« The quiet man | Main | The Lord's Blessings »

Is Libby's Commuted Prison Sentence Enough?

While Bush hating liberals are still foaming at the mouth this morning from the news of Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's prison sentence, there are those who think the sentence commutation simply didn't go far enough. The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal editorial thinks Bush should have given Libby a full pardon:

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.

In no small part because of these profiles in non-courage, it was Mr. Libby who found himself caught up in prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's hunt for the Plame leaker, which he and his masters at Justice knew from Day One to be State Department official Richard Armitage. As Mr. Fitzgerald's obsessive exercise ground forward, Mr. Libby got caught in a perjury net that we continue to believe trapped an innocent man who lost track of what he said, when he said it, and to whom.

The Opinion Journal makes an impassioned argument that Bush should have wiped out Libby's entire conviction, not just his prison sentence, but I have a feeling a pardon will be coming at a later date. I won't be surprised if Bush pardons Libby as he leaves office in 2009.

The leftists' howls of protests are quite the display of hypocrisy. They need to be reminded that it was they who demanded that President Clinton commute the prison terms for 16 Puerto Rican terrorists who were convicted of seditious conspiracy. Most hadn't even served half of their sentences. Of the 16, Luis Rosa got the best deal. He was sentenced to 75 years in prison, but President Clinton commuted his sentence after serving just four years.

Hillary Clinton, herself, has quite the nerve calling Bush's commuting Libby's 30 month prison sentence cronyism when her husband pardoned Marc Rich, who was convicted of tax evasion in the amount of $42 million, as well as his own brother, Roger Clinton. My what short memories these folks have.

Update: Interestingly enough, the New York Times doesn't think Libby's commutation is that big of a deal.

Update II: As I suspected, the White House will not rule out a pardon for Libby at some point in the future.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22255.

Comments (223)

I'm wondering when the inep... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

I'm wondering when the inept fool Gonzales will go after DiFi.

From your "Marc Rich" link ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

From your "Marc Rich" link (btw, linking to WorldNetDaily is shrewd, but even they cover the interesting bits at the end):

But President Clinton completely ignored standard procedures in finally pardoning Rich. His action bypassed the Justice Department and blindsided Mary Jo White, the U.S. attorney who serves in the district formerly presided over by Giuliani.

Sound familiar?

Various lawyers had tried to get White to accept a plea-bargain from Rich for years. One of these lawyers, according to the New Yorker, was Lewis Libby, now chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. (Cheney's office did not return calls on the matter.)

But when Jack Quinn, Clinton's former White House counsel, took Rich as a client, things changed. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the Anti-Defamation League and, of course, mega-fundraiser Denise Rich all submitted letters directly to Clinton, through Quinn, requesting a pardon.

Curiouser and curiouser...

Bad Night for the GOP: Lewis Libby comes to Marc Rich's defense.

Libby, who said his law firms collected as much as $2 million for representing Rich, testified he had nothing to do with the application that led to clemency for Rich. He declined to say whether he approved of the decision to pardon Rich, but he conceded that he called Rich on January 22, two days after the pardon, to "congratulate him on having reached a result that he had sought for a long time." Libby testified he made the call from his home to make clear that he was calling in a personal capacity, and not as a representative of the Bush administration.

In a particularly damaging exchange with Pennsylvania Democrat Paul Kanjorski , Libby agreed that Rich might be characterized as a traitor for fleeing the country and renouncing his American citizenship. Kanjorski asked Libby why he would call a traitor to congratulate him on his good fortune in winning a pardon. Visibly uncomfortable, Libby had no answer.

For Republicans, Libby's testimony was a sour endnote to what had been a long day of revelations that made President Clinton's decision to pardon Rich seem even more inexplicable than previously thought.

So.. mantis' big point is t... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

So.. mantis' big point is that Clinton is dirty and lawyers defend bad guys? Holy crap, I'm shocked.

The best thing Bush could have done was espoused by a morning talker today: he should have made sure Libby's sentance after commutation was EXACTLY what the plea deal for Sandy Berger spelled out. Heh.

So.. mantis' big point i... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So.. mantis' big point is that Clinton is dirty and lawyers defend bad guys?

Bigger than just Clinton, friend. Think about it. Wait, nevermind, you clearly don't do a lot of thinking, making your chosen name the height of irony.

Also from the <a href="http... (Below threshold)

Also from the NYT:

President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr. was the act of a liberated man -- a leader who knows that, with 18 months left in the Oval Office and only a dwindling band of conservatives still behind him, he might as well do what he wants.

Puhleeze.

Oh, a favorite quote:... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oh, a favorite quote:

In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...

- Source

I think Libby deserved the ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I think Libby deserved the condemnationa and drilling for his support of Marc Rich, whom he conceded can be characterized as a traitor. Yet with all the distraction, you cannot hide the fact that the Clinton administration is the height of cronyism and favoritism. From Mantis 's quotes,

But when Jack Quinn, Clinton's former White House counsel, took Rich as a client, things changed.

Quinn and Cherry Mills are deeply involved in Marc Rich 's pardon. Talking about cronyism and favoritism, Clinton is the master of it (pardon of Clinton 's brother and the involvement of Hillary 's brother in pardon for money). Why is she still the leading Dem pres candidate? I will believe the progressive left when Hillary is not their pres or vice pres candidate.

brainy,Sandy Burgl... (Below threshold)
La Mano:

brainy,

Sandy Burglar committed a CRIME. He destroyed classified documents. He should have done time.

Libby was questioned about a suspected illegal action that NEVER OCCURRED. If it was illegal, someone else, Arbitage, committed it. And, the prosecutor KNEW IT.

There are no parallels.

This gives Libby the opport... (Below threshold)
hermie:

This gives Libby the opportunity the chance to appeal his conviction, and thus place Fitzgerald's entire 'investigation' and the way the trial was conducted under more scrutiny.

A pardon would have kept the myth that he was the 'leaker' alive, with no chance to clear his name of the 'perjury' charge.

Libby still has legal bills, still has to pay the fine, and he can't practice law, so he is financially ruined and he can no longer practice his profession.

While Armitage gets nothing for his crime.


The question is if the pros... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The question is if the prosecutor already knew the identity of the leaker (Armitage), then why he still proceeded with the trial?

I would just like to see th... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

I would just like to see the same scrutiny from the MSM to these powers applied to Hillary as she runs again for the Whitehouse. She and Bill made no bones about the fact they ruled as a team. The term "Billary" came into existence for a reason.

But I'll hold my breath.

errr... won't hold my breat... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

errr... won't hold my breath.

Yet with all the distrac... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Yet with all the distraction, you cannot hide the fact that the Clinton administration is the height of cronyism and favoritism.

Who's trying to hide it? That's part of my point.

Thinking is fun; try it sometime.

Bush's strategy is obvious ... (Below threshold)
kbiel:

Bush's strategy is obvious and I can't believe that the WSJ and others do not understand why Libby must continue with his appeal. If we are to establish precedent that keeps prosecutors from going on years long fishing expeditions like Fitzpatrick did, then Libby must continue with his appeal. A pardon would leave this unresolved until someone else was prosecuted in the same manner as Libby. The only reason for the commutation was to allow Libby to remain free during the appeals process since the judge was being unreasonable. (And yes, denying bail during an appeal for someone who was convicted of perjury, and especially of someone who is well known and not a flight risk is unreasonable.)

To accurately predict any B... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

To accurately predict any Bush Administration action all you have to do is ask yourself "what would the mafia do in this situation?"

La Mano, you're right, ther... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

La Mano, you're right, there is no parallel between the CRIMES, nor did I imply one. Instead, knowing that Berger will unfortunatley be accountable for his and Clintons transgression I like the idea of making the SENTANCES the same and throwing Berger right in the face of the hypocritical Dems who get on their high horse about Libby.

Yet with all the distractio... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Yet with all the distraction, you cannot hide the fact that the Clinton administration is the height of cronyism and favoritism.

Who's trying to hide it? That's part of my point.
-------------------------------------------------
Who is trying to distract from Hillary 's hypocrisy of condemning Bush for cronyism? That 's my main point.

libby needs to be hung! he'... (Below threshold)

libby needs to be hung! he's the simbol of everting rong with chimpy and cheeney! we need to kill them all!

The left 's hypocrisy is ob... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The left 's hypocrisy is obvious. They don't care about the "outing" of Plame. IF the prosecutor already knew, then there is no point in wasting the money to proceed with the trial. They had the leaker.

President Bush made the rig... (Below threshold)

President Bush made the right call. It will be interesting to see who is willing to give him credit for that.

DJ, NR gives Bush t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

DJ,
NR gives Bush the credit.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzQ4ZDQwYzA2Yjk5YmEwZGVhMzVhZGYxMDQ1MWU5MjI=
Appropriate Presidential Mercy

I'm wrong again and surpris... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

I'm wrong again and surprised. I thought Liberals would be gloating over this topic and that Republicans would be totally embarrassed by Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence.

DJ,The people who ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

DJ,

The people who are giving him credit are the very same who chastized him for his ridiculous approval of the failed illegal immigration reform bill, myself included. Sorry if you weren't heading in this direction with your comment, but knowing your prior insinuations about that topic, I sort of figured that's where you were going.

Lying under oath is a crime... (Below threshold)
jim:

Lying under oath is a crime. If it's lying to a question that is ruled as relevant, it's perjury. Libby did this 3 times.

Obstruction of justice is a crime. Libby did this too.

Consider me an old-school law-and-order conservative, but Libby is either guilty or innocent. If he's innocent, Bush should have pardoned him. If he's guilty, he should serve his time.

Oh, and by the way - the "C... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh, and by the way - the "Clinton did it too" defense doesn't work.

Because someone else did something bad, has no relevance at all on whether I did something bad.

That would be like saying, "OJ Simpson didn't go to jail for killing his wife. Therefore I shouldn't serve a day in jail for chopping up a schoolteacher."

I hope for we're all able t... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

I hope for we're all able to give President Bush the proper credit he has earned. He is a remarkably intelligent and courageous president and will be known as such in due time. I am sure I am one of the few that wishes he could have a third term, but I believe that I was in the minority as well when I wished that Reagan could have her turn.

Lying under oath is a crime... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lying under oath is a crime.
--------------------------------
So Clinton did commit the crime. Why did the liberals support him during the impeachment trial? So Clinton should have served prison time as well?

BTW, you support prosecutors using the law on fishing expedition? Fitzgerald knew the identity of the leaker already, why did he continue with the trial/investigation? You supported using tax payer money on that kind of investigation?

could have had a third term... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

could have had a third term (is what I meant).

Really, J.R.? What did Pol... (Below threshold)

Really, J.R.? What did Polipundit say about this, or Tom Tancredo? I listened to Bill Bennett this morning, and he blamed Bush for Libby having any problems in the first place. Malkin observes the commutation without a word of opinion. Dennis Prager? Nothing. Same for High Hewitt, Peggy Noonan, and all the rest of the big names. If they can't whack Dubya, they got nothin' to say.

The people on the Right who hate Bush, for the most part won't say a word when he gets a call right. The hypocrisy is obvious and sickening.

Good point, Adrian.<p... (Below threshold)
jim:

Good point, Adrian.

It does prove the utter lawlessness and contempt this administration shows, for the very concept of justice. Bush getting Libby out of jail, after Libby was jailed for obstructing an investigation into the White House, shows pretty clearly that the White House is covering up deeply.

And it also shows favoritism and elitism. By itself it's a pretty clear indictment of the Bush administration.

It's just so sad to me to see what a literal criminal gang is running this country.

And it's really sad to see people defend this criminal gang, by saying stuff like "Clinton was a criminal too! So bad is really good!"

Oh my God, LAI. You are so ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh my God, LAI. You are so addicted to the "Clinton did it too" non-defense. Go read my comment at 1:27 .

Because someone else did so... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Because someone else did something bad, has no relevance at all on whether I did something bad.
-------------------------------------------------
In the same vein, we can agree that no matter what Libby did, the progessive left is despicable for protecting Clinton during the impeachment trial, supporting his partner in corruption Hillary, and the liars Wilson/Plame?

It is no excuse for liberals to do these bad things?

And it also shows favoritis... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And it also shows favoritism and elitism
-----------------------------------------
Why are you still supporting Hillary, Reid, and Pelosi? Is this hypocritical?

Huh? What?LAI, you... (Below threshold)
jim:

Huh? What?

LAI, you're returning to the "Clinton did it too" defense ***again***.

LAI, re: Reid, Hillary, Pel... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, re: Reid, Hillary, Pelosi - 1:27.

Jim, Just pointed o... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
Just pointed out your hypocrisy again. If you care about the rule of law and ethics, no way you can support the Dem party. Since you are spinning for them, I need to point out your pretense. That 's all.
You are supporting the criminal Clinton gang and the liberal sew*ge when it comes to the law and ethics. If you agree that the liberal dems are in the sewage wrt law and ethics, and no decent American should support them, then I can see your arg. I don't ask you to support the Reps. But if you are honest, you should run away from the liberal left and the Dem party. Support your third party candidate. Otherwise, your hypocrisy is boring.

To accurately predict an... (Below threshold)
jim:

To accurately predict any Bush Administration action all you have to do is ask yourself "what would the mafia do in this situation?"

Adrian, you are absolutely right. This commutation proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Adrian, you are absolutely ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Adrian, you are absolutely right. This commutation proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
------------------------------------------------
It proves beyond the shadow of the doubt the hypocritical dishonesty of the progressive left.


"If he's innocent, Bush ... (Below threshold)

"If he's innocent, Bush should have pardoned him. If he's guilty, he should serve his time."

So let me get this straight, jim. Although you are a "law and order conservative type guy", you think Bush should act as judge and jury and not let the legal system run its course? I ask because you say if he's "not guilty" Bush should pardon him without regard to the fact that a pardon has nothing to do with innocense and everything to do with guilt.

This was the right thing to do. The sentence was unduly harsh and the refusal to allow him out on bail pending an appeal was unduly harsh.

LAI:a) 1:27 .... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI:

a) 1:27 .

b) So I'm a hypocrite because I think Libby should receive the sentence he was charged with?

But you're **not** a hypocrite, because you think Clinton was **bad** for getting away with things, therefore the Bush administration is **good** for getting away with things?

That makes sense to you?

The people on the Right ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

The people on the Right who hate Bush, for the most part won't say a word when he gets a call right. The hypocrisy is obvious and sickening.

DJ, I think you're wrong about that. The people on the right refer to a helluva lot more people than the select few high profile ones you mention. I was more refering to some of the commenters here at Wizbang and commenters at other sites I visit that were rightfully critical of the President's illegal immigration policy and support this move.

How this is hypocritical and sickening is beyond me.

Jim, You are a hypo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
You are a hypocrite because you defended Clinton/Reid/Pelosi and you continue to support the Dem party who is deep in the sewage of cronyism and favoritism as have been shown to you.

If you are not a hypocrite, then do you agree that the Dem party and the liberal left is not worth the support of Americans who condemned cronyism and favoritism as strongly as you do?

I don't ask you to support the Rep. I only ask you to drop the support for the Dem party using your OWN standard.

Because someone else did... (Below threshold)
Dirk:

Because someone else did something bad, has no relevance at all on whether I did something bad.

I must have missed you and your ilk saying this during every single posting of that 20 year old picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. As I remember it, lefties said that picture was PROOF that Bush was a hypocrite for toppling Saddam.

Jim, can I please hook you ... (Below threshold)

Jim, can I please hook you up to a generator? Your spinning would power the entire eastern seaboard.

Pay attention to what I sai... (Below threshold)

Pay attention to what I said, J.R. You noted "most of the Right", I noted "most of the Right who hate Bush".

Most of the Right never hated Bush. The Bush-haters have tried to pretend they held the majority, but that was just another lie.

So my point still stands; the people who went after Bush when they disagreed, calling him every nasty name they could think of, for the most part are silent when they cannot attack him.

Must suck for you, when your hypocrisy is so obvious.

LoveAmerica,You ar... (Below threshold)
mixti:

LoveAmerica,

You are a hypocrite because you contine to support the crime and corruption of the Bush Dynasty after it has been repetedly shown to you.

If the libtards so revere t... (Below threshold)
Dirk:

If the libtards so revere the rule of law, why are they still calling Delay a felon? All his charges were dismissed numbnuts! There was only one pitiful diary on Kos about it, whining about how unfair it was. So much for the reality based community.

This whole Special Prosecut... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

This whole Special Prosecutor thing has just got to go and we need some independent group or something.

I can't remember a time when one of these prosecutors has not believed he is truly "special" and has taken things to the brink of forever and beyond all sense of sanity and proportion.

Both parties. same same.

Okay, we have completed another 50 million dollar fiasco, when will we learn?

I think we need an independent board in Justice to handle these inquiries: half Republican, half Democrat. These individuals might be distinguished jurists who are retired and not running for anything. Retired Supremes and State Supremes would be ideal. Give them a budget for all investigations for the whole year so they have more incentive, other than workload, not to take things to ridiculous lengths.

This type of person is used to sorting out important issues from dipshit stuff, and is not going to try for a statue as the most pure and relentless prosecutor ever - their reputations have already been made.

How ironic it is that in Washington DC, home of the favor, center for pork, creators of the tax bill shakedown - a place where billions are just simply lost - that we regularly indulge in this silly stuff. (Libs spare me your crap. This Libby deal was dipshit and so was Monica).

Stop. Just stop.

Mixti, YOu are a pr... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mixti,
YOu are a prime hypocrite on this site because you continue to support the criminal Clinton gang (using Jim 's terminology) running Hillary campaign even after the facts have been repeatedly shown to you. Hillary also did the unamerican thing of disregarding free speech by trying to shut down talk radio (using your own standard now).
BTW, we have shown you how honest liberals like Cohen, Hitchen think about Libby sentence. Only radical partisan progressive like you don't seem to know any better and simply spout the cheap liberal talking points.

They need to be reminded... (Below threshold)
Brian:

They need to be reminded that it was they who demanded that President Clinton commute the ...

...
Hillary Clinton, herself, has quite the nerve calling Bush's commuting Libby's 30 month prison sentence cronyism when her husband pardoned...

Name all of the presidents in the last 50 years who pardoned/commuted high-ranking members of their own administration or those of party-mates accused of felonies. What do they all have in common?

LoveAmerica,You ar... (Below threshold)
mixti:

LoveAmerica,

You are actually the hypocrite as you continue to support the Bush crime family in all their illegal and dangerous for democracy activites. You are unamerican and hate everything America stands for. The polls clearly show that most of america is against the commuting of Libby's sentence so it is you my friend who are in the fringe minority.

Jim is under the illusion t... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jim is under the illusion that GW did something against the law. According to my research, the constitution gives him the complete power to do this. The Board of Pardons and Paroles recommended probation and fine. Anything more would be excessive. GW agreed with this. So, the whole rule of law is collapsing even though all laws were obeyed. Only in the lefty world. ww

Mixti, YOu don't se... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mixti,
YOu don't seem to know any better since you simply spout your cheap contentless liberal taling points. The polls clearly shows that the Dem congress is even lower than Bush. Why do you still support such a sewage of criminal gangs, cronyism, and favoritism? Why do you still suppot the Dem party who does the unamerican thing of suppressing free speech? Or are you just another hypocrite like Jim who says one thing and does another.

Love America,<... (Below threshold)
mixti:


Love America,

Clearly i know more than you as the polls show the 60% of Americans think Libby should do his time and only 21% think he should go free. Congress has nothing to do with Libby. So stop spouting Republican Talking points nad hating America. if you hate it leave.

Why do you support the republicn party who suport spying without warrents freeing, convicted Felons, stopping free speech, (bong hits for Jesus) and inprisoning people without trial. You are unamerican.


The Board of Pardons and... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The Board of Pardons and Paroles recommended probation and fine.

There is no federal Board of Pardons and Paroles. What are you referring to?

Mixti, Why do you s... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mixti,
Why do you support the republicn party
--------------------------------------------
Because the Rep party can at least attain the minimum standard of decency (no kudos to them). The Dem party is in the sewage of criminal gangs, cronyism, favoritism, and squashing of free speech? Why are you still supporting them?

Why do you support the repu... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Why do you support the republicn party who suport spying without warrents freeing, convicted Felons, stopping free speech, (bong hits for Jesus) and inprisoning people without trial. You are unamerican.
-------------------------------------------------
Why are you supporting rights for terrorists, stopping free speech, and undermining national security on behalf of the terrorists?

I must have missed you a... (Below threshold)
jim:

I must have missed you and your ilk saying this during every single posting of that 20 year old picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. As I remember it, lefties said that picture was PROOF that Bush was a hypocrite for toppling Saddam.

Then you're remembering it wrong.

a) Clinton is not Bush, and none of Clinton's staff are currently in the Bush WHite House. Right?

Therefore Clinton's actions are not related to Bush's actions.

b) Donald Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and others were in the Reagan administration. They then became part of the 1st Bush and 2nd Bush administrations.

Therefore it's the same team in place.

c) I never said Bush was a hypocrite for invading Iraq. I said he was a hypocrite for pretending to care about the Iraqi people.

You know, the "facts" thing.

d) most importantly - wha?

Is it at all possible to discuss Bush without running to "blame Clinton"? Apparently not...which at least shows on some level you're aware of how indefensible Bush's actions are, on their own. A silver lining...

Jim, can I please hook y... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, can I please hook you up to a generator? Your spinning would power the entire eastern seaboard.

Try hooking up the founding fathers. This homegrown King George has them spinning in their graves like underground dynamoes right now.

JIm, Using your own... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

JIm,
Using your own standard now. No matter what Libby or Bush does, you have done a bad thing. You continue to make excuse in defense of Clinton and the criminal gang on Hillary 's staff now. The honest for you to say is simply that you cannot support the Dem sewage of cronyism and favoritism. Can we agree on that? If you can, then we can take your arg more seriously.

This homegrown King George ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

This homegrown King George has them spinning in their graves like underground dynamoes right now.
-------------------------------------------------
Did Bush violate the constitution in any way? Or are you just spinning again?

Jim is under the illusio... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim is under the illusion that GW did something against the law.

ww, please note ****anywhere**** I have said that the Bush admin acted against the law in commuting this sentence.

It shows total contempt for the law, and it has the Bush Administration once again actings as if they're above the law - but it's not against the law.

It's just saying that if someone gets sentenced to jail for covering up for the Bush administration, they won't serve a day in jail.

You know, it's unethical and immoral and blatant favoritism like one would see if the Sopranos were in office, but it's not illegal. I guess that's some relief.

Is it at all possi... (Below threshold)
Is it at all possible to discuss Bush without running to "blame Clinton"? Apparently not...which at least shows on some level you're aware of how indefensible Bush's actions are, on their own. A silver lining...

Better go run over to Slate, Jim... they just did the same thing. Oh, and horror of horrors, they said that Bush was correct to commute Libby's sentence.

Slate... hmmm... they're owned by MSN, aren't they? The online half of MSNBC? Hmmm... not really common supporters of the Bush Adminstration, are they?

You know, it's unethical an... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

You know, it's unethical and immoral and blatant favoritism like one would see if the Sopranos were in office, but it's not illegal. I guess that's some relief.
-------------------------------------------------
So can we agree that liberals like you will not support the democratic sewage of blatant cronyism and favoritism?

No, LAI - no matter what, *... (Below threshold)
jim:

No, LAI - no matter what, ***you*** have done a bad thing.

You keep trying to equate Bush's actions to your version of Clinton's.

I have repeatedly and clearly pointed out to you how other people's actions have no relevance to Bush's actions.

a) 1:27

b) I'll say it again: just because OJ Simpson didn't serve a day in jail for killing his wife, does that have any relevance as to whether ***I*** should serve the time in jail that I was ***sentenced**** for?

C-C-G, are you saying that ... (Below threshold)
jim:

C-C-G, are you saying that because MSNBC said something, it must be true?

I said what I said, Jim. Re... (Below threshold)

I said what I said, Jim. Read more into it at your own peril.

No, LAI - no matter what<br... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

No, LAI - no matter what
--------------------------
Then you are a hypocrite. We have shown you the evidence of CLinton's examples of blatant cronyism and favoritism. Clinton commited a crime (according to your definition) and the whole liberal left and dem party defended and enabled him to get away with his crime. His partner in corruption Hillary with his old criminal gang continues to be the leading pres candidate for the dem party.

So you are willing to support a party of blatant cronyism and favoritism. You say one thing and do another. That 's why you are a hypocrite. You cannot adhere to your own standard.

"Is it at all possible t... (Below threshold)

"Is it at all possible to discuss Bush without running to "blame Clinton"?"

jim, please point to me where anyone, anyone at all, blamed Clinton for Bush's actions. That seems to be your contention here as you've said it over and over; that Clinton is being blamed for Bush's actions.

However, I would like to know why you keep dodging the fact that there seems to be a double standard when two presidents of different parties exercize their constitutional powers within the law and they are judged differently for their actions by commenters such as mixti and Adrian with nothing more substantial than "They're criminals!".

In response to the question... (Below threshold)
Rance:

In response to the question "Is Libby's Commuted Prison Sentence Enough?", the answer is for now, yes.

1) It keep Scooter out of jail.
2) It allows the White House to say "See, he is being punished, Ron Reagan's 'Sentence'm-to-the-Max' judge, just went too far."
3) It allows for the chance that the case will be overturned, which is a win-win since GWB would duck any further fall-out.
4) That leaves Scooter with two years of probation. The fine will be paid out of the funds that the Fred Thompson, et al have raised While the felony conviction would keep Libby from holding any corporate board positions (at least for publicly traded companies), there will be plenty of other people who will be willing to put him on the payroll -- think Halliburton.
5) It's a holiday week and nobody is paying attention anyhow.

Did Bush violate the con... (Below threshold)
jim:

Did Bush violate the constitution in any way? Or are you just spinning again?

No, Bush didn't violate the Constitution. He ignored his own guidelines even as he made this very commutation; and finished a cover-up of his own White House. But no, no direct violation. Only a secondary raping of the spirit of justice.

C-C-G, are you saying that ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

C-C-G, are you saying that because MSNBC said something, it must be true?
----------------------------------------------
Why did the Fitzgerald continue with the trial when he knew the identity of the leaker already? Why did the progressive left continue to support such a trial?

You can discount MSNBC as much as you want. It is simply another one in your own left-wing sources. These liberals know better than the cheap liberal talking points you are spouting.


Did Bush violate the consti... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Did Bush violate the constitution in any way? Or are you just spinning again?

No, Bush didn't violate the Constitution. He ignored his own guidelines even as he made this very commutation; and finished a cover-up of his own White House. But no, no direct violation. Only a secondary raping of the spirit of justice.
-------------------------------------------------
Then why do you continue to support the dem sewage that openly disregarding the constitution and violating the spirit of the law?

No matter what Bush does, why do you continue to support such a dem party?

Osyter, are you serious?</p... (Below threshold)
jim:

Osyter, are you serious?

Have you even been reading this thread?

I point you to every single comment LAI made before 2:35 . They are all saying in essence:

"Clinton did this too! So you are wrong to criticize Bush!"

If it was at all possible to blame Bush's actions directly on Clinton, I'm sure that would be done. Instead we have the "false equivalence" argument in full effect.

And it jsut doesn't work. Sorry. Bush is responsible for Bush's actions. Bush is making sure a man who obstructed justice and perjured himself in an investigation into Bush's ***own administration****, will never serve one day in jail.

Guess what? That's a cover-up. Period.

LAI, 1:27 .... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, 1:27 .

Name all of the pr... (Below threshold)
Name all of the presidents in the last 50 years who pardoned/commuted high-ranking members of their own administration or those of party-mates accused of felonies. What do they all have in common?

Posted by: Brian at July 3, 2007 02:14 PM

Well, let's see... there's Bill Clinton... pardoned Henry Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development... Melvin J. Reynolds, Democratic congressman from Illinois... and John Deutch, former head of the CIA.

I think that spoils your attempted comparison, Brian. Sorry about that.

"Clinton did this too! So y... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

"Clinton did this too! So you are wrong to criticize Bush!"
--------------------------------------------
Jim,
YOu are either slow to understand the arg or trying to be dense again.

Here is the arg for you again. Clinton did far worse compared to Bush. Clinton committed the crime himself (according to you). You can criticize Bush as much as you want. The question for you why you can support a far worse example of blatant cronyism and favoritism in the Dem party right now while you loudly condemn Bush.

That 's your hypocrisy. You said one thing and did another. Now you understand the arg? The question why can you support the Dem party of blatant cronyism and favoritism while you are condemining those things?

LAI, were you even reading ... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, were you even reading yesterday's thread?

Here's the deal re: Armitage:

Even if someone confesses to something, there still has to be an investigation. Why is this? Because, guess what? Sometimes people say things that aren't true!

No, really! Sometimes people who are ***Republicans*** don't tell the truth! I know it's hard for you to believe. But it's true.

That's why there has to be this thing called an investigation, you see. To see if people are telling the truth. And the good thing is, people with good legal representation who are innocent and tell the truth, have nothing to fear from an investigation.

Libby, on the other hand, perjured himself 3 times and obstructed justice.

And Bush just got him out of jail free. Not one day.

Clinton did far worse co... (Below threshold)
jim:

Clinton did far worse compared to Bush. Clinton committed the crime himself (according to you). You can criticize Bush as much as you want.

Awesome. Then we have nothing to argue about then, right? I am right for criticizing Bush. Thank you.

The question for you why you can support a far worse example of blatant cronyism and favoritism in the Dem party right now while you loudly condemn Bush.

Sorry, LAI - who's in office right now?

What's his name again? Bush or Clinton?

Now, please explain to me what Clinton's actions have to do with excusing Bush's actions.

They are as irrelevant to Bush's actions as Paris Hilton's.

Most of the Right ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:
Most of the Right never hated Bush. The Bush-haters have tried to pretend they held the majority, but that was just another lie.

Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Peggy Noonan, and Dennis Prager hate GWB? Are you serious. Come down from you morally superior perch, the thin air is affecting your brain. Just because they disagreed with him about illegal immigration reform and were steadfast in their opinions does not mean they hate the man. Sheesh!

So my point still stands; the people who went after Bush when they disagreed, calling him every nasty name they could think of, for the most part are silent when they cannot attack him. Must suck for you, when your hypocrisy is so obvious.

Again I think you are clearly wrong about this and there is nothing hypocritical about what I am saying (you may need to review the definition in the dictionary). Unless you can point me to some oconsistent posts/articles/audio clips that continually show how the above hate GWB (and don't relate to immigration), you are once again just being obtuse about your point.

Jim seems more distracted t... (Below threshold)

Jim seems more distracted than usual. Less balanced, even fact-starved.

Or is that normal for Jim?

Jim, You are trying... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
You are trying to be dense. My question to you again: why do you continue supporting the dem party of blatant cronyism and favoritism.
YOur answer is so dishonest beyond parody. If Armitage confessed, then why not put him under oath and investigate his claim?
This is an example of your hypocrisy. No matter what Libby did, you DO a bad thing by defending the indefensible.

Your hypocrisy has been exposed and that 's why you haven't answered by question in bold above.


Sorry, LAI - who's in offic... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Sorry, LAI - who's in office right now?
------------------------------------------
Again you cannot be honest, can you? Hillary is running for the presidency. What is so hard for you to claim that you would not support her and the criminal gang that was deep in cronyism and favoritism?

Also the Dems are running C... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Also the Dems are running Congress now. Pelosi and Reid are also deep in cronyism, favoritism, and elitism. What 's so hard for you to claim that you would not support such a party given your own rhetoric?

DJ, this is a discussion in... (Below threshold)
jim:

DJ, this is a discussion in an ethical area. So beyond the clear facts:

a) Plame was a CIA agent
b) Plame had covert status when her cover was blown
c) Plame's cover was blown by someone in the White House, in response to Wilson's Times editorial, which the White House couldn't answer on it's merits
d) Libby perjured himself 3 times and obstructed justice, in an investigation into National Security

there really isn't much in the matter of facts to talk about. It's much more of an argument of ethics.

And I think it's ethical that people who do the crime should do the time. Even if they're Republican. What do you think?

LAI, why's it so hard for y... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, why's it so hard for you to just realize that your arguments about people other than Bush are completely irrelevant?

I mean, it's actually getting funny now.

You might as well be arguing about the Transformers. Do you support the Decepticons?? Yes or no!! Answer me!!!

there really isn't much in ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

there really isn't much in the matter of facts to talk about. It's much more of an argument of ethics.
-------------------------------------------------
When it comes to ethics, then the Dem party is truly in a sewage. Why do you continue to support such a party?

Jim, if Libby obstructed ju... (Below threshold)

Jim, if Libby obstructed justice, he did the worst job of it in history. Armitage was known to be the leaker before Libby was ever interviewed.

I mean, it's actually getti... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I mean, it's actually getting funny now
-----------------------------------------
Yes it really is. You are loudly condemning cronyism, favoritism, elitism, unethical/immoral conduct. Yet at same time continue to support the dem sewage that is immersed in the things you claim to hate. Why?

a/b) No, Plame was a CIA <b... (Below threshold)

a/b) No, Plame was a CIA employee at the time the events happened, a desk jockey in fact.

c) Plame was "blown", if by anyone, by Richard Armitage. This fact was known to Fitzgerald months before he went after Libby.

d) There is only the word of Libby against the word of MSM cronies. After RaTHergate and every other proof of media bias and lying, it's a real stretch to pretend you have any proof Libby ever lied. And since there was no covert status to be blown, the man who publicized Plame was in no way influenced by Libby, and Fitzgerald knew all this before he went after Libby, the only thing we know is 'proven', is that you - like FitzNifong - are willing to lie and distort anything if it can be used to attack a Republican.

Yes or no!! Answer me!!!<br... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Yes or no!! Answer me!!!
-----------------------------
Compared to the Dems and the Clinton criminal gang, what Bush did was minor. The Rep is not perfect, but at least we can hold them to the minimum standard of decency. I chose the lesser of the two evils. The dems are fully in the sewage of cronyism, elitism, favoritism. Why do you support such a dem party that is deep in things you condemned?

LAI, you want to get into a... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, you want to get into an argument about which party is worse.

You seem to think that because some Democrats have been unethical and bad, that proves that some Republicans have the right to do things that are unethical and bad.

That equation you're putting out there, as I've said before, is like this:

a) Clinton did something bad
b) Bush did something bad
c) therefore Bush is good, because Clinton was bad.

This is, as I've pointed out before, as nonsensical as:

a) OJ Simpson killed his wife
b) I only punched an old lady in the face
c) therefore I am good

Or another variation:

a) OJ Simpson got away with murder
b) I stole a car, and was sentenced to jail
c) therefore I should get away with stealing a car.

Do you understand this?

Is there any part of this you disagree with? If so, let me know and we can go over that part.

Jim, You are still ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
You are still trying to be dense. We have shown you the far worse blatant cronyism and favoritism of the Clinton gang and the dems in general. Why do you still support such a party? That 's question. You are still trying to evade the question. THis shows that your hypocrisy has been exposed.

OK, DJ Drummond, there's yo... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK, DJ Drummond, there's your answer.

-> Proof that Plame ***was*** a CIA agent, and covert at the time her cover was blown:

1 - Plame's statement under oath

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/plame-covert-testimony/

A video of her statement before Congress under oath.

2 - CIA confirmation

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

"An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003."

Secondary proof:
NO member of the Bush administration has ****ever**** - not once - said Plame was not an undercover agent.

-> As per Armitage, please see my comment to LAI at 3:06 PM.

Excellent! Let me know if there's anything else I can clear up for you.

C-C-G, I refer you also to ... (Below threshold)
jim:

C-C-G, I refer you also to my comment at 3:06 PM.

We have shown you the fa... (Below threshold)
jim:

We have shown you the far worse blatant cronyism and favoritism of the Clinton gang and the dems in general.

And I ahve shown you the far worse wife-murder of the OJ Simpson administration. Why do you continue to support OJ Simpson? Do you hate women? Do you think that white women should be killed by black men? Is that it, LAI?

Ya note that Jim has his ta... (Below threshold)

Ya note that Jim has his talking points all in a row, and can point back to the last time he used them?

Shows a lack of critical thought. He doesn't really think about what we're saying, he looks for certain words and then rolls out the talking points from the lefty handbook.

Jim could be a bot, in fact.

Jim, re your "sources"... (Below threshold)

Jim, re your "sources"

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!

OK, I guess if those "count", I should be able to, what, quote Rush and Hannity?

Seriously.

Jim, if Libby obstructed... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, if Libby obstructed justice, he did the worst job of it in history. Armitage was known to be the leaker before Libby was ever interviewed.

All the more stupid for Libby to perjure himself 3 times and obstruct justice.

And there would be no reason for Libby to protect Armitage, would there? So, why would he perjure and obstruct justice to do that?

Unless Armitage actually ***wasn't*** solely responsible - which is what the jurors actually thought. See, they thought Libby was covering up for Rove and his boss Cheney.

But I guess we'll never know - ****because the investigation was obstructed.**** And because Libby ****perjured himself 3 times*****.

And I ahve shown you the fa... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And I ahve shown you the far worse wife-murder of the OJ Simpson administration. Why do you continue to support OJ Simpson? Do you hate women? Do you think that white women should be killed by black men? Is that it, LAI?
-------------------------------------------------
Jim,
This is another dishonest spin. You cannot be consistent with your own arg! Again, that 's why you are a hypocrite. I told you why I supported the Rep party for now. They are simply the lesser of the two evils at this point. Just like when I look at America alone, I see a lot of flaws and problems. However, when I look at the real alternatives in the world, America looks much better.

Now using your own standard that regardless of what other people do, you shouldn't do bad things. So we look at the Dem (regardless of what Bush does), we see a sewage of blatant cronyism, favoritism, and elitism. Using your own standard and rhetoric, why do you continue to support such a sewage? The fact that you cannot follow your own standard and arg shows that your hypocrisy is clearly exposed.

DJ - huh?Are you s... (Below threshold)
jim:

DJ - huh?

Are you suggesting the video didn't happen? That Plame didn't testify before Congress under oath?

Or are you suggesting that the CIA is lying, and the Bush administration and Libby's lawyers are afraid to tell the truth?

You don't have to use Rush and Hannity. How about the Bush administration? How about Libby's own lawyers, or Rove's, or Cheney's? Or anyone else involved with this case?

Go find ****one single quote**** from anyone in the Bush administration, saying that Plame was not a covert CIA agent at the time her cover was blown.

Go ahead. Let's see what you can find.

Even the WP acknowledge tha... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Even the WP acknowledge that Wilson and Plame are known liars. So, Jim, why do you continue to support such a party of unethical conducts?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle
Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role

Jim is still trying to wigg... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim is still trying to wiggle out of his exposed hypocrisy.

Well, LAI, tehre's your ans... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, LAI, tehre's your answer.

You support the Republican party because you think they're the lesser of two evils.

That means that if you criticize me for supporting the Democratic party, ****you're**** a hypocrite.

thanks for playing.

The only reason Libby was i... (Below threshold)

The only reason Libby was interviewed at all was because Fitzgerald wanted to get someone from the Bush White House behind bars.

And what the jury believes isn't always right, you know. You keep bringing up OJ, well, was the jury correct in that decision? Or are you willing to admit that juries can be wrong?

BTW, Do you think F... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW,
Do you think Fitzgerald should have put Wilson/Plame under oath as well in the investigation?

LAI is still trying as hard... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI is still trying as hard as he can, to say that Bush is good because Clinton/Plame/Wilson/Libruls/Democrats/Harry Reid/Jane Fonda is bad.

Oh, and he can support the Republicans because they're the lesser of two evils - but supporting Democrats for any reason is hypocrisy.

Anything else?

That means that if you crit... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

That means that if you criticize me for supporting the Democratic party, ****you're**** a hypocrite.
-------------------------------------------------
You are either trying to willfully dumb or dense. YOu condemned loudly cronyism, favoritism, elitism. And you made the statement that no matter what other people do, you cannot do bad things. That 's your own standard, right?

Then you look at the dem party, you see a sewage of cronyism, favoritism, and elitism and you still support them? Is that not hypocrisy? Remember I didn't ask you to support the Rep party. I simply asked you to use your own standard and you cannot even adhere to it. So why do you continue to support such a sewage of blatant cronyism, favoritims, and elitism? You don't care much them, right? You simply want to spout cheap liberal talking points.

jim please tell us again th... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

jim please tell us again the specific law that was broken when Armitage mentioned Plame's name to Novak? You do know the law as it is written correct? Please tell us how that law was broken.

LAI, no I don't. Huh? There... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, no I don't. Huh? There's no reason for them to testify. The case that was taken to court, was Libby lying under oath and obstructing justice, during an investigation.

So, wtf do Plame and Wilson have to do with that? Nada.

I've been surveying the mor... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

I've been surveying the more sober blogs of the Bushian variety and corporately-owned today, and while these (predictably) defend Bush's right and (even) wisdom in commuting Libby's sentence, there seems to be a cheerless undercurrent about the whole topic from these pundits.

Since the illegality of Scooter's actions stand by Bush's own statement, this developement will only make Scooter and the neocons and the war Scooter lied for, all the more pertinent to the future of the GOP establishment politicians and press. Very inconvenient during an election cycle and fertile ground for a grassroots interparty uprising of sorts. Scooter's defenders in the GOP presidential race will be wingnutted by having to specifically defend perjury instead of citing the vague "no prison" plea.

Obviously Bush was fearful of Libby writing a bestseller from prison, and this reminder of yet-unknown Banquo's ghosts which may appear yet, has dampened the party atmosphere at Neocon Central. One step forward, two steps back. Maybe three, or ten. (I'm optimistic)

LAI, no I don't. Huh? There... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

LAI, no I don't. Huh? There's no reason for them to testify. The case that was taken to court, was Libby lying under oath and obstructing justice, during an investigation.

So, wtf do Plame and Wilson have to do with that? Nada.
-------------------------------------------------
Just to point out your hypocrisy again. You don't want these liars put on oath, right. Fitzgerald already knew the leaker, so what 's the point of continuing the trial.

Just ask you a question to see whether you can be honest. Obviously you can't. You simply want liars like Wilson/Plame not face their day in court for their lies, which Libby was trying to point out.

So LAI, let me get this str... (Below threshold)
jim:

So LAI, let me get this straight:

- You are justified in supporting the Republican party, because they are the lesser of two evils.

- You are justified in condemning the Democratic party, even if they've done something similar to what republicans have done, because Democrats are the greater of two evils.

- On the other hand, criticizing something Republicans did makes me a hypocrite, because some Democrats did something bad.

Does that honestly make sense to you?

Fitzgerald already knew ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Fitzgerald already knew the leaker, so what 's the point of continuing the trial.

Already answered this. Go read my comment at 3:06.

Jim, Let 's look at... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
Let 's look at your own arg:

* Lying under oath is a crime. Clinton commit a crime. The whole liberal left and Dem party defended him during the impeachment trial. And they continue to support his partner in corruption Hillary (and his criminal gang) even today.

* No matter what the Rep does, the Dem party is a sewage of cronyism, elitism, and favoritism.

Following your own standard to the logical conclusion, you cannot support the dem party. Since you continue to support such a party, then you are a hypocrite.

That 's arg. Understand it now?

Hey, bD, ya might also wann... (Below threshold)

Hey, bD, ya might also wanna peruse Slate for their take on it.

Fitzgerald already knew the... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Fitzgerald already knew the leaker, so what 's the point of continuing the trial.

Already answered this. Go read my comment at 3:06.
-------------------------------------------------
Already pointed out that your answer is less than honest.

Bush could have commuted hi... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Bush could have commuted his sentence at any time..a week..a month. I would guess many here smiled when Paris Hilton served 23 days in jail.
So fine...if you folks feel a rich white celeberty driving intoxed under a suspended license is worth more time than the chief of staff of the Vice President of the United States
"lying and obstructing " to a Federal Grand Jury.
But can I assume the amnesty Bush gave Libby is ok ...because thank God... amnesty was not given to illegal immigrants.
from todays Press conference
"Won't this encourage other members of the Bush administration to obstruct justice?"

Tony Snow:No.

Yep...you can count on any Republican running for any office in 2008 proclaiming in a TV ad...
"Law and order is something Republicans have always stood for...and still stand for"


So fine...if you folks feel... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

So fine...if you folks feel a rich white celeberty driving intoxed under a suspended license is worth more time than the chief of staff of the Vice President of the United States
--------------------------------------------------
This silly cheap talking point should be put to rest. So Clinton as the pres of the US could lie under oath without being forced out of office (not talking even jail time). He is still making millions of dollars today as an elder Dem "statesman". Nogo doesn't seem to know any better than the already discredited cheap liberal talking point.

Ya note that Jim has his... (Below threshold)
jim:

Ya note that Jim has his talking points all in a row, and can point back to the last time he used them?

Shows a lack of critical thought.

It does.

You guys have not disproven a single one of my arguments. You just want to pretend I didn't say them. So I just refer you to them until you disprove them.

It's ironic to be called a bot, when you guys are operating like this:

function BushAdmin ();
BushAdmin == innocent;
If BushAdmin.member == guilty {
blame.someone.else == Clinton;
BushAdmin.member == innocent;
}
If BushAdmin.member == guilty {
blame.someone.else == all.Democrats
Democrats == bad :: Republicans == good;
good == innocent;
BushAdmin.member == good :: BushAdmin.member == innocent;
}
If BushAdmin.member == convicted.felon
blame.someone.else == Fitzgerald OR
blame.someone.else == Plame-Wilson OR
blame.someone.else == MichaelMoore;
function GetMemberOFF ();
end BushAdmin;

function GetMemberOFF ();
sentence.commute == awesome;
perjury == awesome;
obstruction.justice == awesome;
blame.someone.else == Clinton OR
blame.someone.else == Fitzgerald OR
blame.someone.else == patsy(Armitage);
invade.Iran;
end GetMemberOFF.

# that's an approximation. I'm sure you all can help me fine tune it. After all, you guys are runnign the program.

"Hey, bD, ya might also wan... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"Hey, bD, ya might also wanna peruse Slate for their take on it.

Posted by: C-C-G"

You illustrated my point (thanks).

The object of Bush's clemency is a "disgrace".

It says so right there. In the by-line.

(And that's from a PRO-LIBBY blogger, remember)

The olde Two-edged Sword thinge.

Already pointed out that... (Below threshold)
jim:

Already pointed out that your answer is less than honest.

What do you think is not honest about that answer? And where do you think you already pointed that out?

LAI, let's look at your arg... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, let's look at your argument, which you just used ****again****.

For the last time; seriously.

LAI, if you're going to respond, as I'm sure you will, please respond point by point.

a) how do actions of Clinton, Reid, Pelosi or anyone else in the Democratic party, have anything to do with commuting Libby's sentence?

b) how are you ***not*** a hypocrite for supporting the GOP, as the lesser of two evils - but I ***am**** a hypocrite, for supporting the Democrats, as the lesser of two evils?

This puts you in the interesting position, of being a hypocrite about hypocrisy. Fascinatingly meta.

c) how does someone else doing something bad, mean Libby did something that was ****not**** bad?

Is there anything in the above, that you disagree with?

Jim, You can try y... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
You can try your silly distraction to cover up your exposed hypocrisy. Here is the arg again. Looks like you cannot answer the arg. All your points have been answered already. I am interested in your answer to your obvious hypocrisy here

Let 's look at your own arg:

* Lying under oath is a crime. Clinton commit a crime. The whole liberal left and Dem party defended him during the impeachment trial. And they continue to support his partner in corruption Hillary (and his criminal gang) even today.

* No matter what the Rep does, the Dem party is a sewage of cronyism, elitism, and favoritism.

Following your own standard to the logical conclusion, you cannot support the dem party. Since you continue to support such a party, then you are a hypocrite.

LovesAmerica, <br ... (Below threshold)
mixti:

LovesAmerica,


I don't think molesting young pages, Hobnobing with Jack Abramoff, starting a war with a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, SPYING on U.S. citezens illegally, refusing to have any transparency in goverment is maintaining much of a standard of decency. I'm no big fan of the democrats but their record on protecting the constituion is a little better as in they are for it and not and exuctive who thinks he can do whatever he wants.


Because the Rep party can at least attain the minimum standard of decency (no kudos to them). The Dem party is in the sewage of criminal gangs, cronyism, favoritism, and squashing of free speech? Why are you still supporting them?

Ok, LAI. So let me add anot... (Below threshold)
jim:

Ok, LAI. So let me add another item to your list:

d) You are a hypocrite for not answering my questions....but I am ***not*** a hypocrite for answering your questions.

Pardon. In the twistiness o... (Below threshold)
jim:

Pardon. In the twistiness of the logic, I mistyped. Should read:

d) You are ****not**** a hypocrite for not answering my questions....but I ****am**** a hypocrite for not answering your questions.

I see you still need readin... (Below threshold)

I see you still need reading comprehension classes, bryanD[imwit].

Yes, it's disgraceful to be convicted. However, the article (which you apparently never read) said that Bush was right to commute Libby's prison sentence.

You never got past the headline, did you? I know, the article had some big words in it, I shouldn't expect you to actually read them.

"You seem to think that ... (Below threshold)

"You seem to think that because some Democrats have been unethical and bad, that proves that some Republicans have the right to do things that are unethical and bad."

jim, OMG you're dense. NO! No one said that or even implied it. This is a direct result of your own illogical inferences.

The charge being leveled against you, however, is hypocrisy. Your quick and scathing condemnation of Bush exercizing a constitutional right while explicitly avoiding condemnation of another president's exercizing of the same constitutional right implies that you are using a double standard and is seen as hypocrisy.

Your over-zealous desire to stay on topic, emphasizing that this is about Bush and only Bush, is also seen as hypocrisy because you don't seem to show the same desire to stay so focused on other threads as you have a tendency to drift into other topics only you deem relevent to the issue.

Jim, YOu are caught... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
YOu are caught in a hypocrisy. How many times I have shown you that the Dem party is far worse compared to the GOP when it comes to ethics, cronyism, favoritism. Even in this thread, you simply deny the evidence shown to you.

The fact remains that you cannot follow your own arg. Do you want me to show you again what a sewage the Dem party is compared to the Rep?

Mixti, speaking of molestin... (Below threshold)

Mixti, speaking of molesting pages, how about molesting interns in the Oval Office?

Oh, it's the old double-standard again... sex is unimportant unless you can use it to tar and feather an eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Wepubwican!!!!!

Jim, repeating yourself end... (Below threshold)
Mr. Spock:

Jim, repeating yourself endlessly is ... illogical.

LAI - jesus, man!O... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI - jesus, man!

OK, then. You know what? I'll show myself the bigger man, and answer your alleged questions again.

I hope that you'll understand me this time, and you will show yourself with enough integrity to then answer my questions a-c, that I posted here at 4:20 today.


* Lying under oath is a crime. Clinton commit a crime.

Sure, and yes. Agreed.

The whole liberal left and Dem party defended him during the impeachment trial.

Yes. Sure.

And they continue to support his partner in corruption Hillary (and his criminal gang) even today.

Hillary has been convicted of nothing, by the way. You're practicing guilt by association.

OK - here's your answer. I'll put it in caps, just so you can see it, and hopefully get my answer this time:

SO????

How does that excuse Libby? How does that excuse Bush's getting Libby out of jail?

* No matter what the Rep does, the Dem party is a sewage of cronyism, elitism, and favoritism.

And let's say for the sake of argument, that's true.

SO????

How does that excuse anything bad that the Republican party does?

Is it clear now for you? Do you understand it.

No, LAI, I don't want you t... (Below threshold)
jim:

No, LAI, I don't want you to show me that. And it's not because I think the Democrats are worse. I think it's an easy argument for me to win.

I don't want you to go into that argument because it is utterly, completely irrelevant.

Do you understand this?

I'll ask you a different way:

In what way does the Democrat party being corrupt, possibly suggest that Libby did not commit perjury or obstruct justice?

Since I answered your questions, again, for umpteenth bajillionth time, please have the respect to answer my questions at 4:20 .

Jim: Waaaah!Jim: I... (Below threshold)
Just Noticing:

Jim: Waaaah!

Jim: I said, WAAAAH!

Jim: Dammit, PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!

Spock, you are right. Peopl... (Below threshold)
jim:

Spock, you are right. People must choose to think differently. I naively think that facts and logic will convince...when people believe waht they want to believe for emotional reasons, they **know*** the facts and the logic already. They have already chosen not to orient themselves from logic.

It is something within me, that has me believe that if I can just get the logic across to people, they will understand. But while we humans all like to think of ourselves as logical people, the truth tends to rationalization as often as being rational.

ccg: That's my point again:... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

ccg: That's my point again: the establishment pro-Libby press has to support not a pardoned criminal, but an actual, effective, not-worth-pardoning criminal.

Slate is on Bush's wavelength, but being on Bush's wavelength has left them in an Uncomfortable position. Advocating for a "wrongly" convicted person, or defending the pardoning of a "wrongly"-convicted person is much simpler (for future credibility) than hailing a decision to let a criminal "disgrace" not serve his adjudicated time.

I'm talking the politics of perception, viz the Libby media and the law-and-order GOP. Because how can the law and order GOP be too enthusiastic about defending he which THEIR president has declared Guilty BUT?

Hillary has been convicted ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Hillary has been convicted of nothing, by the way. You're practicing guilt by association.
------------------------------------------------
Bush didn't violate the law or the constitution, right. Bush simply followed the letter of law in commuting Libby 's sentence. I thought you want to talk about ethics, cronyism, and favoritism. You used the word criminal gang, not I. So I simply used your terminology. Another example of hypocrisy.

How does that excuse Libby? How does that excuse Bush's getting Libby out of jail?
-----------------------------------------------
Noone excuse Libby for lying under oath. That 's why he is still fined and under conviction. Even honest liberals do not think that Libby deserve jail time for a partisan prosecutor, who may have committed misconduct here.


How does that excuse anything bad that the Republican party does?
-----------------------------------------------
No it doesn't. But when the Reps are caught in unethical conduct, they are usually voted out of office. The dems on the other hand defend and continue voting the unethical dems to office (eg. Jefferson, CLinton, Nifong etc...)

Nixon was forced to resign by the Reps, Clinton was kept in office by the dems.

Still using your own logic, you cannot support the Dem party. Since you still are, you are a hypocrite.


"People must choose to thin... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"People must choose to think differently. I naively think that facts and logic will convince...jim"

N'ah. Just have fun. Typing practice for me.

PS: The wingnuts are flapping. Enjoy!

C-C-G, comparing consensual... (Below threshold)
jim:

C-C-G, comparing consensual sex between a man and a woman, and the exploitation of underage boys is absolutely ridiculous.

Are you seriously equating the two? Really?

Right you are, BryanD.... (Below threshold)
jim:

Right you are, BryanD.

Time to get all whimsical on their Ashcrofts.

I don't want you to go into... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I don't want you to go into that argument because it is utterly, completely irrelevant.
--------------------------------------------------
In other words, it exposes your hypocrisy. You are supporting a party of blatant cronysim, favoritism, and elitism as exhibited by Wilson/Plame, Clinton, Reid, and Pelosi. These are the people waxing hypocritically about Libby 's commutation.

Hey, LAI - 4:20. And I don'... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hey, LAI - 4:20. And I don't mean go smoke something Bush enjoyed in college.

No, LAI - your avoidance of... (Below threshold)
jim:

No, LAI - your avoidance of my questions shows your hypocrisy. Nyah nyah nyah.

JIm, You are still ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

JIm,
You are still trying to spin your way out of your exposed hypocrisy. If you want to support the dem sewage of cronyism, favoritism, and elitism, then go ahead. Don't pretend to care those though.

hatesamerica,when ... (Below threshold)
mixti:

hatesamerica,

when are you going to stop defending the party of child molesters and freedom haters? When are you going to stop hating America? I have exposed your hypocrisy and yet you continue to deny it. No rebuttal at all.

Mixti, Your posts n... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mixti,
Your posts now become an example of stupid liberal rants from DU. Good luck in that sewage.

Can all you libtards shut u... (Below threshold)
Dirk:

Can all you libtards shut up with your faux psychoanalyzing? If Bush had completely pardoned Libby, you douchebags would be saying that he should have just commuted his sentence if he had to do something and that pardoning him was the wrong move. Nobody deserves 2 and a half years of jailtime for having a different recollection than Tim Russert in a case where no crime happened. I don't care if you are black or white or liberal or conservative.

BTW Tom Delay is waiting for you to apologize for unfairly pre-judging him.

No, LAI - Clinton was re-el... (Below threshold)
jim:

No, LAI - Clinton was re-elected before he got the blow job. So that doesn't count. Nice try tho.

Do we really need to go down the whole list of Republicans who got caught and continued in office?

I see your Jefferson and raise you Steve Latourette, Gary G. Miller, Jerry Lewis, and Tom Feeney; I see your Nifong and raise you John Doolittle and Rick Renzi.

Want to keep this going? I have a great hand.

Can all you libtards shu... (Below threshold)
jim:

Can all you libtards shut up with your faux psychoanalyzing?

Nah. It's too much fun showing you rightards how you're wrong.

If Bush had completely pardoned Libby, you douchebags would be saying that he should have just commuted his sentence if he had to do something and that pardoning him was the wrong move.

Just because Bush didn't have the balls to be all the way blatantly corrupt, doesn't mean he wasn't just corrupt in a ball-less way.

Nobody deserves 2 and a half years of jailtime for having a different recollection than Tim Russert in a case where no crime happened. I don't care if you are black or white or liberal or conservative.

So instead he deserves ***no*** jail time? Isn't that funny.

[cough]IOKIYAR[/cough]

BTW Tom Delay is waiting for you to apologize for unfairly pre-judging him.

And he'll have to keep waiting until he actually goes to court on the indictments still pending against him.

But I guess at this point I can call him an ***alleged*** unprincipled unethical douchebag.

Hey, LAI - I fixed your com... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hey, LAI - I fixed your comment.

You are still trying to spin your way out of your exposed hypocrisy. If you want to support the GOP sewage of cronyism, favoritism, and elitism, then go ahead. Don't pretend to care those though.

Jim, how many times have I ... (Below threshold)
Dr. McCoy:

Jim, how many times have I warned you about the effects of Rigellian cocaine?

Holy fuck, Jim. I cannot st... (Below threshold)
kevin:

Holy fuck, Jim. I cannot stand to read your garbage over and over. You keep bringing up the same arguments over and over as if they have not been repeatedly refuted throughout the last thread and this one. Once and for all:

1. The Bush/Clinton comparison: no one is arguing that Clinton's conduct justifies Bush's commutation of the Libby sentence. They are merely pointing out your faux outrage at Bush's disregard for the rule of law contrasted by your apparent non-concern for the travesty of justice known as "Pants-Gate", or the much more significant "Blow Job Followed by Perjury by a Sitting President-Gate". Don't bring this up again. You dopey motherfucker. And enough with the retarded OJ analogy. It wasn't clever the first time, its still not clever after the 20th time. Shut your pie hole.

2. The "obstruction of justice" claim: you have asserted on multiple occasions that, but for the obstruction of justice by Libby, the ultimate parties responsible for the leak would have been identified (and it would have been someone in the White House). The obstruction by Libby was inconsequential to the outcome of the investigation- it did not result in any facts ultimately remaining undiscovered. This is only further supported by the fact that the person who leaked Plame was Armitage. So stop trying to suggest that the Libby obstruction had significant consequences. It didn't. Stop it with the disingenuous arguments.

3. Armitage. You are suggesting that Armitage volunteered to be the fall guy for the administration, which is why the investigation continued after his name was learned. This is quite simply preposterous. In order for this to be true, you would need to believe that (a) Armitage had a reason to protect the Bush Administration, (2) that Novak would have a reason to protect the Bush administration (to go along with Armitage's false story that he was the leak), and (iii) that Bob Woodward would also have an interest in protecting the president. Clearly, Armitage is not taking the fall for the white house. Don't bring this contention up again.

4. Plame's identity: You are a moron if you are using Plame's testimony under oath to support your contention that she was covert. She has offered contradicting testimony which you undoubtedly are aware of. So stop already.

It doesn't foster productive debate when you keep bringing up red herring bullshit, and then use your clever "1:45" "counterpoints" which expose you as a lazy assfuck as well as a flaming slack-jawed faggot (in the locker-room pejorative sense, not the anti-homosexual sense).

Take your routine over to Wizbang Blue, they will happily welcome you and fellate you for your brilliance.

Retard.

And to the dunce who keeps citing polls to show that he/she is right (although I smell a sock puppet, Jim...). Are you a complete moron? Using an opinion poll of 1,000 (who the fuck submits to public opinion polls anyway) individuals, without seeing the manner in which the question was phrased, to support your claim? Please stop posting here. No one needs to hear from you if your opinions aren't worth shit. You are a bad american and probably also a smelly whore.

Good afternoon.

Bones, just show that green... (Below threshold)
jim:

Bones, just show that green alien babe into the room. And shut the door on your way out.

Jim, there is absolutly no ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jim, there is absolutly no logic in your reasoning. You are lamenting that you are trying to convince us the we are wrong. Pretty arrogant. Then you say WE are emotional. I suggest you take some time and read all your comments from last night through today. Go ahead. Do it now while the adults play.

Mixti, you got me laughing by actually saying the democrats believe in the rule of law more then the republicans. Wow. Now that is funny. Let's see, a Rose Garden ceremony where democratic leaders, the Vice President and cabinet on the lawn Applauding a president that was impeached and lied to a grand jury. Applauded! Yeah, you dems are the model of morality. Your organization is a pathetic attempt to look intelligient without the effort. It is telling. I see it every day. ww

Kevin:1 - Read LAI... (Below threshold)
jim:

Kevin:

1 - Read LAI's stuff at all?

And oh, sorry you don't like the OJ Simpson analogy, either. I understand; I wouldn't like it either if it totally destroyed my point...

2 - Fitzgerald, a grand jury, a Bush-appointed judge, and an appeals court ruling by 2 of 3 Republican-appointed judges disagree with you.

Oops. So much for that argument.

3 - Then the Bush administration has nothing to fear from a good investigation, does it?

Oops.

4 - Please explain why the CIA also says she was covert at the time and her cover was blown; and why no one in the Bush administration has ever said she ****wasn't**** covert.

Oops again.

Finally, Kevin, in conclusion: go get your fuckin' shine box.

ww, you're welcome to your ... (Below threshold)
jim:

ww, you're welcome to your ludicrous opinion.

Just show one argument, any one single argument I've made in this entire post, which has been disproven.

Oh, and that sock puppet yo... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh, and that sock puppet you smell, Kevin, could be the one Cheney has his hand up. That would be the sock puppet you voted for.

Jim, You cannot be ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
You cannot be honest, can you? Clinton committed a crime (using your own standard) and was impeached. The dems didn't force him to resign but kept him in office. Nixon was forced to resign. I thought you brought up Nixon but it shows how the dems will defend their corrupt leader. I didn't see Foley or Delay run for re-election and the Rep lost both of those seats. Yet Dem continued to vote for Jefferson and Nifong to office.

For all your spin, you cannot hide the dem sewage here

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MattMargolisMarkNoonan/2007/06/08/william_jefferson_scandal_taints_entire_democratic_party

With Democrats making ethics the centerpiece of their campaign, the political environment in 2006 should have made it impossible for any embattled Congressman to get reelected. However, while many tainted Republicans were defeated in November, Jefferson (and other embattled Democrats) were reelected. And to top it off, Jefferson was given a standing ovation by the House Democratic Caucus on his return to Congress in January.

With the election over, Speaker Pelosi, adding insult to injury, picked Jefferson to sit on the sensitive House Homeland Security Committee. Strangely, the appointment received unanimous approval from the House Democratic Caucus. It took pressure from House Republicans to prevent Jefferson's placement on the highly sensitive committee.

In spite of this mounting evidence against Jefferson and her promise to the American people to lead the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history Nancy Pelosi chose to protect Jefferson by effectively shutting down an ongoing ethics investigation into the scandal by refusing to appoint ten Democrats to serve on the 20-member bipartisan ethics "pool." By "coincidence", she finally made the appointments... the day after Jefferson's indictment. House Republican Leader John Boeh

Jim, Your hypocrisy... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
Your hypocrisy has been exposed. Next time don't use that silly arg again. Just a learning opportunity for you.

I would gleefully offer an ... (Below threshold)

I would gleefully offer an example of jim's spin with this comment when the topic switched to Sandy Berger. Notice how he addresses the fact that Sandy Berger broke the law, but goes into great length about how what he took from the archives were merely copies. And he chalks it up to Berger's being "lazy and arrogant" without a thought that there may have been something more malignant that that going on. He implies that the prescribed punishment was just fine; 50k and a temporary suspension for a high clearance and it seems that he based this solely on the fact that they were only copies and Berger was just lazy.

I could almost hear him yawn. But Libby - whoa nellie - he LIED! And jim is a law and order kind of guy who just wants justice served. Yet somehow it won't occur to jim that maybe, just maybe, Libby wasn't willfully lying. And never you mind the fact that he is entitled to an appeals process that just might get him exonerated. You see, Libby isn't a Democrat. He won't get the same benefit of the doubt jim applies to Berger.

*That* is hypocrisy.

Oyster, Thanks. I r... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Oyster,
Thanks. I remember that thread. Jim 's hypocrisy is exposed again. Yet he will keep doing it. Looks like his mission is to spout liberal talking points. When get caught, just move on to the next spin.

LAI, you may remember this ... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, you may remember this post, which I made a few minutes ago:

I see your Jefferson and raise you Steve Latourette, Gary G. Miller, Jerry Lewis, and Tom Feeney; I see your Nifong and raise you John Doolittle and Rick Renzi.

So, your attempt to say the Democrats are worse, BESIDES being irrelevant, is proven wrong besides.

BAM!

Oh, and you still have yet to answer my questions at 4:20.

How's that I'm-not-a-hypocrite thing working for you?

Oyster, please explain how ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oyster, please explain how saying Berger is guilty of the crimes he was convicted of, and saying that Libby should serve the time that he was convicted of, hypocrisy?

I can't wait to hear this explanation.

Your hypocrisy has been ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Your hypocrisy has been exposed. Next time don't use that silly arg again. Just a learning opportunity for you.

What, that you are too scared to answer my questions at 4:20?

A learning opportunity, indeed.

Oh, and Pelosi putting Jeff... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh, and Pelosi putting Jefferson on a committee is and will always be topped by Hastert putting Foley as head of the Comittee For Missing and Exploited Children.

Anything else? This is fun.

How's that I'm-not-a-hypocr... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

How's that I'm-not-a-hypocrite thing working for you?
------------------------------------------------
Jim,
Is that the question you are asking of yourself?
I can follow my logic and facts. You simply cannot follow your own logic. Since you seem slow to learn let me repeat here for you again. Oyster just exposed your hypocrisy again.


Let 's look at your own arg:

* Lying under oath is a crime. Clinton commit a crime. The whole liberal left and Dem party defended him during the impeachment trial. And they continue to support his partner in corruption Hillary (and his criminal gang) even today.

* No matter what the Rep does, the Dem party is a sewage of cronyism, elitism, and favoritism.

Following your own standard to the logical conclusion, you cannot support the dem party. Since you continue to support such a party, then you are a hypocrite.


Oh, and Pelosi putting Jeff... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Oh, and Pelosi putting Jefferson on a committee is and will always be topped by Hastert putting Foley as head of the Comittee For Missing and Exploited Children.
-------------------------------------------------
You cannot be honest, can you? Did Hastert put Foley on the committee after Foley has been "investigated" and did the Rep cheered him when Foley was reelected to Congress? No, it didn't happen.

Your hypocrisy has been exposed again, Jim. The honest thing to do is follow your own arg to renounce your support for the dem sewage of cronyism, favoritism, and elitism. That 's too much to ask of you though.

Dim jim. You are both a li... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Dim jim. You are both a liar and a fool. I read most of the lies you posted yesterday and was amazed at how prolifically you are able to lie, both to yourself and others. The reason I say you are a liar is that you have read the truth. Here and in other places. Dim, many of us followed this investigation closely. For you to post things that simply did not happen. It is sad to be both angry and stupid. You appear both. Go read Kevin's post. If I were you I would pay attention, lest we be forced to remember you (for a very short period) rather then read the drivel you write.

Zeldorff, if you could plea... (Below threshold)
jim:

Zeldorff, if you could please find and list one single thing I've lied about here, that would be great.

Otherwise, you really should get those itchy bowels tended to.

Jim- yeah, you sure showed ... (Below threshold)
kevin:

Jim- yeah, you sure showed me. How I could have thought I would prevail upon your intellect is beyond me. You are a stone cold retard.There is no intellect upon which to prevail.

You've refuted none of my points and yet you honestly believe that you have stricken them all down.

Please clarify your points in detail, so I can understand the error of my ways, and please don't give me the time stamps, you lazy fuck.

Love America Immigrant, please stop trying to rationalize with this dumbfuck. He's is quite simply, the most ignorant poster I have ever seen on this site or any other.

Mixti,"Your posts ... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Mixti,

"Your posts now become an example of stupid liberal rants from DU. Good luck in that sewage. "

My rants were the mirror image of yours. Same lack of evidece same lack of logic, just stupid partisan accusations. basically doing what you do.

So stop hating America.


JimYou need a break:... (Below threshold)

Jim
You need a break:

Oh, and Pelosi putting Jefferson on a committee is and will always be topped by Hastert putting Foley as head of the Comittee For Missing and Exploited Children.

Anything else? This is fun.

When was Jefferson accused?
When was Foley accused?

When were the respective appointments made?

Oh, LAI, I see.It ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh, LAI, I see.

It isn't important that Hastert ***knew***, for ***years***, from pages themselves coming to Hastert, that Foley was a creepy perv.

It's only important because the ***public*** didn't yet know that Foley was a creepy perv.

That's quite a moral stance you've got there.

Mixti, Just look at... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mixti,
Just look at my posts and your posts for a comparison. Thanks for being such a good example of the liberal sewage so that all of us can see what it is like to be in that sewage.

Jim- yeah, you sure show... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim- yeah, you sure showed me. How I could have thought I would prevail upon your intellect is beyond me. You are a stone cold retard.There is no intellect upon which to prevail.

You're a poopyhead poopypants. And a booger nose. And your mommy has cooties in her poopy-poop.

You've refuted none of my points and yet you honestly believe that you have stricken them all down.

You're half right.

Actually I've refuted all of your pionts, and so I believe that I have stricken them down.

If you disagree, please show your argument, then my counter-argument - and then explain why my counter-argument is wrong or does not apply.

See, that's how reason and debate works. Isn't that fascinating?

Love America Immigrant, please stop trying to rationalize with this dumbfuck. He's is quite simply, the most ignorant poster I have ever seen on this site or any other.

You set quite a high bar yourself, Kevin.

Hugh, my comment at 5:52 an... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hugh, my comment at 5:52 answers you as well.

And LAI - yuo're still not ... (Below threshold)
jim:

And LAI - yuo're still not answering my questions at 4:20 .

Just letting you know that I know.

Jim<a href="ht... (Below threshold)

Jim
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/01/did-hastert-know-last-year-that-foley-was-a-pervert/

AllahPundit has another explanation and relevant points. But that's just on Foley.

Answer the charge on Jefferson.

It's only important because... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

It's only important because the ***public*** didn't yet know that Foley was a creepy perv.

