Good job Mr. President.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:09 am

KATU wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush spared former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2½-year prison term in the CIA leak case Monday, delivering a political thunderbolt in a highly charged criminal case. Bush said the sentence was just too harsh.
...

Wish I had that kind of connections. "Too harsh". Guess he's a specialist for law as well. Isn't that what judges are for ?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:20 am

ahh, the good ol' Valerie Plame kerfuffle rears its ugly head once again.

It's strange that Bush only commuted the sentence, saying it was \"too harsh\", but didn't pardon him. I read somewhere that a pardon would've shortcut the appeals process, and that it would be an all-around better outcome for \"Scooter\" and his family if the appeals process continues. Does anyone know if that's true (or even makes sense given the way our legal system works)?

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 5:06 am

Bush needs to do something about the war on internet spam. He won't have to worry about being 'too harsh' there.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:52 am

The White House is just doing some damage control. The President will eventually pardon the rest of the sentence away. The good ole boys in that house will not let one of their crew burn...they let him ride the storm so they could avoid anything but now that it's over, he's welcome back to the club.

These guys know too much...that's why Bush & Co won't sent them to the wolves. Gonzalez, Libby, Wolfowitz, he will back them all simply for the fact that they know the dirty deeds and that's enough.

Nice to see that \"ethics and values\" were brought back to the White House huh?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:19 pm

Lothar wrote:ahh, the good ol' Valerie Plame kerfuffle rears its ugly head once again.

It's strange that Bush only commuted the sentence, saying it was "too harsh", but didn't pardon him. I read somewhere that a pardon would've shortcut the appeals process, and that it would be an all-around better outcome for "Scooter" and his family if the appeals process continues. Does anyone know if that's true (or even makes sense given the way our legal system works)?

Continuing the appeal would be a better outcome for "Scooter" if he believes the appeals process will deliver a not-guilty verdict. A pardon does nothing for ones reputation.

My question, that hopefully one of our local constitutionalists can answer, (do you still troll the forums Barry?), is why we even have pardons?

My guess is it is part of the checks and balances, but it strikes me as amazing, (more so with Clintons pardons then Bush's), that you can just sign a paper and no justice will be done.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:55 pm

Pardons are supposed to allow justice to supersede the letter of the law. A person may be technically guilty but circumstances may mean that it would be more just if he/she had their record cleared of the crime. Pardons have been a part of government since the time of Kings and Serfs and have been abused by the powerful for just as long.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:34 am

Zuruck the real info being hidden is that one Richard Armitage was the real leaker and said nothing until the very end of the trial (hmmm...so why wasn't Armitage brought before the court if the focus of the special prosecutor was to find and convict the leaker of of a supposed CIA operative). The same Mr Armitage that Libby did pro bono work for when Clinton was in office.
The question here is did Libby interntionally lie or was he guilty of a faulty memory?
Juxtapose the frenzy of the left over Bush's pardon to the ho hum coverage of Clinton's pardon of real crimminals.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:28 pm

Lothar wrote:It's strange that Bush only commuted the sentence, saying it was "too harsh", but didn't pardon him.

I agree with that point. If you are going to sin, you might as well sin big. Everyone knows that, at some indeterminate point in the next 18 months, he will formally pardon Libby. Why dredge up the same issue twice? Plus, it would make more political sense to get this out of the way as far from 2008 as possible...

... not that Bush really gives a damn about the challenges his party will face after he leaves.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:10 am

Woodchip...his story changed multiple times. Not just once, but multiple times. You cannot claim a faulty memory after you were in front of a grand jury...especially doing it again and again.

Remember when Bush said anyone implicated in this leak case would be fired? Then he changed it to convicted? Remember how determined he was to find the bottom of this? He knew the whole time...HE WAS THE BOTTOM OF IT!! He stood in front of that podium the whole time and just lied his ass off. Oh well...that part is not new.

I just find it interesting that Clinton's lies in front of the grand jury about getting blowjobs are actively being compared to Libby's lies about outing a CIA agent. Covert or not...does that even matter? Not to you I bet, I'm sure the entire GOP base feels that Libby was guilty of no crime...nothing, am I right?

As for presidential pardons in general, I don't like them. What if you had some crazy prez that decided to release a bunch of serial killers for fun? Why does he get that power? Oversight, oversight, oversight, single most important word in politics. No one man should get such a power....Clinton should not have had it nor should Bush now.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:08 am

Zuruck wrote:Woodchip...his story changed multiple times. Not just once, but multiple times. You cannot claim a faulty memory after you were in front of a grand jury...especially doing it again and again.

Remember when Bush said anyone implicated in this leak case would be fired? Then he changed it to convicted? Remember how determined he was to find the bottom of this? He knew the whole time...HE WAS THE BOTTOM OF IT!! He stood in front of that podium the whole time and just lied his ass off. Oh well...that part is not new.

I just find it interesting that Clinton's lies in front of the grand jury about getting blowjobs are actively being compared to Libby's lies about outing a CIA agent. Covert or not...does that even matter? Not to you I bet, I'm sure the entire GOP base feels that Libby was guilty of no crime...nothing, am I right?

First of all regarding Clinton, there was no faulty memory involving he said/she said. In Libby's case he was trying to recall conversations he had with various partys surrounding the Plame issue. Can you say you remember a conversation you had last week, let alone 6 months to 2 years ago?
Secondly there was no crime involving the outing of Plame. Like Martha Stewart, Libby was convicted of lying. I don't know the specific comments that nailed Libby but obviously a jury found sufficient cause.
Now before we condem Libby entirely, all Bush did was remove the jail time that Libby would be doing while awaiting his appeal process. So lets let the appeal process run its course before we do a Duke LaCross number on Libby.

Zuruck wrote:As for presidential pardons in general, I don't like them. What if you had some crazy prez that decided to release a bunch of serial killers for fun?

From wikpedia:
"On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.[3] None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, though they were sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison for the conviction of conspiracy and sedition. Congress, however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for "6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials."

How does this even come close to Bush's action? Why the Bush hoopla when Clintons pardons were hardly discussed. My problem is the "Friends of Liberal Democrats" mainstream press overlooks Clinton while going all out to chastize Bush. If I saw equal coverage then I would agree with you.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:49 pm

So Woody you know for sure that none of those 16 were CIA operatives?
Besides two wrongs don't make a right and Zuruck said he didn't like Clinton's pardons either.
I didn't like Ford's pardon of that weasel Nixon. Sh*te happens. And it happens regularly in politics.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:22 am

Woodchip...obviously there is no way to convince you that Bush is bad...I get that. But you're comparing apples to oranges.

You talk of Clinton lying, which he sorta did, the whole \"is it sex, not sex\" whatever, but the difference is that he was asked questions I don't think anyone would be honest with. Make it right? Of course not...but justifying Libby's conversations about CIA agents, covert or not, with the press JUST to discredit someone who was speaking out against the war, is nowhere close to what Clinton did. Clinton lied to protect his sleazeball image...Libby and the rest of the VP's office lied to drive this country to war, resulting in a 1/3 trillion dollar war, 3600 American casualties, and grave situations for Americans throughout the world now.

Libby will not be scarred...he will get some job offered by the GOP because that faction does not believe he did anything wrong. He got a slap on the wrist by justice and a pat on the back by the White House for being the mule. And you never answered my question....is this what Bush meant by restoring honor and dignity to the White House?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:06 am

I really don't think \"Clinton did worse\" has much to do with it.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:32 pm

Zurick, just exactly what was Libby discussing? He certainly was not outing Plame because Armitage already did that. In fact most insiders already knew she worked for the CIA. So talking to the press was a non issue.
OTOH, there was evidence that Plame worked some strings at the CIA to get her husband to go to Nigeria to investigate sales of yellow cake to Iraq. Why her husband? He was certainly no expert in delving into such a investigation and some believe he was sent there specifically to discredit the Bush administration. So the question here is who is trying to manipulate whom. The libs have been bashing Bush ever since he was elected as they felt he was elected unfairly. Are you being manipulated Zuruck? How do you know the left didn't set the whole Plame fiasco up just to make Bush look bad. If so what a terrible waste of resources.
As to lies driving the call to arms, please spare me. All the info presented by Bush was also promoted by Clinton and democratic office holder. Do you believe for one minute if Clinton was in office and 9/11 happened that he too would not of attacked? And when he did and the war became protracted, how do you think the press would play it up? (Hint, read press about Bosnia war)
As to thinking I'm a Bush pet, forget it. If there was cause for impeachment it would be over the issue of boarder security. Why he is such a Mex lover is beyond me. Also I certainly do not agree with his stem cell research policy. This is a area where science should determine the validity of research and not his religious views.

Kilarin, Clinton is relevant as I am comparing how the press handled his pardons and how they are now handling Bushs. Not who issued pardons based on what.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:19 pm

Woody, do you even know who joe Wilson was? He was the ambassador to Iraq before the Gulf War started...nobody knows who actually sent him...but he came back with info that Bush & Co didn't like. He came back saying \"You know what, they're lying and they know it\"...and they pounced they only way they could. Wilson was a respected man when it came to middle eastern matters, that is why he was sent. It was not cooked up by the left because 90% of them believed the bull that Bush was sending so that they could look patriotic and not lose the \"military\" vote.

You are really stretching to say that the left boiled this one up...that's really going off the deep end.

I hate Bush because he divided and polarized a country that was united after 9/11. He took everything we have and threw it in the trash in the name of national security. I'm sickened by what they did to Jose Padilla...I'm sickened by what they have done to the environment, I'm sickened to what they have done to the debt...everything they have touched since 2000 is worse off now. Not a thing is for the better...well...unless you make over a million dollars a year I guess.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:34 pm

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:44 pm

Good read.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:48 pm

I agree. Good read.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:51 am

I agree...good read.

Woodchip...still waiting for that answer on honor and integrity...whenever you get a chance. Oh...and don't bring Clinton into that answer to justify Bush because I think the majority of this country trust Bill Clinton over Bush...and I think that's hilarious.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:40 am

\"Woody, do you even know who joe Wilson was? He was the ambassador to Iraq before the Gulf War started...nobody knows who actually sent him...but he came back with info that Bush & Co didn't like. He came back saying \"You know what, they're lying and they know it\" Zuruck

Gads, where to even start. First off:

\"For the record, here's what President Bush actually said in his SOTU: \"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.\"

\"Surely, everyone does know by now that Saddam Hussein did have a nuclear-weapons-development program. That program was set back twice: Once by Israeli bombers in 1981, and then a decade later, at the end of the Gulf War when we learned that Saddam's nuclear program was much further along than our intelligence analysts had believed.\"

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may071103.asp

So Zuruch, as much as the bloggohead websites may want you desperately to believe, Bush did not lie about the Uranium issue. He merely pointed out what the British were saying. Please direct me to the exact words Bush used to make you think he lied.

At the end Saddam may very well not have been actively pursueing nukes but unfortunately for him he gave the appearance he was. Did you at the time think he wasn't? Was anybody prior to the war actively saying Saddam was abiding by the IAEA?

Now for Wilson himself:

Snip
He was an outspoken opponent of U.S. military intervention in Iraq.

He's an \"adjunct scholar\" at the Middle East Institute — which advocates for Saudi interests. The March 1, 2002 issue of the Saudi government-weekly Ain-Al Yaqeen lists the MEI as an \"Islamic research institutes supported by the Kingdom.\"

He's a vehement opponent of the Bush administration which, he wrote in the March 3, 2003 edition of the left-wing Nation magazine, has \"imperial ambitions.\" Under President Bush, he added, the world worries that \"America has entered one of it periods of historical madness.\"

He also wrote that \"neoconservatives\" have \"a stranglehold on the foreign policy of the Republican Party.\" He said that \"the new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our world view are implanted throughout the region, a breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris in the extreme.\"

He was recently the keynote speaker for the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, a far-left group that opposed not only the U.S. military intervention in Iraq but also the sanctions — and even the no-fly zones that protected hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and Shias from being slaughtered by Saddam.

And consider this: Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Wilson did believe that Saddam had biological weapons of mass destruction. But he raised that possibility only to argue against toppling Saddam, warning ABC's Dave Marash that if American troops were sent into Iraq, Saddam might \"use a biological weapon in a battle that we might have. For example, if we're taking Baghdad or we're trying to take, in ground-to-ground, hand-to-hand combat.\" He added that Saddam also might attempt to take revenge by unleashing \"some sort of a biological assault on an American city, not unlike the anthrax, attacks that we had last year.\"

In other words, Wilson is no disinterested career diplomat — he's a pro-Saudi, leftist partisan with an ax to grind. And too many in the media are helping him and allies grind it.

— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.\"
End Snip

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may071103.asp

So Zuruck, Please 'splain it to me why we should take anything from Joe \"Blow\" Wilson as something other than horribly slanted and perverse. Please link me to something that bolsters your argument and not a compilation of your own emotional angst.

Good job Mr. President.

Good job Mr. President.

Re:

Re:

Re: