Another Bush Half-Measure
It seems since his 2004 re-election, President Bush has succeeded in doing a lot things half-way or half-assed. The commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence is a little bit of both. It is certainly not an act of political leadership or courage. The Wall Street Journal agrees:
President Bush’s commutation late yesterday afternoon of the prison sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby will at least spare his former aide from 2 1/2 years in prison. But by failing to issue a full pardon, Mr. Bush is evading responsibility for the role his Administration played in letting the Plame affair build into fiasco and, ultimately, this personal tragedy.
Mr. Libby will have to pay a fine of $250,000 and serve two years probation. This reflects the leniency that was previously recommended by the federal probation office but was rejected by Judge Reggie Walton in his vindictive sentence.
These columns have had cause to defend the Bush Presidency from what we’ve seen as often meritless or exaggerated partisan attacks, notably over national security and the Iraq war. This, however, will stand as a dark moment in this Administration’s history. Joe Wilson’s original, false accusation about pre-war intelligence metastasized into the issue of who “outed” his wife, Valerie Plame, as an intelligence officer. As the event unfolded, it fell to Mr. Libby to defend the Administration against Mr. Wilson’s original charge, with little public assistance or support from the likes of Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell or Stephen Hadley.
Mr. Libby deserved better from the President whose policies he tried to defend when others were running for cover. The consequences for the reputation of his Administration will also be long-lasting.
Frankly, I think it is too late for the reputation.
And this ironic note from a reader at The Corner.
notwithstanding the commutation, it’s hard to swallow an otherwise hard working public servant getting whacked with a $250,000 fine, a destroyed reputation and an enormous amount of personal anguish – when he was put in a very tough position by an administration that seemed slow to defend…
i don’t pretend to know all the facts – but I do know this - Sandy Berger stole classified documents re: sensitive national security issues and received a $50K fine…
I guess for Inside The Beltwayers, justice is only “just” when a conservative goes to jail.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
141 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
1. At least Scooter isn’t being sent up to the cold stony like Ramos, Campean and other border patrol agents who violated official Bush Administration policy by actually defending the borders against illegal immigrants and drug dealers. I guess only Bush cronies are entitled to protection against excessive and unjust sentences.
2. Not only is Libby’s fine is 5x the fine Sandy Burglar got for stealing classified documents, but Dick Armitage, the guy who actually “leaked” Val Plame’s “covert” (snicker) status walked away a hero. So much for Democrats’ genuine concern about national security.
3. Hilldog probably shouldn’t screech too much about this. After all, her hubby pardoned convicted terrorists (the FALN) and a sexual predator (Mel Reynolds). I guess you could say he was just pandering to the Democrat base.
Comment by V the K — July 3, 2007 @ 8:59 am - July 3, 2007
[...] Original post by GayPatriot [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Another Bush Half-Measure — July 3, 2007 @ 9:24 am - July 3, 2007
So how is it that a Bush appointed prosecuter(rethug) in front of a Bush appointed judge (rethug) finds another rethug guilty of LYING TO INVESTIGATORS and it is harsh and the democrats fault? Get rid of your bs about whether outing plame was a crime or not….LYING TO INVESTIGATORS is a crime or do you believe that scum should be allowed to LIE TO INVESTIGATORS? If so please defend your argument?
Comment by madmatt — July 3, 2007 @ 10:17 am - July 3, 2007
madmatt, let’s see you try to remember the exact details of a two year old conversation. I bet we could convict you of “LYING TO INVESTIGATORS” pretty easily.
Comment by V the K — July 3, 2007 @ 10:31 am - July 3, 2007
Scooter Libby- Two wrongs…
The reaction of the conservative blogosphere seems predictable to me….
Trackback by The Florida Masochist — July 3, 2007 @ 10:32 am - July 3, 2007
Not to mention, Scooter is hardly getting away scot-free. $250K may not be much money to a Soros Democrat, but it’s still a pretty big chunk of change.
If you want Scooter Libby to do hard time, maybe you should have him convicted of interfering with a Mexican drug smuggling operation. Then, Bush and Gonzales will see that he gets prison time.
Comment by V the K — July 3, 2007 @ 10:34 am - July 3, 2007
W must be a moderate. He can’t please anyone. Either he has to completely pardon Libby – which would permanently stamp him as King George to libs mods and some reps since that would completely throw out the jury decision – or he must send a non-criminal to the gallows in order to placate a population with a 2 minute attention span.
Comment by Rachel — July 3, 2007 @ 10:40 am - July 3, 2007
Just watched a replay of Shwarzeneggers speech at the 2004 Republican Convention.
High comedy.
The part about Republican’s being for accountability almost sent me to the hospital with fits of laughter.
Terminator movies? What a waste of a comic genius.
Comment by Robert — July 3, 2007 @ 11:06 am - July 3, 2007
I think everyone is missing the point of a commutation versus a pardon in Scooter Libby’s case.
This is actually a great decision. This means that Libby can still appeal, and that the injustice done by the lower court can still be righted. A full pardon would have taken that away, from what I understand.
Plus, Libby still has to pay a fine. And don’t forget, Sandy Burglar is still running around free as a bird.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 3, 2007 @ 11:11 am - July 3, 2007
First a commutation to keep him out of jail, then the appeal, then a pardon. I doubt Bush would have commuted his sentence if Libby had been allowed to remain free during his appeal.
Comment by Tom — July 3, 2007 @ 11:17 am - July 3, 2007
Peter Hughes uses the classic right-wing ” Sure my guys a crook, but other people are too” line.
Them’s some fine debating skills.
Keep up the good work Pete.
Comment by Robert — July 3, 2007 @ 11:18 am - July 3, 2007
#9 – And I suppose you were all bent out of shape when Clinton and Clinton pardoned Marc Rich and “sold” pardons in 2001 when they got the hell outta Dodge?
(Crickets chirping.)
Didn’t think so, Bobbie.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 3, 2007 @ 11:29 am - July 3, 2007
#10 — Damn right. Find the lawyer who defended Rich and string him up immediately.
Oh, wait…
Comment by PunditGuy — July 3, 2007 @ 11:36 am - July 3, 2007
Commutation was a craven stroke of genius, leaving Libby’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination intact (a pardon would have required him to testify in any future investigations), while keeping the door open to a pardon just before Bush scoots out of office. A Republican U.S. Attorney got Libby indicted; a conservative Bush-appointed law and order judge sentenced him; and a conservative Court of Appeals ordered him to jail. Yet, Bush Co. overrode them all, proving once again his contempt for law and order and Constitution.
Comment by Michelle — July 3, 2007 @ 11:38 am - July 3, 2007
Don’t forget, scooter was marc rich’s lawyer for the pardon! I am sure he made $250 K at least for that. So not only is a convicted lying scumbag, he also works for any rich scumbag to come along.
Comment by madmatt — July 3, 2007 @ 11:50 am - July 3, 2007
The commutation wasn’t to keep Libby’s appeal options open. It was to preserve his Fifth Amendment shield. If Bush had pardoned Libby, then he would not have faced criminal penalty for his testimony and hence could not have invoked the Fifth Amendment.
It is actually amusing, if also saddening, to see law-and-order Republicans bend over backwards and sideways to justify letting a convicted felon go free…
Comment by Bernard Gilroy — July 3, 2007 @ 11:56 am - July 3, 2007
#10,
Of course I had a problem with that.
Clinton was a terrible President.
Not W/ Reagan terrible (how could he be), but not good nonetheless.
FYI: I won’t vote for Hilary either. Because not only will I never vote for a Republican, I won’t vote for someone who’s husband is a Republican either.
Comment by Robert — July 3, 2007 @ 12:02 pm - July 3, 2007
Even though I don’t like Bush and have problems with the commutation, I have to admit the entertainment value of watching histrionic leftists pop every vein in their skulls is choice.
Comment by V the K — July 3, 2007 @ 12:24 pm - July 3, 2007
#18,
It’s hilarious.
Here’s 2 more “fall down funny” lines for you.
1) Republicans are the party of accountability.
2) You can trust the Republicans to protect American citizens from terrorists.
Funny in a completely unhinmged and inane way.
Comment by Robert — July 3, 2007 @ 12:30 pm - July 3, 2007
Uh, Bobby. I’m not a Republican. From where I sit, both parties are thoroughly rotten with corruption and devoid of accountability. For every Scooter Libby, there’s a Sandy Berger. For every Tom Delay, there’s a Jack Murtha. For every Duke Cunningham, there’s a Cold Cash Jefferson. So, spare me the self-righteous partisan indignation.
Comment by V the K — July 3, 2007 @ 12:35 pm - July 3, 2007
While I suspect that Libby has legitimate grounds to appeal the very constitutionality of his prosecution; he still should have told the unvarnished truth to the prosecutor. He shoud not have been put in that predicament in the first place, but he did dig his own hole once there.
Just another example of why fair-minded people avoid “public service” in the first-place. Common-sense accountability has been replaced by rabid demands for transparency, counter-balanced by a vindictive political agendae that operate for personal gain and glory.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — July 3, 2007 @ 12:36 pm - July 3, 2007
Well-put, Ted.
And Roberto, I can shut you up very simply; Nancy Pelosi screamed and shrieked all last year that anyone who had ever committed campaign finance fraud was not only fit to lead any portion of Congress, but should resign immediately in disgrace.
Enforce it.
Meanwhile, Sandy Berger. ‘Nuff said.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 12:58 pm - July 3, 2007
I love how the Bush administration’s defenders (you know, the administration that promised to restore honor to the white house) so quickly use Clinton’s follies and felonies to justify why they don’t have to play by the rules either.
Comment by torrentprime — July 3, 2007 @ 1:12 pm - July 3, 2007
V the K,
Me thinks you’re confused.
I used to think the only thing worse than a Republican was a Democrat, and vice versa.
After the last 6+ years, I still don’t care for the Dems, but really–they pale in comparison to the Reps.
The TOTAL disregard for the rule of law by the Republicans is flat-out unAmerican.
Are you ready to scrap this no-win (for Americans) 2-party system we have in this country?
I am.
How do we move past these 2 groups of sloths?
We tried Dean in 2004, but both parties marginalized him so quick his head spun.
I’m open to your ideas.
Comment by Robert — July 3, 2007 @ 1:23 pm - July 3, 2007
I love how the Bush administration’s defenders (you know, the administration that promised to restore honor to the white house) so quickly use Clinton’s follies and felonies to justify why they don’t have to play by the rules either.
Um, no.
Had they been playing by the Clinton rules, Libby would never have been investigated in the first place.
The fact that there is a sentence to commute — and not pardon — in the first place shows you how far above and beyond they are.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 1:53 pm - July 3, 2007
Some clarification for our resident libtrolls who think that Bush is somehow violating the Constitution which gives him the authority to issue reprieves and pardons:
Commuting a sentence for a guy who will probably win his appeal is not acting “above the law,” especially in view of the last-minute Clinton pardons, the whole Whitewater scandal, missing records from the Rose law firm, Travelgate, a certain dead guy found in the park, Monica, Paula, Juanita, etc…
Not to mention Valerie Plame probably violated the law in knowingly sending her husband Joe Wilson to gather information, a task which hindsight shows he was incompetent to perform accurately.
Don’t forget that Bill Clinton commuted the sentence of Mel Reynolds, who was convicted not only of various bank fraud charges but was also convicted in 1995 of criminal sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. Where was the MSM outcry at that action?
In terms of “quelling debate,” it seems ludicrous at best to proclaim this while Shrillary has center stage on any news program she deigns to grace with her presence. “No Bush critic left behind” is – and has been -the MSM mantra since Bush was elected Governor of Texas.
Senator Clinton voted for the war – and defended her vote with intimations of knowledge gained as First Lady – before voting against body armor for our troops, supplies for the Iraqis, and medicine for their children. She is and has been a hypocrite of the lowest order, a political creature unable or unwilling to hold to any position of morality longer than it took (in her estimation) to get the votes she sought.
The blood of the innocents slain by al-Qaeda are on her head, too. Her shrill voice has aided and abetted their murder of women and rape of children – two segments of the population she claims to “support.”
I rest my case.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 3, 2007 @ 2:07 pm - July 3, 2007
Rob, I don’t think salvation is to be found in politics, and I am beginning to think nothing short of pitchforks and shotguns is going to reform the political system. (Which is why the political class is so eager to take away our shotguns).
Furthermore, it isn’t just the political parties. The judiciary is corrupt, the education system is corrupt, the unions are corrupt, the media are corrupt, big business is corrupt, and even most of the churches are corrupt.
I don’t know if there is a way to fix the system without tearing it down first. The only option is to manage the corruption. And for that, people have to give up their blinkered partisan loyalty and think for themselves. Regarding all politicians with disgust and contempt is a nice start.
(I do happen to think Scoots got a raw deal, only because if he had done a Hillary and just refused to cooperate at all with Fitzpatrick and answered every question with “I don’t recall,” he could never have been prosecuted. But on the other hand, he bought his ticket. Sometimes, you have to pay a price for getting too close to power.)
Comment by V the K — July 3, 2007 @ 2:08 pm - July 3, 2007
What is even more interesting is that even Richard Cohen, left-leaning columnist for WaPo, thought Libby should have been pardoned.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 3, 2007 @ 2:30 pm - July 3, 2007
V the K,
I agree.
I’ll be leaving the US in a few short months, and will try my turn overseas (S. America, actually).
But (as I tell my family and friends), I will be back for the revolution. It IS coming, and I already know which side I’ll be fighting on.
It probably won’t be for another 10-15 years, because it’ll take that long for enough Americans to figure out who is really screwing them (it ain’t welfare queens, the homeless, or illegal immigrants, that’s for sure).
I consider myself liberal (and I don’t think that’s a dirty word), but you’re right about gun control.
When guns are outlawed, only the authorities (who have shown time and again they can’t be trusted) will have guns.
In the meantime, keep holding the bastards accountable (as much as you can).
Robert
Comment by Robert — July 3, 2007 @ 2:49 pm - July 3, 2007
Coming from people who believe that they stand for “law and order,” this is all just sad. Let’s put a microscope to the hypocrisy.
Actually, every liberal I’ve spoken to on blogs and in person found Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich completely outrageous. Similarly, Clinton’s lying under oath was also unacceptable, and out of that feeling, MoveOn.org was created, with the simple slogan “Censure, and Move On.” You see, liberals have what you might call “standards”. We apply those standards to people in government, regardless of which party they belong to. For example, you won’t find a liberal defending William Jefferson, the way republicans defended Tom Delay.
As for the tearful republicans who are crying about Libby paying $250k, I hate to break this to you, but Libby isn’t paying anything. That $250k is a drop in the bucket next to what his defense cost, and that will be picked up by the Libby Defense Fund.
About Sandy Berger, he confessed and was sentenced. His sentence was based on the recommendations of the prosecution, and was right in line with the sentences for similar crimes. Why are we still talking about him?
On the other hand, Libby did not confess, was found guilty by a jury of his peers, that verdict was upheld by one Bush-appointed judge, and later upheld by 3 republican-appointed judges, one of whom assigned Ken Starr to go after Clinton.
Please explain this comment, in light of the fact that Congress spent $70 million in tax dollars to go on a fishing expedition on the Clintons, which in the end turned up a single stained blue dress.
Why do you think he will “probably win his appeal?” A panel of 3 conservative judges thought exactly the opposite. Please explain.
The main defense of Libby here seems to be that Dems have done bad things too. Please explain where you’re going with this. Shall we just abandon the rule of law entirely, since people commit crimes anyway? Shall we strictly exempt the executive branch? Just the GOP? Please explain the overall philosophy here, because it’s hard to see how it matches with your “tough on crime” rhetoric.
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 2:51 pm - July 3, 2007
Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger, and Sandy Berger.
Did I deflect enough yet??? LMAO.
Comment by sean — July 3, 2007 @ 3:00 pm - July 3, 2007
“I don’t believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own,” – George W. Bush, A CHARGE TO KEEP, on why he signed death warrants for 152 inmates as governor of Texas.
Comment by sean — July 3, 2007 @ 3:09 pm - July 3, 2007
Too bad for those 152 inmates who were killed in Texas, they didn’t have any dirt on King George. That means the difference between life and death in the American empire.
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 3:12 pm - July 3, 2007
Mush-for-brains, Bush left the jury’s verdict intact in the Libby’s case. He only altered the judge’s sentencing.
Lefties are so stupid.
Comment by V the K — July 3, 2007 @ 3:27 pm - July 3, 2007
“But (as I tell my family and friends), I will be back for the revolution. It IS coming, and I already know which side I’ll be fighting on.
It probably won’t be for another 10-15 years, because it’ll take that long for enough Americans to figure out who is really screwing them (it ain’t welfare queens, the homeless, or illegal immigrants, that’s for sure).”
Only a bloody minded fool could wish for a violent revolution.
Enjoy South America.
Comment by Anthony — July 3, 2007 @ 3:36 pm - July 3, 2007
I’m not sure whose brains you’re calling mushy, but I’m pretty sure everyone on this board has already grasped this point that you found necessary to make. Can you please explain the value of a conviction that has no sentence and no consequences?
And since you found it necessary to ignore my question above, I’ll repeat it for you:
The main defense of Libby here seems to be that Dems have done bad things too. Please explain where you’re going with this. Shall we just abandon the rule of law entirely, since people commit crimes anyway? Shall we strictly exempt the executive branch? Just the GOP? Please explain the overall philosophy here, because it’s hard to see how it matches with your “tough on crime” rhetoric.
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 3:47 pm - July 3, 2007
So, the jurors who acquitted O.J. Simpson because they liked him and disliked white America were “courageous” heroes? Because Bush would have been no different had he pardoned Libby – and that is how you describe that act…courageous. And he dealt with it in his typical cowardly way, that much we can agree on.
What is great is that you were one of those red-faced, angry people (like me) when you saw that O.J. verdict come down for that reason. But now, you’re no better. You, as always, become what you hate.
Keep swimming in the gutter, GOP! You always prove me right in the end.
You were for the rule of law before you were against it.
You were against activist judges before you were for them.
You wanted ‘up or down’ votes before you didn’t.
You just don’t stand for anything. The party first, your church second, your state third (if you are in the former Confederacy…and we know you probably are), and America fourth (when a Republican is President).
The founding fathers would send all of you to Mexico. Name me one of them who would stomach you clowns.
Comment by HP — July 3, 2007 @ 4:00 pm - July 3, 2007
“What is even more interesting is that even Richard Cohen, left-leaning columnist for WaPo, thought Libby should have been pardoned.
Regards,
Peter H.”
Cohen is an ass so I’m not surprised that you agree with him.
A conspiracy of republicans? A Republican U.S. Atty prosecutes and a Republican Judge sentences according to federal guidelines. Libby already lost one appeal and will lose the rest.
Republican Party: party of purgery and obstruction of justice. Libby was the fall guy. Who did he lie for? The only people above him are Bush and Cheney. Libby was following orders from Bush or Cheney who told him to out a CIA agent and commit perjury and obstruction of justice to prevent the truth from being known. But hey they got his back. Tony Soprano would have done the same if he was in Bush’s shoes.
Comment by ec1009 — July 3, 2007 @ 4:07 pm - July 3, 2007
Wow. Nutball Central here today.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — July 3, 2007 @ 5:08 pm - July 3, 2007
Yeah, too many people making points instead of bringing up Sandy Berger endlessly.
Why have a blog if you just want people who agree with you all the time? I’m being serious, what purpose does that serve?
Comment by HP — July 3, 2007 @ 5:11 pm - July 3, 2007
The founding fathers would send all of you to Mexico. Name me one of them who would stomach you clowns.
George Washington.
Notice that he pardoned — as in, completely removed all penalty and not just commuted the prison sentences of — people who had participated in an armed rebellion and uprising against the United States.
And what’s funny here with your diatribe, HP, is this statement (emphasis mine):
Because Bush would have been no different had he pardoned Libby – and that is how you describe that act…courageous.
Because Bush DIDN’T pardon Libby — he only commuted the jail time of the sentence. The conviction stands, the probation stands, and the fine stands.
So in short, you’re bashing Bush by comparing an action he didn’t do to another one.
And another example — your Democrat fellow Paul.
Can you please explain the value of a conviction that has no sentence and no consequences?
Pure fiction.
Although he eliminated Libby’s prison term, Bush did not grant him a full pardon, which was sought by some conservatives and would have erased his conviction. As a consequence, Libby will still have to pay a $250,000 fine and will remain on probation for two years.
And will still be a convicted felon, pending appeal.
In that case, Sandy Berger, who received only a misdemeanor conviction, two years’ probation, and a fine one-fifth of Libby’s for his deliberate compromising, stealing, and destruction of classified documents, as well as his lying to prosecutors about it and trying to obstruct justice in the case…..had a punishment of “no consequence”.
But of course, you don’t care, because he was specifically acting on behalf of and at the orders of the Clinton administration — evidently to destroy and remove any incriminating documents.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 5:12 pm - July 3, 2007
#38 – “Libby was following orders from Bush or Cheney who told him to out a CIA agent and commit perjury and obstruction of justice to prevent the truth from being known.”
Really? Care to cite your sources for your statements? Or are you just writing off-the-cuff because it fits into your Bush Derangement Syndrome template?
It seems that the same people who think that Bush is the world’s stupidest man also think that he is an evil, maniacal genius who can not only blow up levees and cause global warming, but can also pinpoint exactly where each “covert” CIA agent is and “out” them.
Pull the bus over, we’ve reached Contradiction City.
Here are the facts: Scooter Libby, a lawyer, was investigated for being the leak in the Valerie Plame case, but never charged with leaking. He was convicted of more than one felony — lying in the investigation — and now his prison sentence has been commuted.
What is so hard with grasping this concept?? Sheesh.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 3, 2007 @ 5:20 pm - July 3, 2007
North Dallas Thirty, you have shown that the “consequences” of Libby’s perjury and obstruction convictions consist of a $250k fine (none of which will come out of Libby’s pocket), 2 years probation (which has no consequence that I can see), and a conviction on his record. Somehow, in your mind, this amounts to a consequence.
Another republican myth bites the dust: “Tough on crime!” I love it! Never read Animal Farm, eh?
About Sandy Berger’s conviction and sentence, I see you didn’t find that one satisfactory. However, fact is, he was sentenced per the prosecution’s guidelines. The prosecution is run by Bush’s Justice Dept. Where exactly do you see the “pro-liberal” bias coming into the picture?
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 5:29 pm - July 3, 2007
A toughtful post, allow me to respond.
You are not reading my post correctly. Your title and the article you cite suggests that you wish Bush HAD PARDONED Libby. It is that stance that I am attacking. I am criticizing your desire to see the law basically blown off, and I’d like to know how someone who rails against activist judges, not enforcing the law (as in immigration) and jury nullification, could chide the President for NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH in committing the act that he did. Again, your title uses the term “half measure”. So…how do you reconcile that without lowering yourself to shrill cries of “Sandy Berger”?
I disagree with the comparison of the Washington pardons and the blatant cronyism of this act. There were practical reasons he did that. You should show him more respect. Also…
Washington was against political parties on the grounds that they’d divide the nation. Gee, wonder what he’d say now that the GOP routinely cpmpares Demcrats to terrorists for not supporting the trashing of the Constitution the Washington kinda liked.
He also did not want the President to become a king – which is why he fought, after all.
As for the lack of a penalty, I agree with Paul. Yes, he is a felon, and he can no longer practice law. But he won’t need to. He’ll land somewhere nice, likely at some conservative think tank where he’ll make a nice living. He’ll get a book deal and conservative media outlets will pump up its sales and get it on the bestseller list. He’ll do some public speaking. I am sure he will have no problem raising the funds to pay the fine. Have we not seen this same act from numerous people on both sides of the political fence?
As for Berger, if that penalty is what a court of law dictates we have to live with it. We don’t have to like it, but either we have a system of laws or we don’t. You cannot move the goalposts, make it up as you go along, change the rules depending on if you like the guy…and then pretend that the world shold want us to “export” our type of freedom and democracy to them.
Comment by HP — July 3, 2007 @ 5:30 pm - July 3, 2007
I can explain this seeming contradiction for the severely brain damaged.
Bush may not be the world’s stupidest man, but he is clearly the US’ stupidest president. I haven’t heard anyone contest that. As for the “evil genius” bit, he is certainly destructive, but far, far from a genius. The evil geniuses, of course, are Cheney (the real president at the head of the 4th branch of government) and Karl Rove. They just bring papers into Bush’s office and show him where to sign.
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 5:33 pm - July 3, 2007
#40 – “Why have a blog if you just want people who agree with you all the time? I’m being serious, what purpose does that serve?”
Beats me, HP. Why don’t you go ask Arianna Huffington or Markos Mousitsas?
(For those of you who think I misspelled Markos’ last name – BZZT. Wrong answer. His real last name is Moulitsas, but I call him “Mousitsas,” which in Greek translates as “little bat.”)
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 3, 2007 @ 5:34 pm - July 3, 2007
“I can explain this seeming contradiction for the severely brain damaged.”
Funny, that’s what I try to do for all you libtards out there.
Bush is not the USA’s stupidest president. That distinction goes to Jimmy Carter. Enough said.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 3, 2007 @ 5:38 pm - July 3, 2007
I agree with that, I never visit those blogs. Where is the fun if everyone agrees all the time. I like to think there can be some type of exchange.
As for Berger parallels, I will say this.
If Libby had been given the Berger treatment – misdemeanor and $50k fine – I still believe that the core GOP STILL would’ve wanted a pardon. Because of the principle, that he did nothing wrong. So, that diminishes that argument. He was their guy and he needed to walk. That is what I think this was all about. Bush did this because he could, it was his right (although he blew of the procedural requirements).
Here is what I think of W…
W is not stupid, he is just narrow-minded and purely guided by self-interest and that of the people he knows. Much like a 12 year old. For example, he knows Mexicans from his Texas days and is friendly with their president. So, he is pro-immigration. He grew up with Bandar playing croquette in Maine…so he looks past the Saudi terrorists. He only sees the good based on the indiviuals he knew at some time in his life.
But he cannot connect with other types of people and cannot grasp what their deal is. Middle class people…he grew up rich in Maine. African Americans…not many in Maine. Gays…the bible says they’re evil (although I was an altar boy and never ran past any such hate speech in the bible).
Comment by HP — July 3, 2007 @ 5:45 pm - July 3, 2007
You’re spinning, Paul.
First, you need to say that Sandy Berger, since he received two years’ probation, was fined one-fifth of what Libby was, and only has a misdemeanor conviction on his record, received “no consequence” for his actions — which involved compromising, stealing, and shredding classified documents in violation of the law, lying about it to prosecutors, and trying to obstruct the investigation of it — all on behalf of the Clinton administration.
Second, you are right that the prosecution was carried out by the Bush administration — which means they punished a Democrat LESS than they did one of their own.
Now, perhaps what you can explain to me is why someone who, on behalf of the Clinton administration, deliberately destroyed and compromised classified documents, then lied to investigators about doing it and obstructed the investigation into his doing it, should get away with “no consequences” — but that a Republican who is punished MORE harshly for doing less already should get even more.
Furthermore, leftist Paul, since Bill Clinton received no jail time, no probation, and a minimal fine for HIS perjuring himself and obstructing an investigation, how can you possibly claim you support the “rule of law”? Libby received far more penalty than Clinton ever did.
And that really sums it up; the same Dems like Paul who are whining and crying about Libby’s sentence will in the next breath explain why perjury and obstruction of justice should carry no penalty whatsoever when Bill Clinton does it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 5:46 pm - July 3, 2007
Ironically, I think Carter and Bush have the same problem.
They see the world as they’d like it to be, as opposed to as it really is. They never let the facts get in the way of the vision.
They are two of the worst.
Comment by HP — July 3, 2007 @ 5:47 pm - July 3, 2007
NDT – the justice department, despite the best efforts of the GOP, remains a non-partisan entity. As it must. That is what the disparity you note tells us.
Comment by HP — July 3, 2007 @ 5:51 pm - July 3, 2007
Your title and the article you cite suggests that you wish Bush HAD PARDONED Libby. It is that stance that I am attacking.
Well, you’re shooting at the wrong person.
I oppose a full pardon. I am fine with the commutation.
I disagree with the comparison of the Washington pardons and the blatant cronyism of this act. There were practical reasons he did that. You should show him more respect.
Translation: I should stop making you look like a fool by quoting historical precedent and fact.
As for Berger, if that penalty is what a court of law dictates we have to live with it. We don’t have to like it, but either we have a system of laws or we don’t. You cannot move the goalposts, make it up as you go along, change the rules depending on if you like the guy
Two words: Marc Rich.
Yes, he is a felon, and he can no longer practice law. But he won’t need to. He’ll land somewhere nice, likely at some conservative think tank where he’ll make a nice living. He’ll get a book deal and conservative media outlets will pump up its sales and get it on the bestseller list. He’ll do some public speaking. I am sure he will have no problem raising the funds to pay the fine.
I see.
So what you Democrats want is that, if a person is convicted of a crime, they should be stripped of all rights, deprived of making a living, and punished forever for what they’ve done.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 5:57 pm - July 3, 2007
Berger confessed and was sentenced. As you’ve acknowledged, this was done by republicans. How that proves that he was “let off” the way Libby was, you haven’t made clear. Exactly who messed up the Berger sentencing, and exactly how? Please show the political bias in Berger’s case, beyond simply your own personal dissatisfaction that he didn’t get lethal injection.
As for whose crime was worse — Libby’s or Berger’s — that’s all just your supposition, reflecting in no small part the letters D and R that follow each one’s name. However, fortunately, up until now, US justice hasn’t been administered through this standard. We have courts, juries and judges to enforce our nation’s laws. In Berger’s case, this was done. In Libby’s, it was not, due to commutation of the sentence by the very person Libby lied to protect. Either you appreciate our country’s legal process, which resulted in both Berger’s and Libby’s sentences, or you don’t.
If you don’t like the US legal system (obvious at this point), please explain how you would like it modified. Again, here is the question that no republican has the stones to address:
The main defense of Libby here seems to be that Dems have done bad things too. Please explain where you’re going with this. Shall we just abandon the rule of law entirely, since people commit crimes anyway? Shall we strictly exempt the executive branch? Just the GOP? Please explain the overall philosophy here, because it’s hard to see how it matches with your “tough on crime” rhetoric.
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 5:58 pm - July 3, 2007
So, Washington pardoned all of those people who revolted because they did the bidding of his Vice President in retaliating against a US agent’s husband’s opinion of a core adminstration position?
I think you have NO IDEA of the incident you are citing…you just heard it on Rush. Stop making an ass out of yourself. Please, stop.
I agree that the Rich pardon was brutal…but now that you have stooped as low you lose the moral highground to criticize it. Your argument kills you in terms of criticizing that act.
What do I want? As the GOP says, let’s ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE. And PROSECUTE THOSE WHO BREAK THEM. I think I’ve heard those talking points from you guys recently.
You lose all credibility. You stand for nothing by changing your stance on fundamental issues based on who is affected.
Comment by HP — July 3, 2007 @ 6:04 pm - July 3, 2007
Or you can tell me how the lack of action with regard to Scooter Libby would’ve resulted in the resurgance of a national insurrection that would’ve threatened the union.
You are on the clock.
Comment by HP — July 3, 2007 @ 6:09 pm - July 3, 2007
Not fair, HP. That was when they were talking about brown-skinned wetbacks, not treasonous republicans.
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 6:11 pm - July 3, 2007
And again, Paul, you’re spinning.
I repeat your original shriek:
Can you please explain the value of a conviction that has no sentence and no consequences?
What happened is that Libby’s sentence was commuted in terms of jail time; he still was fined $250k, has a felony conviction on his record, and is on two years’ probation.
Yet now, what do you say about Sandy Berger, who plea-bargained his way to a $50k fine, a misdemeanor conviction, and two years’ probation?
Berger confessed and was sentenced.
So when a Democrat such as Berger receives this, you call it a sentence and consequences — but when a Republican receives worse, you shriek and call it NO sentence and NO consequences.
Also, Paul, I am amused by your statement here:
Either you appreciate our country’s legal process, which resulted in both Berger’s and Libby’s sentences, or you don’t.
According to your leftist logic, then, ANY pardon or commutation of sentence is “not appreciating” and a violation of our “legal process”.
Again, two words: Marc Rich.
Now, Paul, do you have the stones to blast Clinton for pardoning people — not just commuting their sentences, but actually pardoning them, which removes ALL of their sentence AND their convictions — the same way that you are shrieking that the commutation for Libby is an insult to the “legal system”?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 6:14 pm - July 3, 2007
Who’s spinning now? You got your ass handed to you on Berger and now you are bringing up Rich. Unless you have more 18th century rural insurrections for us.
Your President commuted the sentence of a convicted felon. You seem to be proud of that. Which makes you a complete stooge and hack.
We get it. Now that you have nothing to add aside from stoogery and hackery you can stop.
Comment by HP — July 3, 2007 @ 6:17 pm - July 3, 2007
I think you have NO IDEA of the incident you are citing…you just heard it on Rush. Stop making an ass out of yourself. Please, stop.
Notice how HP never offers an intelligent counterpoint; he just insults the person making the argument.
I agree that the Rich pardon was brutal…but now that you have stooped as low you lose the moral highground to criticize it. Your argument kills you in terms of criticizing that act.
Again, the Democrat tries to confuse the situation.
The Libby commutation removed only the jail portion of the sentence; it maintained the large fine, the probation, and the conviction itself.
The Rich pardon, on the other hand, completely removed ALL punishments — jail time, fines, probation — and completely erased the conviction, as if it had never happened.
In short, Libby still has punishment after Bush’s actions; in contrast, Marc Rich had none at all.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 6:22 pm - July 3, 2007
Your President commuted the sentence of a convicted felon.
So what? Your President REMOVED the ENTIRE sentence of a convicted felon and completely erased the conviction.
Now, spinning HP, since you insist that doing so is a crime, that anyone who does it is absolutely wrong, and that their party is completely corrupt and opposed to the rule of law, say the same for your Democrat masters.
Or can’t you do that, hypocrite?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 6:26 pm - July 3, 2007
Not fair, HP. That was when they were talking about brown-skinned wetbacks, not treasonous republicans.
Want to know what Pelosi and your party supports, Paul?
Now, Paul and HP, since you claim to support enforcing the laws and demand that anyone who obstructs the operation of Federal law enforcement be thrown in jail…..go to it.
Or are you now going to hypocritically spin and say that illegal immigrants should be fully pardoned for their crimes?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 6:29 pm - July 3, 2007
Very good. But can’t you read? I asked you to explain the consequence of this. Libby was fined $250k, which will come out of his defense fund. That is, he won’t have to pay. He has a felony conviction that will stand until Jan 2009 at the latest. How does that stand in the way of lucrative book deals and directorships at republican think tanks? In short, I ask you again, what are the real consequences?
Not quite. I stand by the rule of law, as interpreted through our courts. This process resulted in both Berger’s and Libby’s sentences. I’m fine with those sentences. What I would not be fine with is if they gave Berger a stiffer sentence, such that someone had to go around a court’s filing to give him a reprieve. That’s what’s called a travesty of justice, something I decry and you celebrate (assuming your guy gets off).
That is correct. Presidential pardons are becoming terribly abused, and are just a tool for circumventing justice to grant a political pardon. They need to be abolished.
Yes. Perfect example. I’ve railed against Clinton for this, and have been joined by liberals every time. Fact is, I’ve never once heard a liberal defend Clinton for the Rich pardon, and I expect neither have you. That’s a primary difference between Dems and Repubs these days. Dems have standards that they try and apply uniformally; Repubs make no such pretension.
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 6:30 pm - July 3, 2007
In other words, the Libby commutation removed the only aspects of the sentence to carry on consequence whatsoever, as I’ve shown.
I believe that laws need to be enforced, including immigration laws, otherwise we should remove them from the books. The same can be said for perjury laws. I don’t agree with amnesty for illegal aliens. However, even you can probably see that enforcing immigration law against an estimated 12 million illegals is a fair bit more complicated than enforcing a judgment against one, right? That doesn’t excuse amnesty, of course, but does indicate that this is not such a simple issue.
Since I’ve shown that I do value our nation’s laws and judicial system, and you do not (unless it has an outcome with which you approve), I’m not sure where else you can go with this.
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 6:37 pm - July 3, 2007
Very good. But can’t you read? I asked you to explain the consequence of this.
Another spin.
I cite your original statement:
Can you please explain the value of a conviction that has no sentence and no consequences?
And when you were cornered on that, what did you do?
Cite the unformed future.
Libby was fined $250k, which will come out of his defense fund. That is, he won’t have to pay. He has a felony conviction that will stand until Jan 2009 at the latest.
So your argument that there are “no consequences” is based on your BELIEF that Libby will not pay and that Libby will ultimately be pardoned.
Here in reality, he has probation, a $250k fine, and a felony conviction.
But you ignore that in favor of your fantasies and spin lies about how there are “no consequences”.
I’ve railed against Clinton for this, and have been joined by liberals every time.
Mhm — as of approximately ten minutes ago.
Before that, you and your fellow liberals were whining about how Bush should have “circumvented justice” to get people off death row in Texas.
I want you to state specifically that the pardoning power of the executive should be abolished at every level — and that George Bush was absolutely RIGHT not to commute or grant clemency to those death sentences.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 6:46 pm - July 3, 2007
In other words, the Libby commutation removed the only aspects of the sentence to carry on consequence whatsoever, as I’ve shown.
So in other words, probation, convictions, and fines are no punishment at all; jail time is the only thing that carries consequence.
In that case, go ahead and start demanding automatic jail time for all crimes.
Since I’ve shown that I do value our nation’s laws and judicial system, and you do not (unless it has an outcome with which you approve), I’m not sure where else you can go with this.
I can go to a very simple spot.
When are you planning to demand that Bill Clinton be jailed for perjury and obstruction of justice?
Enforce the law.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 6:59 pm - July 3, 2007
NDL, your argument is embarassingly off-base. Make it or quit it. How can one equate Washington and Bush here. You refuse to do so, and the only reason I can fathom is that you are unfamiliar with the specifics. Shit or get off the pot with that incident. Please, I am bored with it.
End of term pardons blow, we could spend all day citing awful ones. But since you now apparently see the light and support the Libby decision you can no longer criticize Rich. So, please stop. Or else you have to attack the Libby action. And we know you do not want to do that.
Libby will bear no penalty, are you really that naive?!?
Thanks for finally getting to the real argument you have – “So what?” You don’t care, don’t respect law. Thanks for clearing it up for us.
How do you know what my opinion of any previous such pardon was – Republican or Democrat? You assume wrong, bucky. I used to be a Republican before the party went nutso religious. Again, you go for the easy route.
I believe that we should enforce the laws and secure the borders with regard to immigration. Because I am consistent, unlike you. Because I am not a hypocrite. However, your party will never allow that to happen because of the business interests that run it. because the GOP is ultimately going to side with its business wing on this one, and eff its rural working-class southern / southwestern base. If they do seal the borders you will claim it is government regulation that causes agricultural prices to jump, because your party will tell you to.
NDT – you can pretend that we are as uninformed as you. You can pretend that our principles shift, as do yours, based on who is impacted by the case in point. But, unlike the vast majority of Americans who agreee with Paul and I, you are a fringe wacko. You stand for nothing.
You are cut off until you make good on your nonsensical Washington parallel. You are just full of nonsense. Or do you have to go watch O’Reilly?
Comment by HP — July 3, 2007 @ 7:11 pm - July 3, 2007
Based on NDT’s reasoning we should pardon Osama Bin Laden because Robert E Lee was allowed to go home after the Civil War.
Anything is permissible! He would have been at home during the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. After all, the Serbs had gotten it back in the first half of the 20th century, so why not give it back to the Bosnians in the second?
He’s the kind of guy that LOVES Barry Bonds. He does not care that the records are tainted. “Oh, there was no rule against that partciular drug back when he hit those homers”. So it’s OK that he cheated.
Comment by HP — July 3, 2007 @ 7:19 pm - July 3, 2007
NDT you have me confused with Robert. I made no comments on this post. I follow Ronald Reagan´s 11th Commandment.
Comment by Roberto — July 3, 2007 @ 7:41 pm - July 3, 2007
Um, the multi-million dollar Libby Defense Fund does not only exist in my mind. That is where the $250k is coming from.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2005/11/15/libby_defense/index.html
Try again.
As for Clinton’s pardon of Rich, I can see how it would be uncomfortable for you to recognize that we are not nearly as hypocritical as you are. However the fact is I’ve been vocally pissed off about the Rich pardon since the day it happened.
Yes, this is what I believe.
I do not support the death penalty in any way, shape or form.
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 7:58 pm - July 3, 2007
I’m speaking specifically of Libby. The fine is of no consequence: he won’t be paying it. The probation and conviction are of no consequence: they won’t hinder him from a highly lucrative career in a republican think tank, plotting the next illegal invasion. For Libby, the only thing that would have any consequences whatsoever was the prison sentence.
Clinton lied under oath, which is not the same thing as perjury, the difference being whether the lie in question was about something centrally material to the case. Whether or not Clinton’s lie amounted to perjury was never conclusively decided. If that is what they decided, then I would be happy to see Clinton sentenced fairly.
On the other hand, Libby’s perjury has been proven by a jury of his peers, and is therefore not in question.
You see how that works? We’ve got one set of laws. And the people are answerable to those laws. It doesn’t matter whether a D or an R comes after that person’s name. In fact, the only way it can be effective is if you do not apply that litmus test. So while you’re busy crowing about how Libby deserved to go free, you of course can only support that view with the old “two wrongs does make a right” argument. With a moral underpinning like that, I just hope you’re not a parent.
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 8:05 pm - July 3, 2007
NDT, as HP has pointed out, in order not to expose yourself as a truly sad hypocrite, you need to either come out against both the Rich and Libby pardons, or in favor of both of them. You’re either in favor of exempting the rich and powerful from accountability to our legal system, or you’re against it.
Once again you’re forced to choose between supporting something that is good for America (having a real justice system) versus supporting the Republicans. I wonder which one you’ll choose…
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 8:20 pm - July 3, 2007
NDT, I’ll make a bet with you.
Bush will pardon Libby on the way out of office. I guarantee it.
W did this as a middle step to keep Libby out of jail, but he WILL pardon him.
Let’s say a $50 donation to the USO in the name of the winner. I have entered an email address to enter this post, so the guy that runs this blog can arrange the bet if you’d like.
What say you?
Comment by HP — July 3, 2007 @ 8:27 pm - July 3, 2007
NDT, as HP has pointed out, in order not to expose yourself as a truly sad hypocrite, you need to either come out against both the Rich and Libby pardons, or in favor of both of them.
And there we finally see the naked deception being practiced by the Democrats to spin their way out of their hypocrisy.
Do you know the difference between a pardon and a commutation of sentence?
Obviously not, since you are stating that both Rich and Libby received a pardon — even though every source will show you that Libby received a commutation, which is vastly different.
Of course, the reason you’re conflating them is because your own hypocrisy over the matter became obvious — when you called for commuting the death penalty sentences that Bush allowed to stand when in Texas.
As was done to Libby’s.
According to you, Paul, any commutation of a sentence whatsoever is a violation of the legal process and an example of hypocrisy in justice.
Now, Paul, since you COMPLETELY oppose any commutation of sentence whatsoever, state specifically that any reduction of jail time, probation, fines, or whatever assessed by a judge or jury, INCLUDING the death penalty, is a violation of the legal process and an example of hypocrisy.
Furthermore, explain why, if you don’t support the Rich pardon, you felt the need to lie about it and justify it based on Libby allegedly receiving “the same thing” — which is a flagrant and obvious falsehood. Rich received NO penalty, had to pay NO fine, had NO probation, received NO jail time, and had NO conviction on his record.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 8:38 pm - July 3, 2007
That’s a silly bet, HP, since both you and Paul say that Libby was already pardoned.
Or would you like to take back that lie now?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 8:40 pm - July 3, 2007
NDT, if your sole remaining point that you’re now hanging your whole argument on is that HP and I don’t know the difference between a pardon and a commutation, I’d say it’s time you called it a day. That fact has never been contested.
What we’re saying (and anyone with sense would agree), is that the commutation is essentially the same as a pardon, as it has eliminated the only meaningful consequence of his conviction. I’ve made that point at least a dozen times on this page, so if you still don’t understand it, you must be willfully dense or implausibly stupid. What HP has also said (and I agree), is that without doubt, Bush will fully pardon Libby sometime before Jan 21, 2009. Even you understand this, hence your fear of taking HP’s bet.
Let’s go back to Rich. Are you saying that if Clinton had merely commuted his sentence rather than granting him a full pardon, that you would have found that to be completely acceptable?
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 8:49 pm - July 3, 2007
NDL, your argument is embarassingly off-base. Make it or quit it. How can one equate Washington and Bush here.
Well, you are right in one sense.
Washington pardoned the people who had carried out armed rebellion — which meant the slate was wiped completely clean. No punishment, no fines, no probation, no record of conviction.
Bush commuted Libby’s sentence — which meant he still had punishment, fines, probation, and a record of conviction.
But then again, since you’ve already noted you don’t know the difference between a pardon and a commutation, I fail to see why you’re protesting.
Or perhaps you do know the difference — and are lying through your teeth.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 8:49 pm - July 3, 2007
I’m sorry. I missed the point where I called for Bush to commute death penalty sentences. Can you please provide a quote where I said that? Or did you just lie to help bolster your failing point?
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 8:51 pm - July 3, 2007
That fact has never been contested.
Sorry, Paul; your own words catch you on that one.
NDT, as HP has pointed out, in order not to expose yourself as a truly sad hypocrite, you need to either come out against both the Rich and Libby pardons, or in favor of both of them.
Note that: “pardons”. Not “pardon and commutation” — “pardons”.
Why are you lying, Paul?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 8:57 pm - July 3, 2007
Oh, I see. Your current argument hinges on the fact that one time I referred to Libby’s commutation-cum-pardon as a pardon. Outstanding argument you’ve got there! Since I’ve entirely clarified this misunderstanding several times, what you’ve essentially got me on has no more significance than a spelling error. However, I understand if that’s all you’ve got…
Unfortunately for you, you won’t be able to hide behind that forever. Here’s the question that has you pissing in your pants:
Let’s go back to Rich. Are you saying that if Clinton had merely commuted his sentence rather than granting him a full pardon, that you would have found that to be completely acceptable?
Will you have the balls to provide an answer?
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 9:00 pm - July 3, 2007
I’m sorry. I missed the point where I called for Bush to commute death penalty sentences.
Mhm.
and mhm.
Now, Paul, since you COMPLETELY oppose any commutation of sentence whatsoever, state specifically that any reduction of jail time, probation, fines, or whatever assessed by a judge or jury, INCLUDING the death penalty, is a violation of the legal process and an example of hypocrisy.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 9:01 pm - July 3, 2007
Oh, I see. Your current argument hinges on the fact that one time I referred to Libby’s commutation-cum-pardon as a pardon.
Which you also stated you “never” did.
That fact has never been contested.
That’s twice in a row you’ve been caught trying to mislead people.
Let’s go back to Rich. Are you saying that if Clinton had merely commuted his sentence rather than granting him a full pardon, that you would have found that to be completely acceptable?
I would have had far less objection to it.
And I object to the idea of a Libby pardon.
But unlike you and HP, I know the difference between the two, and am not trying to confuse the two to protect Bill Clinton.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 9:07 pm - July 3, 2007
Okay, I see. You lied. Fair enough, I’m sure it wasn’t the first time today, but at least now you’ve admitted (tacitly) that in fact, I never once called for Bush to commute death penalty sentences. But I kind of sympathize with you. You go with the argument you’ve got, not the one you wish you had. If you want to go back to those comments and try and twist them into saying what you wish they said, be my guest. Please provide quotes. I can make you look like an imbecile all day.
Read it again. I never said that. I agreed that having the executive branch doling out pardons needs to be abolished.
But let’s go back to Rich. Are you saying that if Clinton had merely commuted his sentence rather than granting him a full pardon, that you would have found that to be completely acceptable?
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 9:07 pm - July 3, 2007
Why? Why would you be okay if a felon and fugitive of justice was given a commuted sentence from Clinton, such that there were no meaningful consequences to his crime? Please explain.
Today you do, if you are to be believed (a very dubious proposition). However, on the day that Bush actually grants the pardon, you’ll be all for it. Don’t worry, I’ll bookmark this page so the ridiculing can commence when Bush forces you to do your hypocrite routine again.
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 9:11 pm - July 3, 2007
Why? Why would you be okay if a felon and fugitive of justice was given a commuted sentence from Clinton, such that there were no meaningful consequences to his crime?
One, probation, fines, and a felony conviction are not insignificant. Do you know how many jobs you can’t have with a felony on your record? And money is money, regardless of who has to pay it or not.
Second off, I know people who have committed felony crimes and have been fugitives from justice. Every case is different. Some deserve worse than they’ve already been sentenced, some will be stuck with a split-second stupid decision for the rest of their lives.
Furthermore, unlike your view of Bush, I am not even close to saying that everything Clinton ever did, does, or will do will be wrong. Had Clinton laid out a reasonable statement (as did Bush) commuting Rich’s sentence, outlining what he would keep and stressing that there would still be a price to be paid, that would have been far more defensible. Pardoning him was not.
I’m sure it wasn’t the first time today, but at least now you’ve admitted (tacitly) that in fact, I never once called for Bush to commute death penalty sentences.
(shrug) If I were worried about that, I would have done as you do and add commentary to make sure people read the quotes correctly.
No need in that case; the links sufficed well enough.
Don’t worry, I’ll bookmark this page so the ridiculing can commence when Bush forces you to do your hypocrite routine again.
(shrug) Feel free. But what are you going to do when I do as I did today and state that the commutation I could live with, but the pardon would be too much and would be wrong?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 9:24 pm - July 3, 2007
One more thing about this commutation. In so doing, Bush tacitly admitted he agrees that Libby is guilty, but that the sentence is excessive. (In his statement, Bush said “I respect the jury’s verdict.”) By confessing that Libby was engaged in a cover-up — after all, that was the verdict — Bush establishes his own motive. In brief, Bush’s act ratifies Libby’s cover-up. The “cloud over the vice president” that the prosecutor decried will never be dispelled.
Now, although presidential pardons and commutations are written into the constitution, there is a limitation. A president cannot pardon impeachment. In other words, the president could not use his power to pardon himself. By pardoning Libby, who was convicted for lying and obstructing the facts regarding Cheney’s (and quite likely Bush’s) actions, Bush is violating the spirit of this law, if not the letter.
And you think this is great.
Pathetic.
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 9:26 pm - July 3, 2007
Are you somehow suggesting that Rich and Libby will have a problem making ends meet, because they can’t get a job? Seriously?
We’re not talking about those people. We’re talking about Mark Rich, who lived like a king in exile as a fugitive from justice, thumbing his nose at the US justice system, and then slipping a check to the president to get the whole thing cleared up. Had they just eliminated the sentence rather than erased the conviction, you would be fine with that. That sure is believable.
Good for you. That shows you can tell the difference between a halfway decent president, and the worst president in US history.
You and I both know that’s not how it’s going to happen. On this page, you’ve taken every opportunity to run cover for Bush while attacking Clinton. You’ve clearly claimed that two wrongs do in fact make a right, assuming the 2nd wrong is committed by a republican. You’ve projected onto me the kind of hypocrisy that you find perfectly natural. Suggesting that I only objected to the Rich pardon for the last 5 minutes certainly presages the kind of hypocrisy you’ll have on offer when Bush pardons Libby. The only single consistent thread in your views is GOP: good; democrat party: bad. Therefore, on Libby Pardon Day, you will have no choice but to crow loudly about how great Bush is to have done that.
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 9:36 pm - July 3, 2007
The “cloud over the vice president” that the prosecutor decried will never be dispelled.
Just as there will always be Truthers out there who are convinced that 9/11 was an inside job.
One of the things the Bush administration has realized is that acting to please those who irrationally hate you is at best a fool’s errand — and they do what they do accordingly.
Had they just eliminated the sentence rather than erased the conviction, you would be fine with that.
You may wish to read what I said.
Had Clinton laid out a reasonable statement (as did Bush) commuting Rich’s sentence, outlining what he would keep and stressing that there would still be a price to be paid, that would have been far more defensible. Pardoning him was not.
Next:
We’re not talking about those people.
Should “those people” be treated differently because they don’t have as much money?
Just say that the criminal justice system should be biased against and assess higher penalties on the rich, and we’ll see how well that works.
You and I both know that’s not how it’s going to happen.
Well, I disagree, and you can’t read my thoughts or the future, so how do you “know”?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2007 @ 10:11 pm - July 3, 2007
Are you comparing a Bush-appointed federal prosecutor and a jury of 12 Americans to 9/11 truthers?
But as I’ve demonstrated, there was no price paid. Libby’s legal fund (boasting $5 million) will pay the fine. The conviction will not affect Libby’s job prospects in any imaginable way. There will be no meaningful price paid. Given that, I ask you again, what in your eyes is the difference between Libby and Rich? Just that Bush left a figleaf of this commutation until his eventual pardon? Is that it? That’s the point you’ve spent all day here arguing?
“Those people” are utterly irrelevant to this conversation. Whether someone deserves punishment is decided on a case-by-case basis. The case we were discussing was Rich. You brought up your imaginary friends just to obfuscate.
Based on what you’ve said today, of course. I’ll reiterate:
On this page, you’ve taken every opportunity to run cover for Bush while attacking Clinton. You’ve clearly claimed that two wrongs do in fact make a right, assuming the 2nd wrong is committed by a republican. You’ve projected onto me the kind of hypocrisy that you find perfectly natural. Suggesting that I only objected to the Rich pardon for the last 5 minutes certainly presages the kind of hypocrisy you’ll have on offer when Bush pardons Libby. The only single consistent thread in your views is GOP: good; democrat party: bad. Therefore, on Libby Pardon Day, you will have no choice but to crow loudly about how great Bush is to have done that.
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2007 @ 10:39 pm - July 3, 2007
The only thing that the pardon of Marj Rich proves is the kind of hypocrites Republicans are.
For when Clinton did it Republicans went into a rage….. But now is just fine. I don’t remember any Democrat justifying the Rich pardon… Maibe you can give us some names, and their statements back then????
Is not the Libby’s or Cheneys of the world that worry me about our Nation. God knows there are crooks and cronies in every Administration and that of course included Clinton’s.
But it is the partisans that are dominating politics today. They are mindless idiots that will never question Party as if Party was God. You are not Americans people, you are Partisans…. As in worthless. What kind of a Democracy will we have if instead of demanding accountability from the people YOU help elect, you demand accountability from the people you did not elect? The answer is we will not have a Democracy OBVIOUSLY. So you can thank Independent minded Americans that can think for themselves for our Democracy…. For if it was for you Partisans, our Political system would be like Mexico in the 50’s ….. All PRI all the time, and they were a “Democracy”…. Yeah Right.
I for one could care less if Libby lives or dies. As far as I am concerned Bush took us into a war with a bunch of lies, and exagerations and we are all paying the price. Rich for all his problems did not cooperate into killing thousands of Americans needlesly…. Libby did.
Now no one has to wait for a judge to tell us that Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Libby, and every damn Neo-Idiot took us into a war needlesly and desrve to be impeached. However, I for one don’t think these trash desrves for Americans even to waste our time in impeaching them.
They are not worth the trouble. They have been Impeached by the American People already and found guilty as charged. No President, not even Nixon has had the polls of this disaster we call our “President” EVER. Now that’s the impeachement that counts….. And Libby?
Who cares about that guy? Hell he was not even the main one in the investigation. The man was just the fall guy for Cheney, and Cheney would have never been impeached even with Libby’s testimony because no one want’s to impeach that looser….. He is not worth the trouble.
So take Libby and run….. As if that is going to do any good for your reputation Republican Right Wingers. You remind me of a starved dog getting a little bone and thinking it is a meal.
[Temper, temper, Gil. Once again, trotting out the notion that the president took us to war with "a bunch of lies" without identifying a single one. And the insults he levels. Such language. Why does he spew such vitriol? And the last line is most amusing for the commenter seems more upset by the President's decision than the blogger was cheered by it, indeed, he found it only a 'half-measure.' Once again, why does this our critics (and the president's) so hot under the collar? Just a question. --Ed.]
Comment by gil — July 3, 2007 @ 10:53 pm - July 3, 2007
You are a true loser, you keep pushing the same lie because you have painted yourself into a corner.
BUt you wore me out, if you keep insisting that I do not know the difference between commuting the sentences and the pardon – lacking any evidence and in the face of clear clarification on my part – i must assume you are quitting on the argument.
There is one vital difference. If Bush had pardoned Libby there would have been issues about Libby’s ability to invoke his 5th ammendment rights against self-incrimination. He could then – theoretically – be compelled to testify against Cheney and Bush. Because one cannot incriminate onself if they have been pardoned.
I am gonna give you some blogging 101, because you gave me such satisfaction by the way you went out. The fact that I am from Pennsylvania meant that I knew exactly what you were referring to with Washington – who would have found you an un-American fringe whack job. But if I did not I could have looked it up on the net.
So, make sure yo know what you are talking about before you present it as a “gotcha” type of thing. You look quite silly when exposed, and you do not have the temperment to think on your feet. But neither does our Attorney general, so I attribute it to red-state lack of education and GOP “everybody gets a medal for participating” and victim (“war on Christmas”) culture.
And it’s too bad you lack the balls to take me up on the bet, almost like you know you’ll lose!
You need to go back and get your GED.
And the Cowboys suck.
Comment by HP — July 3, 2007 @ 11:11 pm - July 3, 2007
Except for T.O.
Comment by HP — July 3, 2007 @ 11:14 pm - July 3, 2007
#38 – “Libby was following orders from Bush or Cheney who told him to out a CIA agent and commit perjury and obstruction of justice to prevent the truth from being known.”
“Really? Care to cite your sources for your statements? Or are you just writing off-the-cuff because it fits into your Bush Derangement Syndrome template?
Peter Hughes, you are a very stupid man.
BDS = people with a clue.
Poor Scooter acted all on his own?? The jurors said they thought he was a fall guy. Anyone with a lick of common sense knows he was following orders.
Cheney was not obsessed with Wilson?? Cheney or Bush could not find out the status of a political enemy?? The only people Scooter anwered to were Bush and Cheney (more likely Cheney) You think he acted on his own and Rove also acted on his own, independently, to out a CIA agent?? Bush and Cheney knew nothing?? Ordered Nothing?? Lied and said they were outraged and would fire anyone responsible. Got Scooter out of jail because of compassion for someone that damaged their administration against their wishes and not as a quid pro quo??
If you believe what you say, you are stupid. More likely, amoral.
Comment by ec1009 — July 4, 2007 @ 1:31 am - July 4, 2007
What a racist bastard.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 4, 2007 @ 1:40 am - July 4, 2007
You think he acted on his own and Rove also acted on his own, independently, to out a CIA agent?? Bush and Cheney knew nothing?? Ordered Nothing??
Nope. Dick Armitage did. As you’ll recall, the media told Scooter and not the other way around.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 4, 2007 @ 1:42 am - July 4, 2007
“the media told Scooter and not the other way around.”
That was his story and you are sticking to it despite the fact that the jury found it to be bullshit??
No response to the quid pro quo argument?
You concede that a guilty vedict for perjury and obstruction by the top aide to the V.P. is no big deal. Do you also concede that obstruction of justice by the president or V.P. is also no big deal?
They cannot possibly be ever convicted of perjury because neither has the balls to testify under oath.
Comment by ec1009 — July 4, 2007 @ 1:58 am - July 4, 2007
Are you comparing a Bush-appointed federal prosecutor and a jury of 12 Americans to 9/11 truthers?
No; I am comparing you and your fellow Democrats to Truthers, inasmuch as the “cloud” you cite will still be there, regardless of what happens. That’s because your fantasies and insane ideological needs count the same as quantifiable facts in your universe.
For example (emphasis mine):
But as I’ve demonstrated, there was no price paid. Libby’s legal fund (boasting $5 million) will pay the fine. The conviction will not affect Libby’s job prospects in any imaginable way. There will be no meaningful price paid.
“Will” is future tense — which means it hasn’t happened.
Meanwhile, you spin and equivocate over why a pardon which DID completely remove any price from being paid, as you put it, is somehow the same as a commutation which does NOT.
Next up:
“Those people” are utterly irrelevant to this conversation.
Actually, they are quite relevant.
You see, you insisted above — in fact, you were quite whiny about it — that it’s “not fair” to treat everyone the same.
Then, below, when I dare to treat rich people the same as poor people, you demand that the rich should be punished more by the justice system and should NOT be allowed to have their cases evaluated on an individual basis.
Answer this, Paul; do you believe that the justice system should discriminate on the basis of individual wealth? Are you of the Democrat Mike Nifong school, in which rich white people may be accused of crimes without evidence? Are you going to argue that those men involved paid no price because they didn’t get jail time?
Based on what you’ve said today, of course. I’ll reiterate:
In other words, you’re speculating.
And meanwhile, to HP, you clearly do not know the difference between a pardon and a commutation. If you did, you would not have made such a glaringly-obvious mistake as to claim Marc Rich’s pardon — which you supported, since Bill Clinton did it — was the same as Libby’s commutation.
As for the rest, the fact that your post consisted of insulting my education and my background — none of which you know anything about and base solely on your stereotypes — makes it clear that you have no facts or references to support your argument. Instead, you’re quite obviously trying to bully and provoke by flinging insult after insult.
The best way to deal with a bully like yourself is to stand your ground — and I have and will. You may continue making your insults; it only proves you have no other information than your own bigotry, prejudice, and stereotypes.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 4, 2007 @ 2:07 am - July 4, 2007
Do you also concede that obstruction of justice by the president or V.P. is also no big deal?
(shrug) Your party said it wasn’t. Indeed, they said that the President, the Vice President, and any one of their aides should be allowed to obstruct justice, perjure themselves as much as possible to cover up for their boss, and do whatever it takes.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 4, 2007 @ 2:08 am - July 4, 2007
That was his story and you are sticking to it despite the fact that the jury found it to be bullshit??
The jury didn’t find it to be “bullshit” because it wasn’t presented to them.
No response to the quid pro quo argument?
Because there isn’t any. Armitage was the leaker and not Scooter Libby. Libby was not the one who “leaked” Valerie Wilson to the media, so therefore there was no quid pro quo. He failed to properly recall conversations he had with media members some years before. It should also be noted that said media members couldn’t recall the conversations either. You’ll recall how Judith Miller was a prime example of how their recollections were clouded.
Further, you can obstruct an investigation into a non-crime which is only meant to pad a expense account at Chucky Schumer’s bidding.
You concede that a guilty vedict for perjury and obstruction by the top aide to the V.P. is no big deal.
No. I concede that a guilty verdict for perjery and obstruction by the top aide to the V.P. is a bastardization of justice along the lines of the pre-trial conviction of the Duke Lacrosse players, if not worse (and I dare speculate that it is).
Do you also concede that obstruction of justice by the president or V.P. is also no big deal?
It is if they actually did it. Unfortunately, the rantings of kooky liberal tampon strings don’t count as reality
They cannot possibly be ever convicted of perjury because neither has the balls to testify under oath.
Given that there doesn’t appear to be any reason of them to testify under oath about anything, I suppose we won’t know. Further, it amazes me how bleeding twats can asess whether or not someone has balls.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 4, 2007 @ 2:12 am - July 4, 2007
Peter Hughes uses the classic right-wing ” Sure my guys a crook, but other people are too” line.
Actually, it’s the classic left-wing tactic. See discussions on Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Clinton, Burglar, Frank, Jefferson, etc.etc.etc.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 4, 2007 @ 2:24 am - July 4, 2007
Do you also concede that obstruction of justice by the president or V.P. is also no big deal?
(shrug) Your party said it wasn’t. Indeed, they said that the President, the Vice President, and any one of their aides should be allowed to obstruct justice, perjure themselves as much as possible to cover up for their boss, and do whatever it takes.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 4, 2007 @ 2:08 am – July 4, 2007
Name one person. Link please. Clinton derangement syndrome or insane Republican fantasies don’t count.
Comment by ec1009 — July 4, 2007 @ 3:11 am - July 4, 2007
“The jury didn’t find it to be “bullshit” because it wasn’t presented to them.”
Ha! Now you resort to lying. That was Libby’s defense and the jury did not buy it. Are you saying that Scooter’s talking points are bullshit or that his defense just didn’t “feel” like presenting them to the jury?
Comment by ec1009 — July 4, 2007 @ 3:18 am - July 4, 2007
“the rantings of kooky liberal tampon strings don’t count as reality”
“Further, it amazes me how bleeding twats can asess whether or not someone has balls.”
You have an unhealthy obsession with menstruation bugger. If that is what passes for conservative debate these days, your party is doomed.
Comment by ec1009 — July 4, 2007 @ 3:25 am - July 4, 2007
Name one person.
Hillary and Bill Clinton.
That’s two; I’m feeling generous today.
And add yourself, since I don’t see you throwing a shrieking hissy fit over the perjury and obstruction of justice that any of them committed.
Go on; if you want to throw perjurors and obstructors of justice behind bars, start with Bill and with Hillary “I don’t recall” Clinton.
That was Libby’s defense and the jury did not buy it.
The jury wasn’t asked to figure out whether or not Libby was the source of the leak. They were asked to figure out if he had perjured himself in terms of what he told Federal prosecutors.
If you wanted to go after the leaker, you would have gone after Armitage. But you didn’t. Care to elaborate why? Quid pro quo payment, perhaps, on the part of the Dems?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 4, 2007 @ 3:39 am - July 4, 2007
If you wanted to go after the leaker, you would have gone after Armitage. [There can and were more than one leaker dumbass]But you didn’t[perhaps you are confusing me with Fitzgereld.] Care to elaborate why?[No,]perhaps the purgery and obstruction by Quid pro quo payment, perhaps, on the part of the Dems?[Just shut up]
Do republicans have any principles? If so what could they be. I am stumped.
Comment by ec1009 — July 4, 2007 @ 4:19 am - July 4, 2007
Ed.
I am hot about the desicion because it reflects exactly the same thing that Republicans once claimed was wrong with Clinton’s decision about Mr. Rich.
Or have you forgoten?
I find it insulting, as so many Republicans found it insulting when Clinton did it. Tell me Sir what was the use of this investigation ordered by Bush’s own Justice Department, and carried out from top to bottom by authentic REPUBLICANS way more decent than Bush will ever be, if at the end of the day the game was rigged from the start?
What kind of fools does Mr. Bush (or you) takes us for?
You can be happy for the outcome and that’s your right. But surely SIr you can’t be happy that a group of your peers were made to sit there in the jury box so that they could do their duty as American citizens, only to see the “President” say “Never Mind” when ge did not like the outcome.
In short Sir what makes me angry is not that Libby is free. As I clearly indicated in my post the man was a minor soldier in the larger scheme of things. What makes me angry is Mr. Bush, Cheney, and frankly every Republican Right WInger, and Neo-Con that go arround pretending that they were any better than the worst Democrat around.
You are not people. you are just a continuation of the incredibly shrinking political system in America. Every bit as bad as the people you criticize, every bit as usless to sane discourse as your enemies on the left. You people are a drag that we Americans have to carry with us all the time.
Like I said, you can thank us in the middle for still having any resemblance of a Democracy any more. For if it was up to you Republican and Democrat Partisans our “Democracy” would be a one Party does- no- wrong affair. And that people is a Dictaorship as in Banana Republic.
Maibe that’s where you belong with “El Presidente “dictating who goes to jail, who goes free, who gets a job, and who does not. The only difference beyween that Republic and you Partisans, is that the people living in the Banana Republic want out…..While you want in.
Comment by gil — July 4, 2007 @ 10:25 am - July 4, 2007
Ed
” Once again trotting out the notion that the President took us into a war with a bunch of lies without identifying a single one of them”
Pardon me if in my post I did not go over the lies.
You see Sir there are so many I either make my point about Libby and his relationshipto the lies about Iraq which is what I was trying to make in my post…. Or I go trough the list of lies. For you see Sir I am sure you know there have been entire books writtenon the subject of lies, exagerations, desception by this Administration on Iraq. And the war is not even over!!! Therefore I find it rather disingenuous for you to even question me about Bush’e lies, as if some how it was unfair of me to attack hom on his lies because I don’t mention them.
So here’s a list of some of the lies and exagerations by Bush or Bush Administration officials. And let me make perfectloy clear that the list is short not because there’s only a few examples, but because I don’t have the space or time to go over all of them.
Let’s start with the one that did the most damage to American Credibility.
February 6, 2003. Colin Powell went in front of the U.N. to put his good name on the line and make the presentation of the “evidence” that the Bush Administration considered to make the case for a war against Iraq. As we now know from Powell himself, the preparation for this presentation was the culmination of Inteligence gathering by the Bush Administration. But much more importantly the ACCUMULATION OF THE INTELIGENCE Cheney, Bush, Rummsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perl, and other Neo-Cons CONSIDERED RELEVANT TO MAKE THEIR CASE FOR WAR AGAINST IRAQ. This is a very important distinction. For what Powell by his own acknowlegment presented in February of 2003 was simply the Neo-Con version of things, not the CIA and NSA version of things. As a result and now in the history books our nation presented trough Powell a bunch of lies, exagerations, and wrong assumptions. You remember George Tenet sitting behind Powell at the U.N speech? It was done purposedly to emphasize the “backing” of the Intellingece services to what was said by Powell that day in front of the U.N. Have you read Tenet book? It shows what a charade this was, and how “he would rather have been anywhere but sitting behind Colin Powell that day. America’s presitge and good name was put on the line by the Bush Administration, and as of today we have not recovered from that day. And then you ask me what lies Bush came up with?
You see that’s what happens when you make the intelligence fit the decision. You trow out what you don’t like, you bring in what you do, you put a sinister spin on what’s not there….. And presto!!! You have yourself a little war. Old trick, old as there has been corrupt, irresponsible people on this earth.
An on the subject of spin, and what was not there….. It takes me to another infamous lie from this Administration.
Do you remember Ms. Rice remark? Let me refresh your memory. September 8,2003subsecuently many times. “We know that the infraestructure, and nuclear scientist to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the gulf war, he was farm far closer to a nuclear device that anybody tought–
Comment by gil — July 4, 2007 @ 11:23 am - July 4, 2007
North Dallas Thirty.
Thank you for your “generosity”
But, I would rather have you be correct in what you post than being “generous” to me.
I asked for some one to name one person that justified Clinton’s pardon in the same light you guys justify Libby’s….. And you give me the Clinton’s!!!
No Sir Clinton is the one that did the pardon….. Ovbiosly he (just like Bush) had some unknown and unexplainable justification ….. I did not know I had to deal with such a disingenous audience.
No, Sir I was asking for some one OTHER than Clinton, his wife, his cat, his daughter, his dog, or his mom. But then again some times I give you guys too much credit, and run ahead of myself. My apologies I tought my remark was self evident.
Is my question clear enough for you now Sir?
Comment by gil — July 4, 2007 @ 11:43 am - July 4, 2007
thatguyconservative
I read your posts, and I am frankly confused.
Help me out will you?
Is your position that if Clinton did it with Reich, then Bush is fine if he does it with Libby? And since the Democrats use this tactic some how the Republicans can use it too…. And that makes it fine?
Fine for who Sir?
Reason I ask is because last I checked I live in America, not in Republiclandia, or Demolandia you know. So can you please tell me how does president Clinton’s and Bush’s messing with established laws by our Constitution some how makes it good for America???
I take it you are an American correct?
Comment by gil — July 4, 2007 @ 11:53 am - July 4, 2007
I am amused by Truthers like gil who show up and proceed to demonstrate that they have no facts; only their insistence that the Bush administration lied.
For instance, Gil claims this statement by Condi Rice is a lie.
We know that the infraestructure, and nuclear scientist to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the gulf war, he was farm far closer to a nuclear device that anybody tought–
But what do we find when we look at facts?
– Saddam had the infrastructure
– Saddam had the nuclear scientists
– Saddam was successfully hiding it from Western intelligence agencies
And — a fact which leftists like Gil regularly ignore — Saddam had literally TONS of the necessary material.
This is because Gil is a typical Democrat hyperpartisan. He knows no facts; he only knows what his Democrat masters program him to believe.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 4, 2007 @ 12:32 pm - July 4, 2007
NorthDallas thirty.
A clarification to that particular post.
My post was cut by this blog becuase of lack of space. You are commenting in an unfinished post. Maibe that’s why you have a problem with it.
So let me end the post for you so that you understand what I ment. And no Sir unlike many of you I don’t invent any facts. The remarks by Rice are there. The books by Tenet and Powell are there. The U.N. presentation is there. The lack of WMD’s , Nuclear Weapons Programs , Nuclear Yellow Cake, Nuclear conections to Nigeria, or the possibility for any mushroom clouds in our future are all there too.
What’s not there SIr is your willingness to question the people you help elect or inform yourself before you comment…. ANd that’s our problem as a Democracy. That there are so many like you.
So back to finish my point.
Rice’s full quote is: “We know that he (Saddam) has the infraestructure and nuclear scientist to make nuclear weapons and we know that after the inspectors assesed this after the Gulf War he was far, far closer to a nuclear device than anyone tought—Maibe six months from anuclear bomb”. And then she made her now infamous quote ridiculed by just about everyone around the world. “The problem here is that there will allways be some uncertainty about how quckly he can aquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”
Problem with these remarks Sir is that NOT ONE OF THEM WAS TRUE. There was no Nuclear Program, the inspectors did not conclude that Saddam was only six months from a Nuclear bomb, there was no infraestructure to produce nuclear weapons. In short there was only the willingness by Rice to come out and lie away at the American people on behalf of her masters. Not because she was misinformed, or had the wong intelligence, if only BUT because she allowed herself to be used in a campaign of missinformation designed by the Bush Administration to market a war.
Now Sir with all due respect your ignorance is not my problem. If you think that Saddam had a Termonuclear bomb hiding under his bed that’s fine. Problem with it is that is not true.
That you make Bush’s and Rice’s lies among many other officials, “facts” is not because there were facts, but because you made them up to be. And with that I can’t argue. You see I don’t make pretend in my arguments Sir. I am an adult person that stopped playing Indians and Cowboys a long time ago.
Comment by gil — July 4, 2007 @ 1:26 pm - July 4, 2007
Yeah, Bush was evil and dishonest enough to lie about WMD’s to take the country into war… but not evil and dishonest enough to stash some WMD’s in Iraq so they could be “discovered” post-invasion.
That’s where the brain-dead chanting of the troofer left falls apart for me.
Comment by V the K — July 4, 2007 @ 1:32 pm - July 4, 2007
V de K
Interesting point you make .
Who do you suggest could have been assigned the task to plant WMD’s with no one noticing Sir? James Bond maibe?
In real life there is no way on this God’s green Earth that Nuclear Weapons can be “planted” , please get real.
What actually happened is that the Bush Administration tought sincerely that there was enough there “there” to justify the attack, but not enough to make the treat of a Nuclear Weapon real enough to be used against an invading Allied force.
The biggest surprise of their lives is that there was NOTHING there at all. Or in other words thath they were so incredibly WRONG. Indeed the CIA did believe that there were WMD’s in Iraq. Not even remotely to the degree that they were presented by the Bush Administration….. But enough to make the pretext for war stand under post-war scrutiny.
The solution to this lack of intelligence and the tragic mistakes to follow were right there in front of Bush’s nose for the taking. FOR THERE WERE INSPECTORS ON THE GROUND LOOKING FREELY ALL OVER IRAQ FOR WMD’S prior to the war, and Bush force them out , because he did not like the answers he was getting…. That is to say Mr. President we can’t find any WMD’s”.
That’s one of the many things that makes this war so tragic. The Inspectors were telling Neo-Cons with FACTS that their story did not fit the reality.
No WMD’s ment no pretext and a lot of egg in Bush’s face and every one that supported him. Planting WMD’s was not done simply because it is impossible to do.
Is not about evil by the way. I never called Bush evil. What he and the Neo-Cons are in my opinion is simply people willing to do what it takes to follow an agenda that is simply mistaken. And are not willing to change when it is demonstrated that they were wrong….. As fanatics do, these people put first the agenda, and then make the facts fit their agenda. A lot of people have paid the ultimate price because of it.
Comment by gil — July 4, 2007 @ 2:36 pm - July 4, 2007
#29 Did everybody get that? If you see a bunch of flying monkeys coming North, don’t worry, it’s just Robert coming back for the revolution.
Comment by Sean A — July 4, 2007 @ 2:44 pm - July 4, 2007
And here we see how the leftist Truthers like Gil respond when confronted with real evidence.
There was no Nuclear Program, the inspectors did not conclude that Saddam was only six months from a Nuclear bomb, there was no infraestructure to produce nuclear weapons.
Contrary to established fact, of course.
And I particularly love this:
What’s not there SIr is your willingness to question the people you help elect or inform yourself before you comment…. ANd that’s our problem as a Democracy. That there are so many like you.
Actually, Gil, people like you, whose insane hatreds of Bush allow them to deny reality, are the real danger to our democracy.
My favorite example of you Truther Democrat leftists at work was this; in short, you screamed bloody murder when Saddam’s treasure trove of nuclear documents was placed on the Web, crying that it was “too dangerous” because “anyone could use it to build a bomb” — but then insist that it was NOT dangerous in the hands of the man who owned it originally, who had the money, technology, and uranium needed to produce it.
More details and cross-references here.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 4, 2007 @ 4:31 pm - July 4, 2007
NDT, there are no fantasies or ideologies necessary here. A jury determined the facts, which is that Scotter committed perjury, deliberately lying to obstruct an investigation. Members of the jury all commented their agreement that Libby was a fall guy for Cheney. Those are facts which even Bush agrees with, in declaring “I respect the jury’s verdict.”
I see. So your whole argument now rests on the fact that Bush has not yet pardoned Libby. This argument of yours has a very short shelf life, so you better start hunting for its replacement. As for whether the Libby Defense Fund has paid the $250k yet, perhaps they have. As a private venture, its intricate dealings are private. However, it has been widely reported that they’ve raised $5 million.
Now on to your most entertaining fabrications:
Um, no. I didn’t. In fact, I’ve argued many times on this page the exact opposite. For example:
Try again.
I never said anything even resembling this.
Look, if you can’t refute my actual points, such that you need to create strawman arguments and pretend I said them, why limit yourself? You don’t have to stick with these silly claims. Why not say that I’m a follower of bin Laden and in league with the devil? In other words, have some fun with your bullshitting!
Comment by Paul — July 4, 2007 @ 6:21 pm - July 4, 2007
I disagree.
Perhaps you’re right as far as his short-term reputation is concerned, but History has a way of threshing out the truth.
Bush is highly unpopular. Thats for sure. But current opinions of his administration are far more influenced by that unpopularity (hatred in many cases) than they are by facts. I think Bush will fare well in the history books (certainly better than Clinton, far better than Carter, and probably a good deal better than his father).
Harry Truman was even less popular than President Bush and for strikingly similar reasons. He is now widely considered one of our greatest presidents. And not too long ago there was a president named Ronald Reagan, whom the left loathed, burned in effigy, and villified as evil incarnate. Now they compare themselves to him on the campaign trail.
While Bush’s immedite reputation has been and will be ruled and crafted by the same idiots, his historical reputation will be ruled by facts, which will record his tenure as uncommonly daring, visionary, honest, ethical, principled, undeservedly maligned and ultimately, correct.
Comment by Will — July 5, 2007 @ 7:56 am - July 5, 2007
#92 – “If you believe what you say, you are stupid. More likely, amoral.”
Coming from a libtroll, I take that as a compliment. Nobody I know is more stupid or amoral than a GayLeftLib. But I digress.
Let me refresh your memory, because it is obvious that you do not know of what you speak:
Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA official was public knowledge long before Bob Novak’s column supposedly “outed” her. Media interviews with friends and associates of the Wilsons revealed that Joe Wilson would introduce his wife at parties as “my wife the CIA agent.” (Way to go, Joe, for being so “covert” with your wife’s identity.)
Why aren’t any of the Dhimmicrats calling for Joe Wilson to be prosecuted? Is it because they are more motivated by the animus left over from Clinton’s impeachment that they wanted Bush impeached since 2001? (You know, when he “stole” the 2000 election.)
We also know that Joe Wilson deliberately lied in his statements to Congress. Why isn’t he being tried for perjury? (I would venture to guess because Dhimmicrats always try to convict OTHERS of perjury and ignore their own shortcomings.)
At any point prior to Monday, Bush could have engaged the case by publicly posing the following questions:
1. Why did Deputy Atty. Gen. James Comey name Fitzgerald as special counsel when the identity of Armitage already was known at the Justice Department?
2. Why did Fitzgerald pursue the investigation when he knew Armitage was the leaker and had determined no evidence of a crime committed?
3. Why did Armitage, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the Justice Department fail to notify Bush about Armitage’s culpability?
He didn’t, because he knew that this was a witch-hunt. In the end, he took action as per Article II of the Constitution – you know, that document that Dhimmicrats don’t seem to notice except when it suits their own ends.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 5, 2007 @ 11:09 am - July 5, 2007
This thread is still getting comments?
Lordy, lordy!
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — July 5, 2007 @ 11:46 am - July 5, 2007
NDT, there are no fantasies or ideologies necessary here.
Except your attempts to link the jury’s speculation with the actual verdict.
So your whole argument now rests on the fact that Bush has not yet pardoned Libby. This argument of yours has a very short shelf life, so you better start hunting for its replacement.
And again, Paul, your entire argument rests on your ideology-based fantasy of what will happen in the future, rather than the facts now.
Answer this question: why did you a) lie and claim Libby had been pardoned and b) try to cover up your lie by stating another lie, that you had never said such a thing?
You see, according to leftist Democrats like yourself, there are no mistakes. Any contradictions in what people say when talking to different sources indicates they are perjuring themselves, deliberately lying, and deliberately covering up the actions of their superiors.
I never said anything even resembling this.
Yes you did. You said that rich people should be fined and punished more than poor people, otherwise there are “no consequences”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 5, 2007 @ 12:17 pm - July 5, 2007
NDT, your focus on “pardon” versus “commutation-cum-pardon” is pathetic at this point.
Wrong. According to a jury who reviewed all the facts and spent days in deliberation, Libby did not make mistakes; he lied. If you have a problem with this (Bush has no problem with it), then please spell out exactly where the jury was wrong, and why. Also please detail why you know more about this case than the jury does. Thanks. I look forward to your detailed reply.
I made no such blanket statement. Let’s first acknowledge that, and that you’ve lied once again. My objection with removing Libby’s prison sentence, as I’ve stated, is that Libby would not be paying the fine himself, as it would come out of his legal defense fund. Therefore, Libby is removed from this consequence. I made no mention of rich or poor.
NDT, your arguments are easy enough to refute on their own. When you get to the point that you fabricate things that I’ve said on this very page, this whole conversation gets absurd. Seriously, if you’re going to go down this route, why not make it fun? Why not say that I’m really Lex Luther or something?
Comment by Paul — July 5, 2007 @ 1:09 pm - July 5, 2007
I suppose everyone needs a dream.
Comment by Paul — July 5, 2007 @ 1:19 pm - July 5, 2007
Whoops! Looks like the probation is going away too:
Check it out.
But I’m sure Libby will still suffer consequences for committing perjury to a grand jury. I’m sure he’ll feel real bad that his legal defense has to take $250k out of the $5M to pay his fine, when he’d promised an ice cream social for all his supporters.
Comment by Paul — July 5, 2007 @ 1:30 pm - July 5, 2007
NDT, your focus on “pardon” versus “commutation-cum-pardon” is pathetic at this point.
I suppose you would be saying that, given that I provided clear proof that you wilfully lied — twice — about it.
According to a jury who reviewed all the facts and spent days in deliberation, Libby did not make mistakes; he lied.
Mhm.
The same jury which, you gleefully pointed out above, made statements after the trial indicating that their primary desire and motivation in this entire process had been to punish Bush, Cheney, and Libby by any means possible.
I made no such blanket statement.
Mhm.
You said the same thing for Marc Rich — that, since it would come out of his personal fortune, he wasn’t punished enough.
Just say, Paul, that you believe rich people should automatically have greater punishments because they’re rich.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 5, 2007 @ 2:27 pm - July 5, 2007
[This comment has been deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]
Comment by Paul — July 5, 2007 @ 2:52 pm - July 5, 2007
At least Tony Snow has the cojones to call out Shrillary on her hypocrisy regarding executive privilege.
And irony of ironies, Algore even makes a feeble attempt to distance himself from his former criminal-in-chief while at the same time keeping his son’s criminal record under wraps.
Such is the order of the goddess Themis (ask Dan for clarification if necessary).
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 5, 2007 @ 2:53 pm - July 5, 2007
Let’s talk about hypocrisy, shall we? Hillary is a hypocrite to criticize Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence (although it’s still fair for her to point out the differences between Libby’s and Rich’s cases). Everyone posting on this page who had any disagreement whatsoever with the Rich pardon, but who accepts the Libby commutation-cum-pardon, is a hypocrite.
Comment by Paul — July 5, 2007 @ 3:46 pm - July 5, 2007
Paul, you are spinning worse than Wonder Woman. Face the facts, kiddo:
1. Libby got a commutation, not a pardon.
2. The commutation left in place the $250,000 fine and two years’ probation, for which Libby is responsible.
3. Marc Rich and about 140 other people were fully pardoned by the Clintons – including ANY AND ALL jail time that was justly handed down by impartial juries.
So let’s DO talk about hypocrisy, shall we?
It seems to me that the hypocrisy demonstrated by Dhimmicrats on this issue is rather startling. When you think about the previous administration and the pardons issued on the VERY LAST DAY of their “co-presidency,” and the fact that they have the gall and audacity to criticize Bush’s decision well into his second term of office, it makes me shake my head in disbelief.
If – and this is a big if – Bush decides to issue a full pardon in Libby’s case, it would be nowhere near as devastating as the Clinton’s pardoning of perpetrators such as these:
The 16 FALN members – actual terrorists who were parts of a large conspiracy – were pardoned in 1999.
William Arthur Borders Jr. was one of the people who were taking part in the Alcee Hastings bribery scandal. Pardoned as well.
Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned for his mail fraud and perjury convictions.
Clinton also pardoned outright several friends of his who had been convicted of crimes ranging from fraud to tax evasion.
Clinton pardoned a LOT of people who did pretty bad things, ranging from perjury to cocaine trafficking. And you are worked up over a former VP chief of staff whose only crime was not remembering correctly?
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 5, 2007 @ 5:10 pm - July 5, 2007
Oh, that’s the best I’ve seen yet.
Hillary is a hypocrite to criticize Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence (although it’s still fair for her to point out the differences between Libby’s and Rich’s cases).
Which you then turn around and obscure the differences on yourself.
Everyone posting on this page who had any disagreement whatsoever with the Rich pardon, but who accepts the Libby commutation-cum-pardon, is a hypocrite.
The hypocrisy point is simple; Hillary has no business complaining about commuting a sentence when she and her husband blithely removed ALL of a sentence AND the conviction itself completely.
But again, you try to lie and confuse a commutation with a pardon — as you did previously.
The reason is clear; you cannot criticize Shrillary without trying to make a feeble attempt at claiming “the Republicans are worse”.
Furthermore, since you insist Libby’s measly commutation is proof of criminal action on the part of Bush and Cheney, you must, in order to be consistent, clearly state that Rich’s pardon, which was even broader, was proof of criminal action on the part of Bill and Hillary.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 5, 2007 @ 5:10 pm - July 5, 2007
This is easily the most belabored point on this page. Between now and 1/20/09, Libby will be receiving a pardon. Not much more to say about this now, other than that you’d better start stopping around for a more robust argument.
And yes, that’s the 2nd most belabored point. You’re not missing anything. Of course, since Libby won’t be paying the $250k, and since the probably is now in serious question, the remaining “punishment” is meaningless.
And, of course, finally we get to your “two wrongs makes a right, as long as the 2nd wrong was committed by a republican. Again, let me say I sure hope you don’t have kids.
Me too. However, hypocrisy from the Clintons has absolutely no bearing on the wisdom or legitimacy of Bush’s actions. Unless you’re saying that, because Clinton abused the pardon power, that means Bush needs to abuse it as well. Is that your point? Because that will probably mean that the next president will feel the need to abuse it also. How far do you want this to go?
Okay, I’m calling bullshit. The crime was not one of bad memory. A jury determined without a reasonable doubt that Libby was purposely lying, just as you are in trying to paint this differently.
Which brings us back to the question that you’re too cowardly to even address:
If you have a problem with the verdict (Bush has no problem with it), then please spell out exactly where the jury was wrong, and why. Also please detail why you know more about this case than the jury does. Thanks. I look forward to your detailed reply.
Comment by Paul — July 5, 2007 @ 5:28 pm - July 5, 2007
That’s pretty much what I said.
I also said that anyone who has a problem with the Clintons’ pardons, but not with the Libby commutation-cum-pardon, is also a hypocrite for exactly the same reason.
Sounds reasonable, apart from mischaracterizing the removal of a prison sentence as “measley.” The Clintons’ crime was, defined broadly, influence peddling. Rich’s ex-wife paid to the Clinton Library, and in return, her ex-husband was pardoned. Pretty sleazy.
Bush’s crime included that, but with far more nefarious implications. Because Libby was lying (a fact proven in court), and because he refused to tell the truth at any point in his trial (never even took the stand until the closing statements), one is left to wonder why. Who is he protecting by not telling the truth? The answer, to anyone with at least 2 brain cells to rub together, is that he was protecting his employer. Seriously, who else would it be? And with this commutation, Bush has validated this theory. It appears highly likely that Libby was told to continue lying, stick to the cover story, and when he is found guilty, Bush would pardon him.
In this way, Bush’s action violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the constitution regarding presidential pardons, in that in a roundabout way, he essentially pardoned himself. And that, I would say, is worse than what the Clintons did. Clinton’s pardon of Rich meant that Rich was not answerable to US law. Bush’s commutation-cum-pardon of Libby means that the Bush Admin is not answerable to US law. One of these has more long-term consequences for the health of our republic under the rule of law than the other. Can you tell which is which?
Comment by Paul — July 5, 2007 @ 5:43 pm - July 5, 2007
I also said that anyone who has a problem with the Clintons’ pardons, but not with the Libby commutation-cum-pardon, is also a hypocrite for exactly the same reason.
And again you try to lie that a pardon and a commutation are the same thing.
Because Libby was lying (a fact proven in court), and because he refused to tell the truth at any point in his trial (never even took the stand until the closing statements), one is left to wonder why.
Um….we have an entire amendment to our Constitution that says, in essence, “You have the choice — and cannot be forced — of whether or not you choose to testify in your own trial, and that means nothing in terms of whether you are or are not guilty.”
The rest is nothing more than the application of Democrat justice nee Mike Nifong — you start thinking the person involved was guilty by virtue of who or what they were, then try to build your case backwards, ignoring anything that doesn’t suit your preconceived notion.
And that is why I called you and your fellow Democrat Party members “Truthers” above; like them, you start out with the conclusion, then try to piece together facts to prove it while ignoring anything that would contradict your conclusions.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 5, 2007 @ 7:02 pm - July 5, 2007
You’re quite the one trick pony, aren’t you? In Libby’s case, the difference between a commutation and a pardon is that the commutation has come first, and the pardon will follow. There is no other possibility, short of impeachment (which is even less likely). But you can continue to disagree with me, for no longer than the next 15 months.
With the small distinction that Libby was convicted by a jury of his peers. But I know, that’s all that “American justice” stuff that you don’t believe in anyway. Honestly, I wish you could see that your mad comparisons are not helping your argument at all.
Anyhow, I can still see that you’re not convinced that Libby committed a real crime. So I ask you again (each time you ignore this question, you appear more and more foolish):
If you have a problem with the verdict (Bush has no problem with it), then please spell out exactly where the jury was wrong, and why. Also please detail why you know more about this case than the jury does. Thanks. I look forward to your detailed reply.
Comment by Paul — July 5, 2007 @ 7:11 pm - July 5, 2007
About your comment regarding “Democrat justice,” you’ve compared the unfair “trial by media” that Nifong did, with a trial by jury that Libby underwent, and have equated them completely. That’s very interesting. On one case, we’ve got a DA who went crazy after some lacrosse players. On the other hand, we’ve got the American system of justice that has been in effect for about 218 years. To you, they’re the same.
So I’m wondering: do you always have this much contempt for the American justice system, and if so, what are your ideas for improving it? Or do you just have this much contempt for it when you don’t prefer the result?
(I look forward to your detailed reply…aw, who am I kidding? All you’re going to say is that I lied and said Libby was pardoned. Go ahead and insert that comment below. You can copy and paste if you’re too tired of typing it.)
Comment by Paul — July 5, 2007 @ 7:18 pm - July 5, 2007
You’re quite the one trick pony, aren’t you?
And yet, despite having only one trick, you can’t do anything about it.
That is because you lied. The proof is there that you lied. And you can belittle, tear down, or do whatever you like to me, but you can’t change that fact.
With the small distinction that Libby was convicted by a jury of his peers.
A jury which you yourself admit was obsessed with punishing Bush and Cheney.
About your comment regarding “Democrat justice,” you’ve compared the unfair “trial by media” that Nifong did, with a trial by jury that Libby underwent, and have equated them completely.
Actually, the equating was of your witch hunt for Bush and Cheney.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 6, 2007 @ 12:15 am - July 6, 2007
#129 – Okay, kiddo, here is your “detailed response,” not that you probably won’t read all of it -
“Between now and 1/20/09, Libby will be receiving a pardon.”
Really? How do you know? Do you have the same crystal ball that Shrillary used to predict cattle futures for a net gain of $300,000?
Bush hinted that “all options were on the table.” Didn’t say he would pardon Libby. Didn’t say he wouldn’t. Didn’t think he needed to tell the press corps what he might or might not do 18-or-so months down the road. And why should he? If I were Bush, damned if I would tell an old Arab like Helen Thomas what my next move would be.
Your point is invalid. Next:
“Of course, since Libby won’t be paying the $250k, and since the probably is now in serious question, the remaining “punishment” is meaningless.”
Again, your proof? Libby can still appeal his probation, and the chances are good that it will not be overturned. He will still be considered “guilty” for all intents and purposes. Moot point, again.
“And, of course, finally we get to your “two wrongs makes a right, as long as the 2nd wrong was committed by a republican [sic]. Again, let me say I sure hope you don’t have kids.”
I never said that. You are comparing apples to oranges.
The President didn’t pardon Libby, but listening to the wailing and keening by Dhimmicrats and their willing accomplices in the MSM, you would have thought Bush had not just commuted Libby’s sentence but had fully pardoned him and presented him with the Medal of Freedom.
By contrast, Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, who had fled the country to avoid prosecution. He was pardoned without ever presenting himself before the US justice system. President Bush, by commuting a portion of Libby’s sentence, left the jury’s verdict intact.
In his explanation of why he pardoned Marc Rich, President Clinton – in effect – named himself both the decider of fact and the arbiter of punishment. Bush did neither.
As far as your last point – as if it is any of your business, I don’t have any children of my own. But as Her Shrillness says, “it takes a village.”
Again, your argument is without merit. Let us continue:
“[H]ypocrisy from the Clintons has absolutely no bearing on the wisdom or legitimacy of Bush’s actions. Unless you’re saying that, because Clinton abused the pardon power, that means Bush needs to abuse it as well.”
Now I call “bullshit.” Bush didn’t pardon Libby, and we don’t know if he will or won’t. My point is that the Clintons have no moral authority to call out Bush’s executive decision, any more than I have to tell people how to raise their kids.
And here’s the kicker. Via Matt Drudge, here’s what Bill Clinton, the DNC Patron Saint, wrote in a NY Times op-ed piece published in February 2001:
“The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial. The reason the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be.”
Read that last phrase again: “regardless of how unpopular a decision might be.” Yes, Slick Willie said that. Next:
“A jury determined without a reasonable doubt that Libby was purposely lying, just as you are in trying to paint this differently.”
Wrong, Paulie. The proof (that Libby was at fault) consists of an assertion by Fitzgerald in a court filing – but this is no proof at all. He relies on an internal CIA employment summary, which also has its problems –the CIA uses “covert” and “classified” interchangeably, even though only one is covered by the statute in question (the IIPA).
Plus, none of this sheds light on whether the leaker thought Plame was covert when he blabbed his mouth to half of Washington. This is a required element of a violation of said law.
Oh, and BTW, Richard Armitage was the guy who leaked Plame’s name. And Fitzgerald knew this beforehand, but still went after Libby.
“If you have a problem with the verdict (Bush has no problem with it), then please spell out exactly where the jury was wrong, and why. Also please detail why you know more about this case than the jury does.”
I don’t have a problem with the verdict, either. I have a problem with the punishment. It was handed down by a jury whose spokesperson told the press “we did this because we hate Bush.” Google it if you don’t believe me.
You may go to your room now.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 6, 2007 @ 11:20 am - July 6, 2007
I didn’t say that. I said the jury was from Saturn, sent here to enslave the human race. Erm, actually, I didn’t say either of those things, but since you can’t deal with what I’ve actually said, you’re in the embarrassing positon of having to make up arguments to refute. That must suck.
By the way, North Dallas Thirty, here’s that question that makes you wet your pants each time. I’ll keep posting it until you can bring yourself to answer it. But as you continue doing your best to ignore it, you need to know that you are giving away the precise limits of your argument by showing exactly what you have no answer for.
Here it is. Time to change the Depends:
If you have a problem with the verdict (Bush has no problem with it), then please spell out exactly where the jury was wrong, and why. Also please detail why you know more about this case than the jury does. Thanks. I look forward to your detailed reply.
Comment by Paul — July 6, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - July 6, 2007
Sorry, I’d love to reply, but somehow I’ve been banned from making any further replies of any length. So much for standing up for free speech.
Comment by Paul — July 6, 2007 @ 4:45 pm - July 6, 2007
Would you care to make a wager? I’m being perfectly serious. Say $50. This site administrator has both our email addresses, and connect us to sort this out.
You’re asking for proof that Libby will not pay the $250k. That proof will come as soon as the fine is paid, so you’d better start looking for somewhere else to hang the crux of your argument.
In the meantime, here are some places where Libby might find some cash:
Read this.
And this.
This is quite interesting too.
But I guess you believe that, rather than take the money from there, he’s going to take a hammer to his daughter’s piggy bank?
That’s because the net result is the same as if Bush had pardoned him. Also, given that Bush will pardon him before his term ends (an eventuality you’d better get used to), it’s a silly argument to nitpick the differences between a full pardon and a commutation-leading-to-pardon.
Exactly. The jury decided that Libby committed perjury and obstructed justice to protect his boss. Bush doesn’t contest that. However, in return for Libby’s lies, Bush removes any negative consequences he might have suffered. Basically, the president pardoned himself and the vice president, in a slightly roundabout way.
What bullshit! What do you think the jury decided? Who exactly was it that they found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Libby [edited for language]! Your statement above contains the most shameless set of lies on this page.
Okay. I see that I’m dealing with a compulsive liar.
Peter, I ask you (rhetorically, because liars first and foremost lack the courage to answer a question directly), what does it feel like when the only way you can defend your point of view, is to fabricate things completely? I mean, you might get away with this in a conversation, but on the internet, you just look like a fool. Expressed this way, your ideas will only attract idiots, and repel intelligent people. Personally, I think you’re performing a very useful service in showing exactly what comprises the pro-Bush mentality. But I do wonder, what does this feel like from your end? My guess would be, faintly humiliating.
Comment by Paul — July 6, 2007 @ 8:23 pm - July 6, 2007
By the way, North Dallas Thirty, here’s that question that makes you wet your pants each time. I’ll keep posting it until you can bring yourself to answer it. But as you continue doing your best to ignore it, you need to know that you are giving away the precise limits of your argument by showing exactly what you have no answer for.
Here it is. Time to change the Depends:
I am both amused and appalled by this.
Amused, because only a child would be so foolish as to get angry at such a statement, which has no apparent purpose other than to bait and insult another person into reacting out of anger.
Appalled, because only a child would use such a statement in an argument…..but this seems to be coming from someone of voting age.
Furthermore, the person using this insult is demanding facts and responses…..but clearly is incapable of telling the difference between a pardon and a commutation, or even recognizing that he has confused the two.
Next up, Libby paid. ‘Nuff said.
And finally, Paul, I shall not answer. Not because I can’t, but because doing so in response to your insults would only encourage more of them — and give credence to a person who has already demonstrably ignored facts in an attempt to make an argument.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 7, 2007 @ 6:00 pm - July 7, 2007
#138 – “Okay. I see that I’m dealing with a compulsive liar.”
You are damned lucky I don’t know who you really are, because I would sue you for libel so fast it would make your head spin.
Bruce, Dan, Joe and the rest of the bloggers here know that I am not a liar, nor a compulsive one at that. I demand both an apology and a retraction of that statement.
Furthermore, since you have pretty much destroyed your credibility by your infantile remarks, I believe you have forfeited your right to any type of answer from me, especially in light of that statement above.
You see, if I should answer your questions, you would immediately brand me a liar. So why should I even bother?
I won’t ask Bruce and/or Dan to ban you from this board, even if what you are saying is violating community standards. But you will indeed reap what you have sown.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 8, 2007 @ 3:38 pm - July 8, 2007
Alas, the site owner is defending your indefensible points in the only way available to him: by deleting my posts where I tear your points to bits. In the past 3 days, he has deleted 2 of mine. Pity, really, as they really clarified the remaining points on this page.
So guys, be sure and thank the owner of this site. He is sheltering you from a reality you would never be able to handle. And for we in the reality-based community, he also performs an important role, in demonstrating just how hollow your worldview actually is.
Comment by Pablo — July 30, 2007 @ 11:19 am - July 30, 2007