That's quite a moral stance you've got there.
-----------------------------------------------
The Rep deserved the spanking they got from their constituents last election. Hastert was afraid of the dem attacking him/rep for anti-gay bigotry. That 's no profile in courage. Yet this is an example of the dem sewage. The progressive left was willing to link homosexuality and pedophillia to attack the Rep. Another example of hypocrisy exposed.

At least after Foley is exposed he was forced out of Congress. That 's the minimum we expected of the Rep. The dems couldn't even attain to that minimum standard. After money was found in Jefferson 's freezer, the dems still elected him. And then the dems in Congress gave him a standing ovation. Pelosi still put him on important committees.

So can we agree that the Dems are in the sewage wrt ethics and corruption? Why is your moral standard so low that you are willing to support such a dem sewage?

Jim, another hypocrisy of yours have been exposed. The honest thing to do is to follow your own arg to renounce your support for the dem sewage of cronyism, favoritism, and elitism.

Jim, Your hypocrisy... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
Your hypocrisy has been repeatedly exposed and you are still trying to spin. I think Kevin is correct that you are simply too dense to learn.

hateAmerica,You ca... (Below threshold)
mixti:

hateAmerica,

You can rant your anti-american rhetoric all you want, we have freedom of speech here even if you hate it. You wish to be unamerican to hate the constituion as i have proven you do that is your business.

I think I will apply Kevin ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I think I will apply Kevin 's standard to our stupid troll mixti here.

what charge on Jefferson th... (Below threshold)

what charge on Jefferson that you're referring to? be specific.

Since this is all a big distraction from the Bush commutation cover-up, I shouldn't be playing; but why not.

HatesAmerica,You c... (Below threshold)
mixti:

HatesAmerica,

You can try any and all Unamerican things you would like that doesn't make your arguments any stronger. it has been proven that you are against the rule of law, The constitution and America. Spin all you want but we see you for the Stalinist you are.

Would someone help jim-ie g... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Would someone help jim-ie get that weggie out of his ass. Sheeeze. I have heard some dumbass nitwits before but he tops all. Even the Area 51 thing. (you know the one that is taking classes to learn how to melt steel.)

Libby, Sorry that t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Libby,
Sorry that the thread was too long for you to read. We are discussing about the dem sewage of unethical conduct, cronyism, favoritism, and elitism (using Jim 's terminology).

------------------------------------------------
With Democrats making ethics the centerpiece of their campaign, the political environment in 2006 should have made it impossible for any embattled Congressman to get reelected. However, while many tainted Republicans were defeated in November, Jefferson (and other embattled Democrats) were reelected. And to top it off, Jefferson was given a standing ovation by the House Democratic Caucus on his return to Congress in January.

With the election over, Speaker Pelosi, adding insult to injury, picked Jefferson to sit on the sensitive House Homeland Security Committee. Strangely, the appointment received unanimous approval from the House Democratic Caucus. It took pressure from House Republicans to prevent Jefferson's placement on the highly sensitive committee.

In spite of this mounting evidence against Jefferson and her promise to the American people to lead the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history Nancy Pelosi chose to protect Jefferson by effectively shutting down an ongoing ethics investigation into the scandal by refusing to appoint ten Democrats to serve on the 20-member bipartisan ethics "pool." By "coincidence", she finally made the appointments... the day after Jefferson's indictment. House Republican Leader John Boeh

The Rep deserved the spa... (Below threshold)
jim:

The Rep deserved the spanking they got from their constituents last election. Hastert was afraid of the dem attacking him/rep for anti-gay bigotry.

I'll stop you right there.

That's a completely irrelevant side point.

Nice try though.

Let's go through this again:

You are accusing the Democrats of being corrupt, because Pelosi knew Jefferson was indicted but still put him on a committe.

And, in response, I am pointing out to you that Hastert ****knew****, from the statements of other GOP congressmen ****and**** directly from pages, that Foley was a danger to children - and yet Hastert:

- kept Foley in contact with pages
- kept Foley as head of the Committee on Missing and Exploited Children

So, deal with ***this**** point I'm making, and not some other point you'd rather invent instead.

Oh, and by the way, Hastert... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh, and by the way, Hastert's still in Congress, despite his dereliction of duty. So much for that illusory moral high ground.

Hates America, I t... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Hates America,

I think you are just too dense to learn. It has been shown over and over that you support the party that hates America. Yet you continue to ignore all the evidence and crimes of the bushies, and continue to support them.

I have demonstrated this to you over and over and yet you refuse to learn. I have shown you their crimes and you support them You are unwavering in your hatred of america.

LAI, so it's simple enough ... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, so it's simple enough for you to understand:

- I see your Pelosi & Jefferson, and raise you Hastert & Foley

- I see your Jefferson, and raise you Steve Latourette, Gary G. Miller, Jerry Lewis, and Tom Feeney

And also, once again, you have yet to answer my questions at 4:20 . Just so you know, again.

Jim, You are dishon... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
You are dishonest and being dense again. Here is the sewage for you again.

------------------------------------------------
With Democrats making ethics the centerpiece of their campaign, the political environment in 2006 should have made it impossible for any embattled Congressman to get reelected. However, while many tainted Republicans were defeated in November, Jefferson (and other embattled Democrats) were reelected. And to top it off, Jefferson was given a standing ovation by the House Democratic Caucus on his return to Congress in January.

With the election over, Speaker Pelosi, adding insult to injury, picked Jefferson to sit on the sensitive House Homeland Security Committee. Strangely, the appointment received unanimous approval from the House Democratic Caucus. It took pressure from House Republicans to prevent Jefferson's placement on the highly sensitive committee.

In spite of this mounting evidence against Jefferson and her promise to the American people to lead the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history Nancy Pelosi chose to protect Jefferson by effectively shutting down an ongoing ethics investigation into the scandal by refusing to appoint ten Democrats to serve on the 20-member bipartisan ethics "pool." By "coincidence", she finally made the appointments... the day after Jefferson's indictment.

LAI, I think you're caught ... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, I think you're caught and scared, because you know that if you honestly deal with my questions at 4:20 , you will have to face some things about yourself.

prove me wrong, and answer my questions at 4:20 .

Jim, I will apply K... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
I will apply Kevin 's standard to you as I did to mixit since you are too dense now. Good luck to both with you the dem sewage of unethical conduct, cronyism, favoritism, and elitism.

LAI, 4:20 .... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, 4:20 .

Hey, and good luck to you L... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hey, and good luck to you LAI, with avoiding questions. Especially the ones I asked you at 4:20 .

I am absolutely loving watc... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I am absolutely loving watching the lefties explode. Jim is my favorite. Read my 4:15, read my 2:12, etc. This guy is off the rails. Don't pick on him boys and girls. Not nice to tease the "special."

Mixti, you are second runner up for the hate.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling. They tried for Rove, couldn't get him, so they settles for Libby very reluctantly and now they don't have him. You lefties lost. ww

Hey, ww. Nice to hear from ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hey, ww. Nice to hear from you!

I previously asked you to point out any argument I've made here, which has been disproven.

Any ol' time you feel like doing that?

Hugh, my comment at 5... (Below threshold)

Hugh, my comment at 5:52 answers you as well.

Uhhh, no it doesn't. Try again. And stop debating by footnote.

Hey, Hugh. Yes, my comment ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hey, Hugh. Yes, my comment at 5:52 does.

However, just so you won't complain about me "arguing by footnote", I'll expand on it a bit.

- There's no evidence anyone, including Pelosi, knew about Jefferson until the FBI raided his house.

- It is certain and proven by evidence, and denied by no one, that several members of the GOP knew about Foley and did nothing. And they say, with very credible arguments that Hastert himself knew about Foley, well before the Foley accusations became public.

As we all know, but as I guess I must repeat, this is because pages brought forth their issues with Foley to those running the page system; and those people say they brought their complaints to Hastert pretty directly.

And furthermore, there is no reason why they would ***not*** bring their complaints to Hastert directly.

Now, if you feel these points do not refure your position, show why not.

Now, if you feel thes... (Below threshold)

Now, if you feel these points do not refure your position, show why not.

OK

Pelosi had a Grand Jury indictment to consider. Right? Or maybe she heard reports of a commandeered National Guard unit that ferried the congressman to his flooded home while the congressman's neighbors were dying at the Superdome.

Hastert had reports from the director of the page program and other Representatives (?)that Foley was a pervert preying on pages.

Pelosi had a rock solid standard to dump Jefferson: a Federal INDICTMENT.

Hastert had a judgment call to make with NO law enforcement evidence to back him up.

Hastert deferred to the cautious approach (what EVIDENCE did he have other than accusations?)And, guess what, there was no subsequent indictment of Foley.

But let's make this example even more instructive for you Jim, so the irony and hypocrisy can possibly sink in.

Let's assume, for example, that the pervert Congressman is named Studds. Or let's assume that the pervert Congressman allowed a brothel to be run out of his Washington town home basement? Where were the calls for page protection then?

That's hard to square with your pious concern about Foley's "victims", which we all know you could care less about. That's hard to square with Pelosi's protection of Jefferson in the face of overwhelming evidence of criminal activity (serial marked currency found in his freezer).

Only in Washington is it OK for a Democrat perverts to sodomize pages and steal cash with impunity and for Republican pervert to be ostracized.

Jim, Jim, Jim. Chill man. Y... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jim, Jim, Jim. Chill man. Your dream of putting someone from this administration is not going to happen. You cannot always get your way. You lost this battle man. Just don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Turn your emotional meter down. It ain't worth it. Most of the electorate doesn't care. Short memories and all that. Now, put the key board down and watch a movie. You are out of control. No one has to prove or disprove your assertions. They are what you think they are and nothing will change your mind. Just repeat after me: Libby is a free man, Libby is a free man. ww

Jim- in point of fact, you ... (Below threshold)
kevin:

Jim- in point of fact, you never addressed any of my points. You actually just threw alot of vague shit on the page that sounded like a rebuttal (but wasn't actually), then gave yourself a self-congratulatory reach around for being clever.

Perhaps when you actually come up with a legitimate response to my points, you can reward yourself by having some hirsute guy slap his balls against your forehead.

BTW, you shouldn't insult someone's mother- you never know when that person has lost theirs. Based upon what is readily apparent about you, it shouldn't surprise me that you would hold other peoples' mothers in such disdain.

It seems that what you lack in intellect you also lack in common sense and tact.

Jim- in point of fact, y... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim- in point of fact, you never addressed any of my points. You actually just threw alot of vague shit on the page that sounded like a rebuttal (but wasn't actually), then gave yourself a self-congratulatory reach around for being clever.

Cool. That should make it very easy for you to rebut then.

Just kidding! You don't have to actually debate and reason. You can just sink to gradeschool insults.

Perhaps when you actually come up with a legitimate response to my points, you can reward yourself by having some hirsute guy slap his balls against your forehead.

Please don't project. I don't think you realize how unconsciously revealing it is.

BTW, you shouldn't insult someone's mother- you never know when that person has lost theirs. Based upon what is readily apparent about you, it shouldn't surprise me that you would hold other peoples' mothers in such disdain.

wtf are you talking about? Oh man, is it the cooties comment?

That was just an attempt to show how utterly childish insults are in a reasoned debate.

If you really have lost your mother any time recently, or at all, I apologize for hurting you.

It seems that what you lack in intellect you also lack in common sense and tact.

You see, insults like that.

Pelosi had a rock solid ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Pelosi had a rock solid standard to dump Jefferson: a Federal INDICTMENT.

OK, we're agreed there.

Hastert had a judgment call to make with NO law enforcement evidence to back him up.

Nope, wrong. Emails and IM's are evidence.

Furthermore, there's no reason why Hastert couldn't have just gone to Foley and removed him from access to pages. That requires no indictment.

If ***your*** child was a page and Foley had access to him, would you accept this excuse? I think not.

Try again.

Hastert deferred to the cautious approach (what EVIDENCE did he have other than accusations?)

Oh, just the emails and IM's. You know, evidence.

Why don't you get caught up, Hugh? Here's the timeline:

2001 -- A Republican staff member warns pages "to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley." A former page says that they were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff." [ABC, 10/1/06]

2003 -- Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) has sexually explicit IM exchanges with an underage boy who worked as a Congressional page. [ABC News, 9/29/06]

2003 -- Foley's former aide Kirk Fordham told The Associated Press that "when he learned about Foley's inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had 'more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene,' alluding to House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Hastert's office denied the explosive allegations." [CBS News, 10/5/06]

APRIL 2003 -- Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) interrupts a House vote on the 2003 Iraq supplemental to "engage in Internet sex with a high school student who had served as a congressional page." [ABC, 10/3/06]

SUMMER 2005 -- Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sends inappropriate emails to another former Congressional page. [CREW]

SEPTEMBER 2005 -- Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), who sponsored the page, learns "of the e-mails from a reporter." [AP, 9/29/06; CQ, 9/30/06]

FALL 2005 -- "Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the [Speaker J. Denis Hastert's] Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander's Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page...[Mike] Stokke [Deputy Chief of Staff for Speaker Hastert] called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker's Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff." [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]

LATE 2005 -- Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), Chairman of the House Page Board, "was notified by the then Clerk of the House, who manages the Page Program, that he had been told by Congressman Rodney Alexander (R-LA) about an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page." Shimkus interviewed Foley and told him "to cease all contact with this former house page." He did not inform Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), the only Democrat on the House page Board. [Roll Call, 9/29/06]

EARLY 2006 -- Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) talks Foley into running for another term. Bob Novak reported, "A member of the House leadership told me that Foley, under continuous political pressure because of his sexual orientation, was considering not seeking a seventh term this year but that Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), talked him into running." [New York Post, 10/4/06]

FEBRUARY/MARCH 2006 -- Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), whose office first received the complaint from the page, told Boehner about Foley's inappropriate e-mails, and Boehner sent him to Tom Reynolds. Alexander tells Reynolds about "the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander's." Reynolds tells Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) about the emails and his conversation with Alexander. [Reynolds Statement, 9/30/06; Roll Call, 9/30/06; Hastert Statement, 9/30/06; Chicago Tribune, 10/3/06]

SPRING 2006 -- House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) learns of "inappropriate 'contact' between Foley and a 16-year-old page" from Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA). After learning about Foley's conduct, Boehner told Speaker of the House J. Denis Hastert who assured Boehner he would "take care of it." Later, Boehner changed his story and told the Washington Post he didn't remember whether he talked to Hastert. [Washington Post, 9/30/06; New York Times, 10/1/06]

SPRING 2006 -- Reynolds says he told Hastert about the e-mails after he learned about them. "He said he alerted the Republican speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, to the issue, but Mr. Hastert said he had no recollection of the contact." [The Sun, 10/3/06]

MAY 10, 2006 -- Reynold's personal PAC, TOMPAC, donates $5,000 to Foley's campaign. [New York Daily News, 9/30/06]

JULY 21, 2006 -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington forwarded the messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on July 21 and requested an investigation. [CREW, 10/5/06]

JULY 27, 2006 -- Foley writes a $100,000 check to the NRCC, chaired by Reynolds. [New York Daily News, 9/30/06]

JULY 27, 2006 -- Foley, still co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, attends a signing ceremony at the White House for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. [White House, 9/27/06; Talkingpointsmemo, 9/30/06; Washington Post, 10/1/06]

AUGUST 7, 2006 -- The NRCC accepted a $100,000 contribution from Foley's campaign committee. [FEC]

SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 -- ABC publishes emails between Foley and former page. [ABC, 9/28/06]

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 3:00 PM -- Foley resigns. [ABC, 9/29/06]

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 6:00 PM -- ABC publishes sexually explict Instant Messages between Foley and several former pages. [ABC, 9/29/06]

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 -- "Aides to the speaker [Hastert] say he was not aware until last week of inappropriate behavior by Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who resigned on Friday after portions of racy e-mail exchanges between him and current and former underage congressional pages became public." [Chicago Tribune, 9/30/06]

SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 -- Hastert admits he was told about the emails by Reynolds in the spring. [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]

Let's assume, for exampl... (Below threshold)
jim:

Let's assume, for example, that the pervert Congressman is named Studds.

He had a consensual affair with a 17-year-old. He later admitted to it of his own free will, and was censured by the House for it.

Had Pelosi been there, known about the affair and done nothing about it, you might have a point. But, in this reality, Studds' actions do not compare to Foley's, in being creep putting unwanted pressure on any pages around him, multiple times, so much so that the pages repeatedly complained about him - and Hastert then doing nothing about it.

Nice try bonehead. Make som... (Below threshold)
Kevin:

Nice try bonehead. Make some legitimate counter-arguments to my initial arguments or shut your fucking pie hole. Don't smugly strut about in your studio and think you've actually debated me. Bring it, nancy boy.

Jim, Studds' actions don't ... (Below threshold)

Jim, Studds' actions don't compare? That's ridiculous, in fact its outrageous. Studds actually had sexual relations with minors, Foley did not.

Oh, you contemptible f'n hy... (Below threshold)
donnie:

Oh, you contemptible f'n hypocrites! How dare you spend most of the nineties puking up sh++ about the "rule of law" "obstruction of justice", "perjury"....Libby shows ya what it waz... puke. Sad war-losin' sacks.

He had a consensual affa... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

He had a consensual affair with a 17-year-old.

Gee, and people had a problem with THAT? A grown man having sex with a minor.
-=Mike

Just for the hell of it, he... (Below threshold)
rrita m:

Just for the hell of it, here is the link to the blog timeline Jim posted. (I like to see sources, myself.) Think Progress? Happy 4th, and God Bless America!

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/30/foley-coverup-timeline/

Paris Hilton has done more ... (Below threshold)

Paris Hilton has done more time than the traitor Libby.

The question is if the p... (Below threshold)

The question is if the prosecutor already knew the identity of the leaker (Armitage), then why he still proceeded with the trial?

Because there was more than one leaker.


Wrong stupid , Libb... (Below threshold)
Rob LACal.:


Wrong stupid , Libby is no traitor however every Democrat has betrayed this Country with out a doubt.


A letter to Dingy Reid from LT Jason Nichols, USN
MNF-I, Baghdad



"To be brief, your words are killing us."

http://www.americans-working-together.com/id223.html

Democrats just can't help their hatred of President Bush and This Country. They wear their betrayal of this Country like a badge of honor.

Who are the traitors? Wonde... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Who are the traitors? Wonder why the progressive left is so anti-American. Using Mixti's terminology, why do the progressives hate America so much

http://www.progressive.org/media_mpzinn070106
n this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.

Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?

These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.

National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.

Libby Case Presents More Pr... (Below threshold)

Libby Case Presents More Prosecutorial Misconduct
July 4th, 2007
Both democrats and the President failed to grasp the injustice in the Scooter Libby debacle, evidencing, once again, that the issue for lawmakers is not the flaws in the criminal justice system, but who can stay in power by playing the "gotcha" game. The "gotcha" game is played at the highest levels of political office where political parties vie for criminal convictions of political operatives on either side in the hopes of proving how corrupt each party is.

A golden opportunity to reform the broken federal criminal justice system was lost when President Bush declared his support of the jury's verdict, but not the judge's sentencing of Mr. Libby. Democrats, incensed that Libby got off light, continue to reach for political gain by claiming administration corruption.

In a previous blog (May 23, 2007, entitled "What do the Duke Rape Case and the Patriot Act Have in Common?), I informed readers that the ultimate obligation of prosecutors in criminal trials is the search for the truth. The purpose of the Fitzgerald appointment was to seek out who revealed Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA covert status, and determine if this was a criminal offense. As we all know today, and as Mr. Fitzgerald knew shortly after the investigation started, Wilson was not a covert operative so there was no crime.

Dorothy Rabinowitz, of the Wall Street Journal Online (see June 22, 2007 Wall Street Journal Online, by Dorothy Rabinowitz, entitled "A Tale of Two Prosecutors") revealed that while Mr. Fitzgerald argued that the obligation to truth was of the highest importance as related to Mr. Libby, he (Fitzgerald) himself failed in his obligation to truth, by knowing who the leaker was (Richard Armitage) all along, and by instructing him not to disclose this minor detail to the grand jury.

Indeed, Rabinowitz got it right when she likened Libby prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to recently disbarred and disgraced Mike Nifong. Rabinowitz pointed out Fitzgerald's own corruption when she pointedly disclosed that he:

· Knew there was no underlying crime;
· Knew the identity of the leaker (Richard Armitage);
· Charged Libby with obstruction of justice, knowing that there was nothing to obstruct since there was no underlying crime;
· Instructed the leaker not to disclose his identity to keep the criminal process going in the hopes of catching people in lies, thereby creating other law-breakers.
· Once indicting Libby of obstruction, Fitzgerald moved to keep out evidence of Valerie Plame Wilson's status because he claimed that the case was not about leaking but about lying. (See Wall Street Journal Online, June 1, 2007, entitled "Fitzgerald Doubles Down")
· Upon convicting Libby, Fitzgerald, in an effort to seek the maximum punishment, was allowed to use evidence of Valerie Plames status even though he originally claimed that her status was irrelevant because the case was only about lying.

Neither the truth, the accused and his family, and the waste of millions of taxpayer dollars can stand in the way of political show trials designed to embarrass those in office.

Bush could have done more for the country by pardoning Libby and stating that criminal cases should not be brought against innocent individuals to justify millions of taxpayer dollars wasted through years of a fruitless investigation. Bush should have said that the Libby case justifies congressional hearings into vast prosecutorial misconduct and that more oversight of the justice department and federal prosecutors is mandated.

The voting public would be confused by this position because the democrats would continue to spin the issue to their political gain. However, in the long run, the public would be served by more prosecutorial oversight. Failure to act now may insure that more and more innocent Americans will go to jail as the other Fitzgeralds continue to prosecute for the sake of winning, promotion and accolades. This will ultimately lead to a point in time where every American will either know someone or is related to someone who went to jail because of a corrupt prosecutor. Ultimately, the guilty may go free because juries will be less inclined to convict due to a lack of confidence in the system.

Nice try bonehead... (Below threshold)
jim:

Nice try bonehead. Make some legitimate counter-arguments to my initial arguments or shut your fucking pie hole. Don't smugly strut about in your studio and think you've actually debated me. Bring it, nancy boy.

Nice debating style.

I think my points refute yours quite nicely. So, it's up to you to show how they don't. Your move unless you choose to forfeit. That's all I have to say.

Jim, Studds' actions don... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, Studds' actions don't compare? That's ridiculous, in fact its outrageous. Studds actually had sexual relations with minors, Foley did not.

And Studds confessed of his own free will. And Foley was caught, and Hastert and other GOP in congress knew Foley was a creep and potential predator, and continued to have children in jeopardy rather than take the most minimal action to prevent it.

Which is why we're not talking about Foley vs. Studds. The situations don't compare. Apples & oranges. We're talking about Pelosi & Jefferson vs. Hastert & Foley.

talking about Pelosi & Jeff... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

talking about Pelosi & Jefferson vs. Hastert & Foley.
-------------------------------------------------
Was Foley elected to Congress again and was given a welcome ovation by the Rep?

You simply cannot be honest. You are a hypocrite who has been exposed on this thread. Support the Dem sewage of cronyism, favoritims, and elitism as much as you want but don't pretend to care about ethics/morality and rule of law since you obviously don't.

And Studds confessed of his... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And Studds confessed of his own free will.
--------------------------------------------
Jim is caught in another hypocrisy of spinning. Jim cannot be honest with his rhetoric on this thread because he has chosen to support the dem sewage.

During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay."

Jim, Studds did not confess... (Below threshold)

Jim, Studds did not confess of his own free will. That's another invention on your part. He admitted the conduct long after it had become clearly established. Your attempt to distinguish between the two cases and make Studds' actions look less significant just falls apart in the light of day.

JimPelosi ha... (Below threshold)

Jim

Pelosi had a rock solid standard to dump Jefferson: a Federal INDICTMENT.

OK, we're agreed there.

That is the ultimate Emily Litella response.

jim, got an explanation for... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, got an explanation for why CREW associated homosexuality with child predation, illegitimately and cynically? Did they have a victim class that couldn't object?
======================




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy