007 11:03 AM
Comment #225017


As far as the pardons and commutation of sentences issued by William Jefferson Clinton and George W. Bush, I refer you to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution Of The United States which reads:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” (Emphasis mine).

Now, if we consider the Constitution to be the “Supreme Law of the Land”, then this arguement is over. William Jefferson Clinton and George W. Bush exercized their Constitutional authority…and that’s that. End of story.

Yes, you can be pissed off if you want. Yes, you can be upset if you want…but, according to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, no law was broken and no law was circumvented. Don’t blame Clinton and Bush for using the power they were given.

John Conyers can hold all the hearings he wants, but unless there is an Amendment to the Constitution forthcoming, this is just another stupid distraction from the REAL issues that are of REAL importance.

Posted by: Jim T at July 6, 2007 11:06 AM
Comment #225018

Jim T, here’s the part I would have highlighted:

…except in Cases of Impeachment.

Leaking the name of a covert CIA operative is treason — an impeachable offense. It appears President Bush commuted Libby’s sentence in return for Libby’s derailing an investigation that would implicate him in an impeachable offense.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 6, 2007 11:46 AM
Comment #225020


Yes, but Libby wasn’t charged with treason. He was charged with lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. May I also point out that Bush was not being impeached. Future impeachment, perhaps, but not at the time…which is relevant here.

Now, with that being said, why didn’t Fitzgerald charge Libby with treason? If it was out-and-out treason, where are the charges? If Plame WAS a covert agent and was outed by Libby, where are the charges? If Fitzgerald could prove Libby lied to a grand jury and if he could prove obstruction of justice, why couldn’t he prove treason?

I will give you this, A.P., something surely smells rotten in state of Denmark.

Posted by: Jim T at July 6, 2007 12:04 PM
Comment #225022
why didn’t Fitzgerald charge Libby with treason?

Duh. Because Libby obstructed the investigation.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 6, 2007 12:08 PM
Comment #225024


Come on…You can do better then that…

Posted by: cliff at July 6, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #225025

Go back and read the article — I cover it all there — or check up on the timeline and the trial evidence yourself. It’s all public.

I don’t make this stuff up, I just comment on it.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 6, 2007 12:24 PM
Comment #225027
Come on…You can do better then that…

No really, it’s really that simple: Fitzgerald didn’t make a treason charge because Libby obstructed the investigation. I don’t know what more can be said.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 6, 2007 12:29 PM
Comment #225029

Don’t sweat it AP you can’t make it any simpler than that… They can’t prove the treason because the key pieces of the investigation needed to determine who exactly committed treason should have been in Libby’s testimony, he lied and obstructed those pieces of the investigation in order to escape a treason rap, not to mention those he was covering for.

Something smells rotten alright… and its treason… Problem is its treason with an official stamp on it… The treason is there, its just got the okay to keep going down the line despite its obviousness. Sometimes factories don’t make a recall because the amount it would cost to do a recall would be more than the amount to cover it up… same here… business, business, business

Posted by: Squire at July 6, 2007 12:46 PM
Comment #225030

Thanks, I’ll use your fable as a book-mark for my grandchild’s “Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs”.

Posted by: Jim at July 6, 2007 12:47 PM
Comment #225032

“Leaking the name of a covert CIA operative is treason — an impeachable offense. It appears President Bush commuted Libby’s sentence in return for Libby’s derailing an investigation that would implicate him in an impeachable offense.”

Yes, treason — definitely an impeachable offense. Not that there aren’t already many other reasons that could be used to impeach the president and vice president, but for some reason, all of them are “off the table.”
Just think, if impeachment had gone forward immediately after the ‘06 elections, Libby might now be serving his jail time that he earned for perjury and obstruction justice. (Not to mention Gonzales might have been made to step down) But instead, Bush commuting Scooter’s sentence in a way never seen before will now be spawning “the Libby motion.”

In commuting I. Lewis Libby Jr.’s 30-month prison sentence on Monday, President Bush drew on the same array of arguments about the federal sentencing system often made by defense lawyers — and routinely and strenuously opposed by his own Justice Department.

Critics of the federal sentencing system have a long list of complaints. Sentences, they say, are too harsh. Judges are allowed to take account of facts not proven to the jury. The defendant’s positive contributions are ignored, as is the collateral damage that imprisonment causes the families involved.

On Monday, President Bush made use of every element of that critique in a detailed statement setting out his reasons for commuting Mr. Libby’s sentence.

That left experts in sentencing law scratching their heads.

“The Bush administration, in some sense following the leads of three previous administrations, has repeatedly supported a federal sentencing system that is distinctly disrespectful of the very arguments that Bush has put forward in cutting Libby a break,” said Douglas A. Berman, a law professor at Ohio State who runs the blog “Sentencing Law and Policy.”

Perhaps inadvertently, Mr. Bush’s decision to grant a commutation rather than an outright pardon has started a national conversation about sentencing generally.

“By saying that the sentence was excessive, I wonder if he understood the ramifications of saying that,” said Ellen S. Podgor, who teaches criminal law at Stetson University in DeLand, Fla. “This is opening up a can of worms about federal sentencing.”

By yesterday morning, in fact, Mr. Bush’s arguments for keeping Mr. Libby out of prison had become an unexpected gift to defense lawyers around the country, who scrambled to make use of them in their own cases.

“The president of the United States has come in on his own and said, ‘30 months is not reasonable in this case,’ ” said Susan James, an Alabama lawyer representing Don E. Siegelman, the state’s former governor, who is appealing a sentence he received last week of 88 months for obstruction of justice and other charges.

“It’s far more important than if he’d just pardoned Libby,” Ms. James said, as forgiving a given offense as an act of executive grace would have had only political repercussions. “What you’re going to see is people like me quoting President Bush in every pleading that comes across every federal judge’s desk.”

Indeed, Mr. Bush’s decision may have given birth to a new sort of legal document.

“I anticipate that we’re going to get a new motion called ‘the Libby motion,’ ” Professor Podgor said. “It will basically say, ‘My client should have got what Libby got, and here’s why.’ ”

As a purely legal matter, of course, Mr. Bush’s statement has no particular force outside of Mr. Libby’s case. But that does not mean judges will necessarily ignore it.

Btw, good article AP.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 6, 2007 12:53 PM
Comment #225035

More unintended consequences of President Bush’s ham-handed attempt to subvert justice. I’m sure any competent Justice Department official could have predicted that, if Bush had bothered to ask. Criminals are stupid. Nice one, Adrienne.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 6, 2007 1:00 PM
Comment #225047

Way to go AP….it only took one posting to bring the Clinton defense in loud and clear.
You and Adrienne are right on about this creating a heyday for defense attorneys all around. Comments are thick on MSNBC about just that.
You’re also right about criminals = stupidity….highlight Bush!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 6, 2007 1:42 PM
Comment #225049


WAAAAAaaaaait a minute here. Something’s not right.

YOU KNEW that Libby committed treason and you DIDN’T tell Fitzgerald?

Hold on, hold on. You said in your post that…

“Leaking the name of a covert CIA operative is a crime. Libby leaked the name of a covert CIA operative.”

You present that as a statement of fact. Libby committed treason. Period. No wiggle room.

Now, either Fitzgerald is as dumb as a box of rocks (since it HAD to have been a well known FACT that Libby is a treasonous scumbag…I mean, even YOU knew it)…or Libby’s “Kung Fu” lies and obstructions were very, very strong, Grasshopper.

With that being said, I don’t think Fitzgerald is a clueless Bozo, and it’s obvious that Libby isn’t P.T. Barnum.

So one of the following must be true.

A.) Fitzgerald is a weenie who didn’t want to subpoena any reporters who Libby leaked to to confirm Libby’s treason.

B.) The White House told Fitzgerald to back off.

C.) Fitzgerald is lazy and knew he could get the “easier” convictions, and so went for them.

D.) Fitzgerald didn’t want to see anyone with a silly-ass nickname like “Scooter” lined up in front of a firing squad.

E.) Valerie Plame’s status was not “covert” at the time.

So which is it?

To tell me that “Scooter” is a arch criminal mastermind that singlehandedly stopped the treason investigation dead in its tracks is, well, unbelievable. And if he IS that good, I want to see his “00” license to kill.

Posted by: Jim T at July 6, 2007 1:46 PM
Comment #225053

Jim T, that quote of mine also came with a link. Here it is.

A former Time magazine reporter said in court yesterday that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby confided that the wife of an Iraq war critic worked at the CIA, becoming the second journalist to testify that the vice president’s then-chief of staff disclosed the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.

I don’t make this stuff up. I think the reason you’re confused is that you’re unwilling to accept the facts.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 6, 2007 1:58 PM
Comment #225054


(F) Libby lied to cover that he and Cheney knew the uranium story was false, and that was enough to block the investigation.

You think you have to be a mastermind to block an investigation? It’s a miracle when any of this stuff sees the light of day at all. You must be either very trusting that we know everything the government is doing or watch a lot of T.V.

Furthermore, you must think the president and vice president didn’t read or believe any of the security reports given to them about this situation. In short, you must think Scooter is an imbecile and wantonly disregarded his chain of commnand by going it alone in leaking this information to the press.

Bush did what no other president has done an commuted someone’s sentence during an investigation where he was implicated. 11th hour pardons after the investigations are over is one thing. But during the investigation? If it’s not against the law, it should be.

Posted by: Max at July 6, 2007 1:58 PM
Comment #225062


No no! That’s not it at all. I am willing to accept that “Scoots” outed Plame.

Now, according to your link…

“A former Time magazine reporter said in court yesterday that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby confided that the wife of an Iraq war critic worked at the CIA, becoming the second journalist to testify that the vice president’s then-chief of staff disclosed the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.”

If Fitzgerald had two…TWO confirmed sources that said that the Scootmeister outed Plame…and she was “undercover” (or “covert”) at the time, why didn’t he go for treason? If you have two independant sources, Scooter’s lies become perjury (for which he was convicted…rightly so). BUT, if Fitzgerald had two…TWO independant sources, he should have been able to go for treason.

Why didn’t he?

That’s my point here. Why DIDN’T he go for treason? He’s got the testimony. Scooter’s lies are proven for what they are. Lies. Why didn’t he go for it?

It’s the same question I ask about the New York Times publishing classified material. Why DIDN’T the A.G. go for it? The proof is there.

Go for it.

If somebody commits treason and you have the proof, spank that ass!


“Bush did what no other president has done an commuted someone’s sentence during an investigation where he was implicated.”

Ford pardoned Nixon while Nixon was still under investigation. The House was headed for impeachment, but Ford beat them to the punch.

Of course, there is a difference between commutation and a full pardon, but you get the drift.

Posted by: Jim T at July 6, 2007 2:58 PM
Comment #225066

Okay question… sure Ford pardoned Nixon during the investigation… but was Ford’s involvement under question? Was he implicated? I don’t know the answer to that… but thats what is so upsetting about bush doing it. Not just that it was during the investigation, but that the investigation implicated cheney, rove, AND Bush…
Sure it would be a big deal if he did this and the investigation was still going on and he had nothing to do with it… but the fact that he is effectively giving the okay to someone who blocked an investigation that could have incriminated himself is reprehensible.

Posted by: Squire at July 6, 2007 3:16 PM
Comment #225071


Makes sense. Your ire is understandable.

Ford wasn’t implicated in Watergate…but was under a dark cloud of suspicion that as part of the Warren Commission that he helped “dummy” up the report that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing JKF. Other than that, nothing. In fact, Congress praised the choice Nixon made when he chose Ford.

Posted by: Jim T at July 6, 2007 3:41 PM
Comment #225075

Okay good… who can say modern education is failing.. well plenty… but at least not about me in this case… heheh

Posted by: Squire at July 6, 2007 3:56 PM
Comment #225080

I am not a big fan of Fitzgerald, who seems more interested in making prime time news in Chicago with most of his investigations. His prosecution of Rpblcn governor George Ryan was on the news daily, but the more recent Conrad Black/Hollinger story does not get as much airplay. The most disturbing part for me is that the two toilet Irish are abandoning the Democratic party. What next, a Rpblcn Kennedy?

On the impeachment front, I just do not think it can happen. The bogus impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President of The United States, has tainted that possibility. Another impeachment will make it seem like we are going to impeach every president that comes along.

Posted by: ohrealy at July 6, 2007 4:26 PM
Comment #225081

Oh no doubt… forget impeaching him. I mean… time is short for ol Bushman and Co. Why impeach them? Just let them dig their own hole. Now if all this happened say… towards the end of the first term… or at the beginning of this one… I’d say go for it…

Truth is I don’t think we’ll ever know if they ACTUALLY did something that would warrant an impeachment… they’ve screwed the justice department up too much… and they obviously meant to… I just wish that we could find a way to insure that a president cannot pull the wool over Judicial eyes without screwing up the Executive power… Unless that is resolved, any president can do what Bushco has done and get away with it… which really screws up our notion of checks and balances…

Posted by: Squire at July 6, 2007 4:48 PM
Comment #225090

Constitutionally, the bar is set pretty high on treason. Even John Walker Lindh wasn’t convicted of it. The only person in the last half century even indicted for it was Adam Yahiye Gadahn.

Though the actions that Bush and the others took fall short of treason in my view, they certainly represent a betrayal of America’s best interests, not to mention our trust in them to keep such secrets.

The big problem here, I would say, is that they have a very Judge Dredd attitude towards these things, which is to say that rather than being accountable to the law, or above it in their own minds, they believe they are the law, that their decisions have legitimate authority, whether the code of laws are applied properly or not. Of course, in a real sense, they’re putting themselves above the law, if they’re taking that position.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 6, 2007 6:15 PM
Comment #225138

Stephen Daugherty- You are correct, Article 3
Leveling a War against the United States or giving
Aide or Comfort to it’s enemies, might fit but
would never stick.{calls for death {penalty}


Posted by: -DAVID- at July 7, 2007 1:46 AM
Comment #225142

“Truth is I don’t think we’ll ever know if they ACTUALLY did something that would warrant an impeachment”

I strongly disagree. I’m a list maker, so allow me to share with you and others my ongoing list of things that I view as actually constituting clear and obvious impeachable offenses which have been committed by the Bush Administration:

1. The Downing Street Memo(s) in combination with the testimony of Paul O’Neil (former Treasury Secretary) are evidence of Bushco’s decision to “fix the facts around the intelligence” and invade a sovereign foreign nation on totally specious grounds. The memos are a real smoking gun that were in fact, authenticated by Tony Blair. For some reason, people have chosen to act as though they do not exist.

2. Authorizing torture of Prisoners of War is a direct violation of the protocols of the Geneva Convention that we signed on to uphold.

3. Using white phosphorus as a chemical weapon in Fallujah. This came from Rumsfeld who would have had to have received authorization from Bush to make use of WP as an incendiary weapon. Given the fact that one of our supposed objectives in going to war in Iraq was to find chemical weapons in that country, it should be viewed as criminal that we were the ones who used such weapons on an Iraqi civilian population. Furthermore, the US military tried to lie about this use of WP as a chemical weapon, but then later was forced to confirm it — not to our press though, but rather to the BBC.

4. Kidnapping people who they consider terror suspects and renditioning them by putting them on airplanes and sending them to countries who we know torture and kill people — even those who are untried, or who have not been convicted of any crimes.

5. Holding “non-combatant civilians” for indefinite periods of time. Denying them access to counsel and to a day in court, as well as depriving them of seeing or talking to family members who might on their behalf have the chance to plead their cause to the public.

6. Memo entitled: Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US. which both Rice and Bush knew about, yet did absolutely nothing to address in a manner consistent with that of the acting National Security Advisor, or the President of the United States.

7. In July of 2002, Bush illegally transferred 700 million from the budget for the war in Afghanistan to war preparations in Iraq, without Congressional Approval. Doing so was definitely a violation according to our Constitution.

8. Ignoring the FISA laws and giving authorization to wiretap US citizens at will, without the “probable cause” demanded by the Fourth Amendment.

9. Denying political protesters their First Amendment rights. Individuals or groups of people have been removed from crowds and immediately put in jail for exercising this right given to us by the Constitution. The Secret Service, acting under orders from Bush now often conduct “harassment and intimidation interviews” with political activists.

If I’ve missed any pertinent high crimes or misdemeanors that might constitute impeachable offenses, I hope others will feel free to add to this list.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 7, 2007 2:26 AM
Comment #225154

Their must be several
special prosecutors appointed an let them gather all
the facts, an finish this issue PDQ [Fast tract]
before the 08 elections.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 7, 2007 4:30 AM
Comment #225173

Adrienne,I guess stupidity doesn’t count, or there would be lines around the country……but……this may be of some interest.
Our ranks are beginning to swell a bit !

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 7, 2007 1:08 PM
Comment #225176

Wow Thanks Adrienne… I would have to agree… I meant on this particular case we won’t ever really know because they won’t let us… but you are absolutely right.
I guess what I also meant is that I doubt we’ll ever have enough information that someone will dare use in an impeachment… since everyone who dares to speak of it are turned into Crazy witchhunting Partisan Liberals who hate the President… You know since everyone who is concerned over the future of our country’s ideals are all crazy… One day I hope we’ll know the truth here… I hope that that day will not be once its too late to punish those responsible…

Posted by: Squire at July 7, 2007 1:24 PM
Comment #225192

Sandra, interesting link. You wrote:
“Our ranks are beginning to swell a bit !”

I agree. The commutation of Libby’s sentence seems to have tipped the scales quite a bit.

“I guess what I also meant is that I doubt we’ll ever have enough information that someone will dare use in an impeachment…”

Yes, unfortunately daring is a quality that the Dems seem to be in very short supply of* for some reason that I can’t fathom. To me that appears rather ridiculous after all the flagrant displays of shameless unmitigated gall we’ve seen from the GOP for so many years.

* There are a few Democrats this clearly doesn’t apply to — Russ Feingold being one among the few intrepid Dems we have — but the majority have chosen to ignore and/or sideline such people.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 7, 2007 3:14 PM
Comment #225197

I think we need to give credit where due, and Kucinich is still fighting the fight as well. It’s for sure an uphill battle, but dammit…he deserves acknowledgement of his efforts. It seems he is collecting more support all the time, although it is in trickles and not in waves.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 7, 2007 3:29 PM
Comment #225225

Sandra, agreed. Kucinich is also an intrepid Democrat. And he is also often ignored/sidelined by the majority.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 7, 2007 6:38 PM
Comment #225227

Adrienne….sorry, and hope you didn’t feel that was an “attack” on you. It’s just that there are a growing (albeit slowly) number of supporters for the an impeachment run, and they get so little attention. I still feel that impeachment is in order and, based on polls, I’m not alone. Call me lame, dense, or just stupid, but it beats the hell out of me why it’s not being done. A lot will say that the time left is too short to start something now and I find that ludicrous ! Since when do we allow atrocities to go unchecked ??
Now that I’ve gotten that off my mind, I’m off to seek drink or drugs so that I might chill a bit… ;)

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 7, 2007 7:12 PM
Comment #225241

Sandra, well said.

“Now that I’ve gotten that off my mind, I’m off to seek drink or drugs so that I might chill a bit… ;)”

:^) Great idea. In between posting today, I’ve cleaned my whole house, played with my dogs, and did a couple loads of laundry. It’s 5:14 here in California, and before dinner, I think I’ll go make me and Himself a cocktail — a raspberry vodka martini on the back porch sounds lovely right about now.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 7, 2007 8:15 PM
Comment #225311

Adrienne..5:15 in the bay area…..I couldn’t agree more! Of course, I’d rather have a margerita..;) I was within 100 miles of you last month, and if I knew you served drinks, I’d have stopped by.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 8, 2007 2:11 PM
Comment #225339

Sandra next time you’re coming for a visit, let me know. I’d be more than happy to have you over to my place for cocktails! I’ve even got a blender, and can make pretty decent margaritas. :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at July 8, 2007 8:34 PM
Post a comment