Captain's Quarters -

Scooter libby, paris hilton, really what's the difference? One's class defines justice doesn't it?

And agents Ramos and Compean are still in prison. I guess their mistake was that they were protecting our border.

The President effectively and intelligently bought himself enough time to deal with saving a pardon until the end of his term.

Most importantly, what are the Democrats going to do about it? When the answer, "nothing", become immediately apparent, the moonbats are going to explode, looking for all the world like everything they accused the GOP of doing after Clinton's impeachment.

Bush gets the base back together, and takes Libby out of play for the 08 elections. Nobody's going to want to hear about Scooter this time next year.

Smart. Almost brilliant.

Its very simple my friends: If Bill Clinton got no time and Sandy Burglar is still walking free, how in good conscience can Pres Bush let Libby enjoy Club Fed?

I also thing that if this case wasn't tried in DC (90% Dem and don't say that doesn't play into it) commutation would not have been necessary.

I'm not sure what exactly was the best course of action to take but, this one does have it's moments. Check out DU and Kos. They're going apesh*t bonkers. Hilarious.

I prefer Ace of Spades' resolution to Bush's: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/232229.php

Suggestion: Bush should have reduced the fine to a more reasonable $50,000, which just so happens to be how much Sandy Berger was fined for stealing and destroying classified documents and lying about it to investigators (he wasn't charged for the latter, but subsequent revelations has made it clear he did just that).

Making the fine $50,000 would have been more in line with Libby's transgressions, and it would have made it harder for Democrats to argue against it. The penalty -- no jail time, $50,000, probation -- would have been so similar to Berger's that one could scarcely mention it without also mentioning Berger.

I don't, Cap'n Ed, think that this will assist the President with the Republican base. They will likely be upset that he did not pardon Libby, and will see the mere commutation of the jail sentence as weak-kneed political pandering rather than solid leadership. The base is likely to believe that the minimum, doing the job he should do, reaction was a full pardon and they surely won't be giving him any credit for doing less.

What seems lost in this discussion is the fact that the President has the constitutional power to grant pardons for any or no reason whatever. One can argue that a given pardon was unwise or did not serve the cause of justice, but one cannot legitimately suggest that in making a pardon, the President is inherently doing wrong.

Is anyone surprised that President Cheney decided to have Bush pardon Scooter?

By commuting Scooter's sentence, the President has ensured that this will remain an issue in the 2008 elections.

The Dems will not forget, and will remind the voters that Scooter merely scooted away from his sentence.

Most ordinary Americans will view this commutation as yet another example of a rich Republican escaping punishment for his crimes.

So, while the neocons break open the champange, so do the Dems. The only ones who will suffer are the Republicans who try to run on this President's record.

George Bush has given the Democrats an early Christmas present for November 2008.

Once again our President has proven that he does what he thinks is right regardless of which side is pleased or displeased. I take his statement at face value. He thought the jury process should be respected, he thought the judge imposed sentence was unduly harsh. He has the power to ameliorate the latter and he did so while keeping the underlying process intact to play out in the courts. Sometimes things are as simple as they look.

If I'm Scooter Libby I'm happy to be sleeping in my own bed tonight and not getting up close and personal with my new best friend in a prison cell somewhere.

Its very simple my friends: If Bill Clinton got no time and Sandy Burglar is still walking free, how in good conscience can Pres Bush let Libby enjoy Club Fed?

gee, you think that maybe because one actually got convicted?

Your comment regarding his not getting a fair shake in DC, well are you saying that OJ in fact did get a fair shake?

This will keep the 25 percent happy, but has lost the other 70 percent of REGULAR Americans.

Bennett ... I have to ask, you thought the sentence was too harsh, well the simple fact is he won't spend a single day in jail now, heck would 2 months been too much to ask for a convicted felon. Why should anyone ever tell the truth on oath ever again!

I guess I don't understand the cause for celebration. This just appears to be another case of Washington insiders using their influence to help out their buddies, oblivious to how the rest of the country still tries to abide by laws and ethics. Who cares how low Clinton and Sandy Berger set the bar? My first thought when I heard this story was of Hastert scrambling to defend Rep. Jefferson. All these guys do is look out for themselves and each other.

You can't tell me this was the most egregious case of injustice that Bush could find.

It's ironic for a Republican President to cite an "excessive" sentence as reason for commuting Libby's prison sentence, given how often the GOP in the past has emphasized maximum sentences for crimes of all kinds and imposing mandatory sentences on judges. Patrick Fitzgerald had this to say about Bush's action today:

We fully recognize that the Constitution provides that commutation decisions are a matter of presidential prerogative and we do not comment on the exercise of that prerogative.

We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as “excessive.” The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.

President Bush chose loyalty to one of his own who broke the law over justice, and put himself above the law of the nation by doing so. He brings shame on his office by doing so, and those who defend this act should be asked to give a good reason why they do.

I'm not really all that up in arms over this, maybe because this administration has shown repeatedly that they believe they are above the law that I'm kind of used to it.

But maybe more so, all presidents give pardons.

But this whole episode paints the administration in a bad light. First, Bush said leakers would be dealt with severely. Then both Rove and Libby lied about their involvement (or McClellan did). Then Rove was shown to be a leaker who passed on classified information to people who were not authorized to receive it and despite the fact that he was A) Shown to be a leaker and B) broke his confidentiality agreement, there was no punishment from Bush.

Then Libby blatently lied, obstructing the investigation. Why would he lie like that?

And now Bush commutes his sentence.

All the while, a covert CIA agent was outed in a unnecessary political attack. Not only was it a covert agent, but one working on the Iraqi WMD issue that we went to war over.

Whatever, I expect nothing less from these guys.

Actually, Monkei, what I wrote was that the President found the sentence too harsh. He has the power to commute and he exercised that power. There is no requirement that he first poll the voters and find out which of us agree and which of us don't. He can exercise his own judgment, constitutionally, and he did so. Just as the jury and then the judge exercised theirs. And we can all sit back and howl (or applaud) but this is the way the system works. If we don't like this power vested in the President, then by all means someone should lead the charge to amend the Constitution because it is from there that he derives this admittedly extraordinary power.

Lightwave - What the moonbats are going to do is rather immaterial, they hated Bush before and they hate him now. The question is what is the average American, neither moonbat nor Republican base, going to think. And that is that, as usual, the rich and powerful in America can break the law and get away with it, and that Bush is not only ok with this, but positively favors it.

Come the election next year, this won't be the major issue out there, but it will still be kicking around, reminding voters that when Republican politicians talk about being tough on crime, they are always adding under their breath, but not for me or any of my friends. All those who think this is the image Republicans should go for, and in fact it is smart, almost brilliant to cultivate it, raise your hands.

Holy batman, Captain, I don't think too many people saw any of the debates.

As to Dubya being King Solomon, I don't think so! King Solomon wanted to find the lying woman. And, he did. End of story.

Dubya couldn't find his way out of a paper bag.

Yeah. He finally stepped in.

Now you have a few judges, including Waltoon, and Tatel, who were hoping Bush would just take this whole case and make it disappear!

He didn't do that.

Glenn Reynolds said "at least Bush's numbers should get a good bounce, from conservatives who became disgusted." Dunno. I don't bounce for Bush, anymore.

I do, think, however, that Hugh Hewitt was right, when back in 2004 he wrote: THEY CAN'T STEAL IT IF YOU VOTE! Meaning, that if the Bonkeys can steal another election too many people just stayed home.

Something tells me that 2008 won't be one of those situations. And, I hope republicans, during the primaries, reach for the man MOST ELECTIBLE. Because that will bring into focus what citizens can do; when they mass up in large numbers.

Look how far the Internet's come, already!

Re: Mark1971 at July 2, 2007 6:46 PM

Ramos and Compean didn't act like professional law enforcement officers, and the jury had to decide why not. Maybe they're not guilty. Maybe they're just not very bright. Either way, they at least didn't belong in that occupation. If your superior wants to remove evidence of a shooting, you let them do it. You don't do it yourself.

The differences in the commentary on Libby's treatment vs. that of Bill Clinton and Sandy Burger are quite striking, and enormously revealing of individual motives and biases. From reading the frothy commentary coming from the left today you would think that Libby was the criminal of the century.

My problem is that Bush knew he was going to do this but left Libby hanging in the breeze while Bush sat and hoped the appeals court would save him the trouble of doing what he ended up doing. If Bush thought Libby didn't deserve to be in prison, fine, set aside that portion of the sentence. But it was cruel for Bush, knowing he was going to do this, to let Libby and Libby's family and friends suffer and spend trying to keep him out of jail.

As I posted, the moment a President thinks someone has been wronged by the criminal system, he has an obligation to act immediately... and not to wait to see if someone else does the dirty work (saving him from the political firestorm) but to step up and do what he thinks is right.

Actually, Monkei, what I wrote was that the President found the sentence too harsh. He has the power to commute and he exercised that power

actually Bennett, what I would like to hear from the human waste of skin is how much prison time is NOT excessive for the crimes he was convicted of? I understand that through probation he would have served barely over 2 years. That does not sound too excessive.

but this is just another case of how far out of touch the conservative right has become with the American people. it will be fun to watch the GOP candidates for President cuddle up to this decision for the base and then have to stand by it after the primaries.

GWB, still the best damn democrat I know. he is just the gift that keeps on giving to the democratic party.

Is anyone surprised that President Cheney decided to have Bush pardon Scooter?

Posted by: bayam at July 2, 2007 7:17 PM
*********************

Oh, but we were all SHOCKED, I tell you, SIMPLY SHOCKED when Emperor Fitty-Nifong took Libby to court for having the unmitigated GALL to tell a different tale than MSM Journalists (who were disputed themselves by MERE FACTS - I tell you, DO MERE FACTS HAVE NO SHAME WHATSOEVER????) and left Armitage and Novak sitting in the catbird seats.

Why, Sir, I tell you, we were STUNNED!

JUST STUNNED!

Ed, I think you need to go back and reread that Solomon story. IIRC after King Solomon gave the order to split the baby the real mother fell to her knees screaming and was subsequently awarded custody of her child. (Maybe I'm wrong. "Google it"?)

Bush did exactly the right thing. If he’d issued a pardon at this point the appeals process would have ended and the conviction would have been on Libby’s record for life. This way Libby doesn’t do jail time and can continue his appeals. There’s still time for a pardon later if the appeals are unsuccessful. ... Hmmm. One more reason to vote for Fred Thompson if the appeals are unsuccessful? Is W capable of thinking that far ahead?

I linked.

Tom Shipley said:

"I'm not really all that up in arms over this, maybe because this administration has shown repeatedly that they believe they are above the law that I'm kind of used to it."

Now, cue up the "Twilight Zone" theme:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2271

Senator Clinton issued the following statement on President Bush’s decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby:

"Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law."

As far as being "above the law" is concerned, I would remind Tom that Al Gore, as Vice President, thought he was above the law as well, which is no surprise considering Al spent his youth living in a hotel in Washington DC

http://cnn.tv/ALLPOLITICS/1997/03/03/gore.reaction/transcript.html

excerpt:

GORE: Now...

QUESTION: Mr. Vice President...

GORE: Helen?

QUESTION: ... are you saying that there -- that you never did any fundraising from a government office or building or...

GORE: I never asked for a campaign contribution from anyone who was in a government office. I never did anything that I thought was wrong.

If there had been a shred of doubt in my mind that anything I did was a violation of law, I assure you I would not have done that. And my counsel advises me, let me repeat, that there is no controlling legal authority that says that any of these activities violated any law.

QUESTION: But the law doesn't...

QUESTION: But the -- there's a memo...

GORE: Let Wolf.

QUESTION: Mr. Vice President, but given the fact that you now have changed your policy, I'm sure you can understand the appearance, whether or not it was technically legal, the appearance wasn't very good, and that one of these people you apparently solicited told Bob Woodward and The Washington Post that it amounted to, in his opinion, at least, a shakedown -- that when you were soliciting funds from him, given his nature of his business, you were shaking him down.

GORE: Well, I cannot explain to you what some anonymous source wants to say. I can tell you this, that I never, ever said or did anything that would have given rise to a feeling like that on the part of someone who was asked to support our campaign. I never did that, and I never would do that.

QUESTION: There's a memo from the White House counsel written in 1995 that very simply says, no solicitation can be made from the White House -- no phone calls, no mail.

QUESTION: How can you say that that was OK for you to do it?

GORE: That memo, authored by former White House Counsel Ab Mikva, was addressed to White House employees other than the president and vice president. All White House employees, just like all other federal employees, are prohibited from asking for campaign contributions. There is an exemption for the president and vice president.

But that particular memo was not designed to address either the president or the vice president, because there is a different section of law that applies to the president and vice president as candidates, as opposed to the White House staff.

QUESTION: So you're saying that you were exempt from any prescriptions, from raising money right there in the White House. That was OK for you to do?

GORE: That particular -- No, no. No, no. I'd never ask anyone in the White House for a campaign contribution.

In the art of weasel parsing of words, Clinton taught Al extremely well

Oh, but we were all SHOCKED, I tell you, SIMPLY SHOCKED when Emperor Fitty-Nifong took Libby to court for having the unmitigated GALL to tell a different tale than MSM Journalists

This just shows how ignorant people are about this case. It wasn't just the journalists who contradicted Libby's testimony, but also three members of the White House staff.

Perjury is a hard charge to prove. The jury didn't have much trouble coming to a guilty verdict. It was pretty obvious Libby lied.

"he lost the other 70% of Americans"

LOL

He already lost those 70%. BTW, Bush isn't running again. He doesn't care. Let the lefties go nuts. it doesn't matter.

Something tells me that 2008 won't be one of those situations. And, I hope republicans, during the primaries, reach for the man MOST ELECTIBLE. Because that will bring into focus what citizens can do; when they mass up in large numbers.

Look how far the Internet's come, already!

Posted by: Carol Herman at July 2, 2007 8:02 PM
************************

ELECTABLE SMECTABLE!

"ELECTABLE" is what California kept harping about regarding Dah Ahnold Man.

Slapped Tom McClintock with a baseball bat to the side of the head to stampede for Dah "ELECTABLE" Ahnold Man.

I hope the MODERATES who really do not want a Hillary or other Dim President won't waste their vote on a RINO they already know HALF their party will NEVER vote for - regardless of how much emotional blackmail the Moderates use.

I guarantee - if anyone wants a Dim President so badly they are willing to vote for some RINO they know absolutely that half of us WILL NEVER endorse, then I will be very happy to give them that Dim President.

Monkei, I'm not exactly sure what the argument is here. It seems clear you would not have commuted the sentence. I don't know what I would have done just as I don't know if I would have pardoned all the people Clinton pardoned. Or if I would have pardoned Cap Weinberger as Bush 41 did.

Justice is blind, but people aren't. So what influences come to bear in these decisions I'm sure will always be ripe for debate and dispute. In the end, the President has the power and as long as no one is illegally inducing him to exercise it, it's pretty much within his own discretion. I'm not sure there's a better alternative. No power at all? Congressional oversight? Don't see those as being any better.

I think ultimately these decisions operate only to affect one person and not the electorate at large. I don't get too worked up over them. I care more about government actions that affect all of us.

One more reason to vote for Fred Thompson if the appeals are unsuccessful? Is W capable of thinking that far ahead?

I linked.

Posted by: Bill Faith at July 2, 2007 8:26 PM
**********************

Fred Thompson the Watergate Prosecutor who will prosecute GOP members of the Nixon Admin. - and tell us that the DIM President's PERJURY in front of an International LIVE TV AUDIENCE, is a "TRIVAL MATTER" "that does not rise to the level of impeachment" in HIS VIEW of the Founding Fathers' philosophies????

THAT Fred Thompson????

I agree with Mark1971. Ramos, Compean, and the other BP agent are still in prison, after being basically railroaded by Sutton. While I have no complaint with the Libby action, what he/sutton/the justice system is doing to the BP's just shows how much "securing the border" means to El Presidente.

Perjury is a hard charge to prove. The jury didn't have much trouble coming to a guilty verdict. It was pretty obvious Libby lied.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at July 2, 2007 8:35 PM
******************

Oh, of course, Tom, we are thoroughly ASSURED of it - NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

Why, all the liberals, all the Democrats have put everything into making sure the credentials of this trial are abolutely rock solid!
And so above board!

Every step of the way .

Oh, WE have no reason to doubt your word for THIS!

You just KNOW and feel totally assured, we find you thoroughly reliable and credible.

Did I say, "ABSOLUTELY!" ?????

I find it amazing that people who never had any sympathy for black kids raised in poverty getting cut any slack suddenly fall all over themselves with how 'unfair' it is that a wealthy republican with the best defense attorney's money can buy should actually have to go to prison for lying to the FBI.

Yeah, it was real important that we legislate minimum prison sentences for crimes, three strikes laws and so on, till we had a rich white male found guilty. Suddenly the same governor that set records executing people in Texas discovers empathy for poor downtrodden people represented by law firms that make more per hour than anyone writing on this blog.

The 131 people executed in Texas on Bush's watch appreciate your sudden sympathy for prisoner rights.

Perjury is a hard charge to prove. The jury didn't have much trouble coming to a guilty verdict. It was pretty obvious Libby lied.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at July 2, 2007 8:35 PM
******************

Oh, of course, Tom, we are thoroughly ASSURED of it - NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

Why, all the liberals, all the Democrats have put everything into making sure the credentials of this trial are abolutely rock solid!
And so above board!

Every step of the way .

Oh, WE have no reason to doubt your word for THIS!

You just KNOW and feel totally assured, we find you thoroughly reliable and credible.

Did I say, "ABSOLUTELY!" ?????

Jonnan says it best.

GWB has no respect for the judicial system or any system that isn't his for that matter.

Republicans are just a weak as Democrats...they never take responsibility.

First, Bush said leakers would be dealt with severely.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at July 2, 2007 7:58 PM

Nope, Bush said illegal leakers would be dealt with severely. Libby wasn’t even charged with leaking, legally or illegally, much less convicted of it. In fact, no one was.

Saying or implying otherwise is a lie.

Once more BOTH sides have "misunderestimated" George Bush. He did EXACTLY the right thing at EXACTLY the right time. If Bush had pardoned Libby, the appeals process would have ended; now it goes forward, giving Libby a chance to clear his name far more effectively by winning on appeal, and if he still needs pardoning after the 2008 election, Bush can revisit the issue, taking into consideration anything that may surface between now and then that reflects on Libby's guilt or innocence, while Democrats can demonstrate both their hypocrisy and their lunacy. This is PRECISELY the course of action reccommended by the most thoughtful and logical commentators.

Democrats, outsmarted once again by the man they insist against ALL evidence on believing to be an idiot.

(snicker)

The commutation was unnecessary. POTUS, as chief executive of the prison system, could have delayed Libby's acceptance into the prison system until Libby's appeals were played out.

chsw

Mr. Libby was the victim of an out-of-control 'Independent' Prosecutor running a political fishing expedition at taxpayer expense, and a judge who wouldn't even let him stay out on bail pending appeal. The whole business would never have happened if President Bush had stood up for himself and told the press to kiss off, and sicced the Justice Department on Joe Wilson and the CIA leakers who were funneling state secrets to the NY Times.

The commutation is a day late and a dollar short.

/Mr Lynn

Surprise, surprise.

Commute the sentence so there's time to appeal.

If the appeal fails, then Bush pardons him.

Solomonic decision? Not even remotely.

Gutless? Absolutely.

The silver lining of having an approval rating usually reserved for used car salesmen is that he doesn't have to worry about offending anyone ... anyone who can be offended by him has been already, and isn't likely to come back anytime soon. So that frees him up to do the right thing.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

"Club Fed" isn't the fluff prison we all think it is. The American documents that prison camps, the lowest security of federal prisons, isn't summer camp. The prisons get tougher from there.

FredTownWard - Is the same Bush brilliance at outsmarting the Democrats that lost us every contested Senate race and control of both the House and the Senate? Anymore of this brilliance at demonstrating that when Republicans talk about being tough on crime, they mean except for crimes committed by Republican friends of the President, and we will be lucky to even win Utah in 2008.

Checksum,

I was wrong in my recollection. He didn't use the word severely, but did say he would take "appropriate" action if it turned out anyone in his staff leaked that classified information.

On Sept. 30, 2003, a day after McClellan said anyone "involved" in the leak would be fired, Bush made a less definitive statement, saying, "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

Apparently the appropriate action in response to leaking the classified identity of a covert agent is... nothing.

President Bush gave the court tremendous honor and respect - due to the Constitutional foundation of that court that prosecuted Libby...

However, it was all honor and respect which that court, like the one that refused to convict OJ, NEVER EARNED.
Not from America.
Not from the Constitution.

But President Bush was respectful of the Constitutional institution and gave it the full respect that it SHOULD have been due.

And the Liberals don't understand the difference.

Tom Shipley said:

"The jury didn't have much trouble coming to a guilty verdict."

1. DC Jury. In other words, all from the same political party as Scoot. Not.

2. Star juror of said jury was a former Washington Post reporter (pro-Bush? Not) and also was a former neighbor of one of the prosecution's key witnesses, Timmy Russert. Immediately after the verdict was announced, said star juror said in his very first interview that the jury "made assumptions" in order to decide whether or not Scoot was guilty.

3. Prosecutor never told the jury that he had discovered who the real leaker was early in his investigation.

Counterfactual wrote: "FredTownWard - Is the same Bush brilliance at outsmarting the Democrats that lost us every contested Senate race and control of both the House and the Senate?"

Bush didn't lose those races; a Republican Congress that forgot why they were there lost those races, with the help of Democrat dirty tricks and news media lies.

However, one should be careful what one wishes for. In 2008 a reasonably competent Rebublican presidential nominee (and how could we fail to get that this time?) is going to lead Republicans back to control of Congress along with the presidency because Democrats are well along in establishing a reputation for corruption, lunacy, treason, and incompetence unprecedented in history.

In short W will get the last laugh...

again.

The current republicans - "For the rule of law until the rule of law is not for them"

Washington, D.C. 20530
January 20, 2001

Pardon Grants January 2001
Name Home Town Offenses
ALLEN, Verla Jean Everton, Arkansas False statements to agency of United States
ALTIERE, Nicholas M. Las Vegas, Nevada Importation of cocaine
ALTSCHUL, Bernice Ruth Sherman Village, California Conspiracy to commit money laundering
ANDERSON, Joe, Jr. Grove Hill, Alabama Income tax evasion
ANDERSON, William Sterling Spartanburg, South Carolina Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured financial institution, false statements to a federally insured financial institution, wire fraud
AZIZKHANI, Mansour T. Huntsville, Alabama Conspiracy and making false statements in bank loan applications
BABIN, Cleveland Victor, Jr. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Conspiracy to commit offense against the United States by utilizing the U.S. mail in furtherance of a scheme to defraud
BAGLEY, Chris Harmon Harrah, Oklahoma Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine
BANE, Scott Lynn Mahomet, Illinois Unlawful distribution of marijuana
BARBER, Thomas Cleveland Hampton, Florida Issuing worthless checks
BARGON, Peggy Ann Monticello, Illinois Violation of the Lacey Act, violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act
BHATKA, Tansukhlal Income tax evasion
BLAMPIED, David Roscoe Ketchum, Idaho Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
BORDERS, William Arthur, Jr. Washington, D.C. Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge (Alcee L. Hastings), and to defraud the United States in connection with the performance of lawful government functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding and endeavoring to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein; traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery
BOREL, Arthur David Little Rock, Arkansas Odometer rollback
BOREL, Douglas Charles Conway, Arkansas Odometer rollback
BRABHAM, George Thomas Austin, Texas Making a false statement or report to a federally insured bank
BRASWELL, Almon Glenn Doravilla, Georgia Conspiracy to defraud government with respect to claims; perjury
BROWDER, Leonard Aiken, South Carolina Illegal dispensing of controlled substance and Medicaid fraud
BROWN, David Steven New York, New York Securities fraud and mail fraud
BURLESON, Delores Caroylene, aka Delores Cox Burleson Hanna, Oklahoma Possession of marijuana
BUSTAMANTE, John H. Cleveland, Ohio Wire fraud
CAMPBELL, Mary Louise Ruleville, Mississippi Aiding and abetting the unauthorized use and transfer of food stamps
CANDELARIA, Eloida False information in registering to vote
CAPILI, Dennis Sobrevinas Glendale, California Filing false statements in alien registration
CHAMBERS, Donna Denise Memphis, Tennessee Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, use of a telephone to facilitate cocaine conspiracy
CHAPMAN, Douglas Eugene Scott, Arkansas Bank fraud
CHAPMAN, Ronald Keith Scott, Arkansas Bank fraud
CHAVEZ, Francisco Larios Santa Ana, California Aiding and abetting illegal entry of aliens
CISNEROS, Henry G.
CLINTON, Roger
COHN, Stuart Harris New Haven, Connecticut 1. Illegal sale of gold options 2. Illegal sale of silver options
COOPER, David Marc Wapakoneta, Ohio Conspiracy to defraud the government
COX, Ernest Harley, Jr. Pine Bluff, Arkansas Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured savings and loan, misapplication of bank funds, false statements
CROSS, John F., Jr. Little Rock, Arkansas Embezzlement by a bank employee
CUNNINGHAM, Rickey Lee Amarillo, Texas Possession with intent to distribute marijuana
DE LABIO, Richard Anthony Baltimore, Maryland Mail fraud, aiding and abetting
DEUTCH, John Described in January 19, 2001 information
DOUGLAS, Richard False statements
DOWNE, Edward Reynolds Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and tax evasion; securities fraud
DUDLEY, Marvin Dean Omaha, Nebraska False statements
DUNCAN, Larry Lee Branson, Missouri Altering an automobile odometer
FAIN, Robert Clinton Aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false corporate tax return
FERNANDEZ, Marcos Arcenio Miami, Florida Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana
FERROUILLET, Alvarez Interstate transport of stolen property, money laundering, false statements
FUGAZY, William Denis Harrison, New York Perjury in a bankruptcy proceeding
GEORGE, Lloyd Reid Mail fraud
GOLDSTEIN, Louis Las Vegas, Nevada Possession of goods stolen from interstate shipment
GORDON, Rubye Lee Tampa, Florida Forgery of U.S. Treasury checks
GREEN, Pincus Switzerland
HAMNER, Robert Ivey Searcy, Arkansas Conspiracy to distribute marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute
HANDLEY, Samuel Price Hodgenville, Kentucky Conspiracy to steal government property
HANDLEY, Woodie Randolph Hodgenville, Kentucky Conspiracy to steal government property
HARMON, Jay Houston Jonesboro, Arkansas 1. Conspiracy to import marijuana, conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, importation of marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute 2. Conspiracy to import cocaine
HEMMINGSON, John Interstate transport of stolen property, money laundering
HERDLINGER, David S. St. Simons Island, Georgia Mail fraud
HUCKLEBERRY, Debi Rae Ogden, Utah Distribution of methamphetamine
JAMES, Donald Ray Fairfield Bay, Arkansas Mail fraud, wire fraud, and false statement to a bank to influence credit approval
JOBE, Stanley Pruet El Paso, Texas Conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and bank fraud
JOHNSON, Ruben H. Austin, Texas Theft and misapplication of bank funds by a bank officer or director
JONES, Linda Conspiracy to commit bank fraud and other offenses against the United States
LAKE, James Howard Illegal corporate campaign contributions, wire fraud
LEWIS, June Louise Lowellville, Ohio Embezzlement by a bank employee
LEWIS, Salim Bonnor Short Hills, New Jersey Securities fraud, record keeping violations, margin violations
LODWICK, John Leighton Excelsior Springs, Missouri Income tax evasion
LOPEZ, Hildebrando San Isidro, Texas Distribution of cocaine
LUACES, Jose Julio Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Possession of an unregistered firearm
MANESS, James Timothy Conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance
MANNING, James Lowell Little Rock, Arkansas Aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false corporate tax return
MARTIN, John Robert Gulf Breeze, Florida Income tax evasion
MARTINEZ, Frank Ayala Elgin, Texas Conspiracy to supply false documents to the Immigration and Naturalization Service
MARTINEZ, Silvia Leticia Beltran Elgin, Texas Conspiracy to supply false documents to the Immigration and Naturalization Service
McCORMICK, John Francis Dedham, Massachusetts Racketeering conspiracy, racketeering, and violation of the Hobbs act
McDOUGAL, Susan H.
MECHANIC, Howard Lawrence
1. Violating the Civil Disobedience Act of 1968 2. Failure to appear
3. Making false statement in acquiring a passport
MITCHELL, Brook K., Sr. Conspiracy to illegally obtain USDA subsidy payments, false statements to USDA, and false entries on USDA forms
MORGAN, Charles Wilfred, III Little Rock, Arkansas Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
MORISON, Samuel Loring Crofton, Maryland Willful transmission of defense information, unauthorized possession and retention of defense information, theft of government property
NAZZARO, Richard Anthony Winchester, Massachusetts Perjury and conspiracy to commit mail fraud
NOSENKO, Charlene Ann Phoenix, Arizona Conspiracy to defraud the United States, and influencing or injuring an officer or juror generally
OBERMEIER, Vernon Raymond Belleville, Illinois Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, distribution of cocaine, and using a communications facility to facilitate distribution of cocaine
OGALDE, Miguelina Glendale, California Conspiracy to import cocaine
OWEN, David C. Olathe, Kansas Filing a false tax return
PALMER, Robert W. Little Rock, Arkansas Conspiracy to make false statements
PERHOSKY, Kelli Anne Bridgeville, Pennsylvania Conspiracy to commit mail fraud
PEZZOPANE, Richard H. Palo Heights, Illinois Conspiracy to commit racketeering, and mail fraud
PHILLIPS, Orville Rex Waco, Texas Unlawful structure of a financial transaction
POLING, Vinson Stewart, Jr. Baldwin, Maryland Making a false bank entry, and aiding and abetting
PROUSE, Norman Lyle Conyers, Georgia Operating or directing the operation of a common carrier while under the influence of alcohol
PRUITT, Willie H. H., Jr. Port Richey, Florida Absent without official leave
PURSLEY, Danny Martin, Sr. Goodlettsville, Tennessee Aiding and abetting the conduct of an illegal gambling business, and obstruction of state laws to facilitate illegal gambling
RAVENEL, Charles D. Charleston, South Carolina Conspiracy to defraud the United States
RAY, William Clyde Altus, Oklahoma Fraud using a telephone
REGALADO, Alfredo Luna Pharr, Texas Failure to report the transportation of currency in excess of $10,000 into the United States
RICAFORT, Ildefonso Reynes Houston, Texas Submission of false claims to Veterans Administration
RICH, Marc Switzerland
RIDDLE, Howard Winfield Mt. Crested Butte, Colorado Violation of the Lacey Act (receipt of illegally imported animal skins)
RILEY, Richard Wilson, Jr. Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute
ROBBINS, Samuel Lee Cedar Park, Texas Misprision of a felony
RODRIGUEZ, Joel Gonzales Houston, Texas Theft of mail by a postal employee
ROGERS, Michael James McAllen, Texas Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana
ROSS, Anna Louise Lubbock, Texas Distribution of cocaine
RUST, Gerald Glen Avery, Texas False declarations before grand jury
RUST, Jerri Ann Avery, Texas False declarations before grand jury
RUTHERFORD, Bettye June Albuquerque, New Mexico Possession of marijuana with intent to distribute
SANDS, Gregory Lee Sioux Falls, South Dakota Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
SCHWIMMER, Adolph Conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, conspiracy to export arms and ammunition to a foreign country and related charges
SERETTI, Albert A., Jr. McKees Rocks, Pennyslvania Conspiracy and wire fraud
SHAW, Patricia Campbell Hearst Wilton, Connecticut Armed bank robbery and using a firearm during a felony
SMITH, Dennis Joseph Redby, Minnesota
1. Unauthorized absence 2. Failure to obey off-limits instructions 3. Unauthorized absence
SMITH, Gerald Owen Florence, Mississippi Armed bank robbery
SMITH, Stephen A.
SPEAKE, Jimmie Lee Breckenridge, Texas Conspiracy to possess and utter counterfeit $20 Federal Reserve notes
STEWART, Charles Bernard Sparta, Georgia Illegally destroying U.S. Mail
STEWART-ROLLINS, Marlena Francisca Euclid, Ohio Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
SYMINGTON, John Fife, III
TANNEHILL, Richard Lee Reno, Nevada Conspiracy and restraint of trade
TENAGLIA, Nicholas C. Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania Receipt of illegal payments under the Medicare program
THOMAS, Gary Allen Lancaster, Texas Theft of mail by postal employee
TODD, Larry Weldon Gardendale, Texas Conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S. in violation of the Lacey Act and the Airborne Hunting Act
TREVINO, Olga C. Converse, Texas Misapplication by a bank employee
VAMVOUKLIS, Ignatious Exeter, New Hampshire Possession of cocaine
VAN DE WEERD, Patricia A. Tomahawk, Wisconsin Theft by a U.S. Postal employee
WADE, Christopher V.
WARMATH, Bill Wayne Walls, Mississippi Obstruction of correspondence
WATSON, Jack Kenneth Oakridge, Oregon Making false statements of material facts to the U.S. Forest Service
WEBB, Donna Lynn Panama City, Florida False entry in savings and loan record by employee
WELLS, Donald William Phenix City, Alabama Possession of an unregistered firearm
WENDT, Robert H. Kirkwood, Missouri Conspiracy to effectuate the escape of a federal prisoner
WILLIAMS, Jack L. Making false statements to federal agents
WILLIAMS, Kevin Arthur Omaha, Nebraska Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine
WILLIAMS, Robert Michael Davison, Michigan Conspiracy to transport in foreign commerce securities obtained by fraud
WILSON, Jimmie Lee Helena, Arkansas Converting property mortgaged or pledged to a farm credit agency, and converting public money to personal use
WINGATE, Thelma Louise Sale City, Georgia Mail fraud
WOOD, Mitchell Couey Sherwood, Arkansas Conspiracy to possess and to distribute cocaine
WOOD, Warren Stannard Las Vegas, Nevada Conspiracy to defraud the United States by filing a false document with the Securities and Exchange Commission
WORTHEY, Dewey Conway, Arkansas Medicaid fraud
YALE, Rick Allen Belleville, Illinois Bank fraud
YASAK, Joseph A. Chicago, Illinois Knowingly making under oath a false declaration regarding a material fact before a grand jury
YINGLING, William Stanley Interstate transportation of stolen vehicle
YOUNG, Phillip David Little Rock, Arkansas Interstate transportation and sale of fish and wildlife

Del Dolemonte ---- That's right --- Whenever you hear something that Rush says, and hear someone else say something different, the other person is always the biased one right?

Not only is the media biased, but also the judges and the juries.... lol - where does it end? I suppose you thought that your parents were liberals when they grounded you huh?

I generally personally feel annoyed when people who commit crimes that either harm others or the country as a whole go free. Libby apparently didn't cooperate fully with an investigation trumped up to make political points by bringing up the whole "was Bush lying about why we attacked Iraq" bit again. Noone was hurt or threatened with harm, no one lost any money, the country's security was not endangered, and if anything, the offended CIA lady probably made money. So I could care less if Libby did jail time. He certainly wasn't in charge of making the decision of whether he spilled all the beans or not anyway, you think? Actually the Paris Hilton case is MORE relevant, because there was a chance she could have drunkenly crashed into someone.

jaeger51 --- maybe you missed the fact that a covert agent of the CIA was outed --- The CIA claimed this damaged their program.

Who told you it didn't do any harm? Rush?

"President Bush chose loyalty to one of his own who broke the law over justice, and put himself above the law of the nation by doing so. He brings shame on his office by doing so, and those who defend this act should be asked to give a good reason why they do."

Posted by: starfleet_dude at July 2, 2007 7:56 PM

Dude, can you explain to me (in all your rightousness) how a civil servant caught with 90 thousand in fed marked seed money is still a functioning congressman?

Physician, heal thyself.

Where do you see Dems going "ballistic"?

It's hard to go nuts when you saw this coming a long ways away. The Liberal joy was in the conviction, not the hard time.

Any disappointment is vastly outweighed by the use of this new cudgel Democrats can use to bash Republicans as out-of-touch and elitist. Good luck with those "Clinton did it" excuses. Maybe they'll work...

When I read Kos and TPM right now I see a matter-of-fact collection of talking points and battle strategies.

Good first step.

Too bad Bush won't take the second - investigating the Saudi connection behind Wilson and Plame.

Firing Foley wasn't enough Mr President - think of how things would be different had you gone after the rabid Democrats, Saudi agents, and spoiled bureacrats in 2003 when they started the war on your administration from within the CIA, State Dept, and UN.

I understand that you tried so hard to bring a new tone to DC - but Democrats in Washington would rather lose a war then see themselves on the political outside...

And how did Tenet and his flunkies not get the boot on Sept 12, 2001?

Sometimes it really is a mad mad world

Give it time.

It took over a year for fraud Nifong to implode. By denying Fitzfong a scalp it may lead to Fitzfong overdoing it in his public reaction to the President's action. Both seedy prosecutors have dysfunctional egos and gotcha methods which no doubt created and inflamed both legal circuses beyond the scope of equanimity. The more Fitzfong yammers and denounces the more Libby's grounds for appeal are enhanced.

What the President has done here is wise. It's less than a pardon and permits the appeal to continue yet denies Fitzfong (and nutty hanging- Judge Walton) the opportunity to lock up his / their only catch (and small fry at that) given the huge amount of money Fitzgerald knowingly wasted after Richard Armitage had already admitted he was the source of the "leak." If Fitzgerald's circus continues unabated and amok then the President can readily pardon Libby for any crumbs to which Fitz is still clinging at the time the appeals process has run its course.

Did Libby merit this, just because he worked in politics thirty years? No.
Nor did Anthony Lewis rate a Medal of Freedom,
Dan Rostenkowski didn't rate a pardon,
JFK Jr. didn't rate a military funeral,
Larry Lawrence didn't rate a berth in Arlington National.
Nor does the Speaker rate a personal plane, because their death wouldn't disrupt the chain of command.

When I see you guys oppose perks as perks, instead of just ranting about who gets to wield them, then I could take you seriously.

a humane gesture for a man who has led an exemplary life of public service,

How do you KNOW this?

He should have been pardoned but I'm just glad he won't be doing any time.

I'm still confused why there was an investigation in to who "leaked" the name of someone who wasn't covert or covered under the law that would have been broken... and why, after it was known that Armitage was the "leaker", the investigation was allowed to go forward... and why Libby, simply not remembering exactly how some unimportant conversations went down, months after they occurred, was charged with a crime, when Russert who was one of the biggest witnesses against him wasn't also charged after he changed his story too, likely for the same reason... it just wasn't a big deal to him so he didn't remember the exact details of the exchange(s). I can't remember what I had for dinner a few nights ago or when the last time I bought gas for my car... would you expect me to remember minor conversations, mixed in with hundreds of others, months after the fact?

And let's not even pull out the Clinton pardon list.

"Ha-ha!"

/nelson muntz

It's so sweet to hear the moonbats baying at the moon over this. Let them froth at the mouth. No auto-da-fe for you, moonbats! Your witch hunt isn't complete, since you didn't get to burn the witch at the stake. Ha-ha!

The moonbats here don't want to admit that

(a) Plame wasn't covert;

(b) it was Richard Armitage, not Libby, who spilled the beans about her to the press;

(c) FitzGerald knew this from the beginning of his 'investigation';

(d) Libby was caught in a contradiction, which could have been simply errors of memory, and instead was promulgated as 'perjury' by FitzGerald and accepted as such by a biased jury;

(e) it is likely Libby was indicted just so FitzGerald could justify the millions he spent trying to besmirch the Administration;

(f) the real liar in all this was Joe Wilson;

(g) FitzGerald should be tried for prosecutorial misconduct.

President Bush brought all this on himself (and Libby) by allowing FitzGerald to go forward, when he shouldn't have been hired in the first place. The President owes Scooter Libby not just a commutation but a full pardon, and an abject apology.

/Mr Lynn

Del Dolemonte, Wow your post says it all. Anyone complaining about Libby's commutation please comment this list of Clinton pardons.

Mr. Lynn, if Joe Wilson was a liar, then why did the 16 words have to be removed from the state of the union address? Also don't you find it quite incredulous that the VP would shut down a working operation of the CIA, more than likely covert, that just happened to be working on WMD proliferation, just to respond to a critic? Also, who appointed Mr. Fitzgerald, who appointed Judge Walton, who appointed James Comey?

Pineapple ... you keep pushing this DC jury crap ... but the Court of Appeal Judges, 3 of them, 2 were GOP appointed. They found no issues that would assure Libby's appeal would win ... thus go to jail boy without supper.

Can Bush dig the GOP anymore into a black hole?

For all the crapola being pushed by the 25 percent base who find themselves even further out of the mainstream it is a fun day.

But to the 75 percent who continue to find themselves in the mainstream this is nothing more than a Good Ole Boy who lied to Congress, lied to federal agents, was convicted, a felon, who got off because he was one of the President's men. Those in the mainstream won't be swayed or confused by those in the slimmest of minorities of who are all wrapped up in the new underlying crime of whom or who did not tell who.

It's a simple case of a convicted liar who won't spend a day in jail.

It's always nice to see the GOP motto of "They did it Too!" still being used to the utmost by those like the flaming pineapple.

After hanging Scooter Libby out there for so long in this political witch hunt farce, there's little Bush can do to redeem himself in my mind.

Actually, the real damage was done with Sandy Berger and reinforced with Bush's passivity towards security leaks. Scooter Libby is just an additional exclamation point.

Bush is the best friend that any Democrat ever had.

In 2008 most Americans will remember that a rich white man by the name of Scooter never did a day of jail time.

Won't be a major issue, but just another nail in the coffin of whichever Republican Congressman or Senator that choices to hang on to Bush's coattails.

Too bad that the boy president couldn't win a third term. He'd then assure that there would be 90% Democratic majorities in both houses for generations to come.

George Walker Bush, the gift that keeps on giving.

Now, how about the President commuting the sentences of the Border Patrol agents?

I keep seeing "covert" mentioned. It was never proven, and is not true, that Ms Plame was covert under the relevant statute.

When Fitzgerald found that Armitage had revealed Ms Plame's name, why wasn't the investigation ended?

Right wing neocons proclaim that Plame wasn't covert, or the jury wasn't fair, or that Clinton "did it too". Doesn't matter anymore.

Most Americans will only remember that Bush gave a "get out of jail card" to his rich, white Republican buddy.

Even better, this guy has the name "Scooter". Conjures up images of some frat boy at Yale going out to the country club with Buffy and Biff.

Easy to remember a year from now.

If Scooter were named "Jim" instead, then the message might be confusing.

But, in 2008 a Dem will only have to say the single word "Scooter" and the public will remember how the boy president let his rich friend go free.

So, the neocons who now dance for joy at Scooter's commutation are in reality dancing on their own graves.

OK, Mr. Lynn, I'll tackle a-e as the rest really aren't worth commenting on.

(a) Plame wasn't covert;

Here's an excerpt from the statute that protects the identity of CIA agents. It defines covert as thus:

(4) The term “covert agent” means— (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency— (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;

In Libby's indictment, Fitzgerald states that Plame's employment status was classified.

Also, according to the summary of Fitzgerald's investigation, in which had access to CIA employment records, here's what he concluded about Plame's employment status:

A) CIA classified her as a covert agent.

B) She worked overseas within a 5-years under official and NOC cover. (the summary states she was assigned to CPD at Langley in 2002 and during her time there she made 7 trips overseas with both official and NOC cover).

C) The CIA took affirmative steps to keep her identity a secret.

Now, Fitzgerald didn't indict Armitage or Rove in outing her because he did not have evidence that they knew she was covert and intentionally outed her (a requisite of the charge). He could not indict Libby on this charge, but he also could not clear him because of his obstruction of justice.

(b) it was Richard Armitage, not Libby, who spilled the beans about her to the press;

See the last part above. But also, the law states that ANYONE who passes classified information that IDs a covert agent to those not authorized to receive it breaks the law (if they know the person is covert and are found to be intentionally outing her).

So, since Armitage, Rove and Libby all revealed the ID of a covert agent to the press, they all could have broken this law. Doesn't matter who was first. And, in fact, Libby revealed to Judith Miller that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA the same day Armitage told Novak.

(c) FitzGerald knew this from the beginning of his 'investigation';

See above.

(d) Libby was caught in a contradiction, which could have been simply errors of memory, and instead was promulgated as 'perjury' by FitzGerald and accepted as such by a biased jury;

As I said before, 3 seperate White House employees testified to talking about Plame's CIA status with Libby prior to Libby's conversation with Russert in which Libby claimed he first heard about Plame. Russert testified that he did not know about Plame until a couple of days after his conversation with Libby.

(e) it is likely Libby was indicted just so FitzGerald could justify the millions he spent

Actually, I should have said I'd comment of a-d, 'cause this one's not worth commenting on either.

Hilarious on both sides of the aisle. For some of the Dem/Lib talking heads, (and even presidential candidates!) I keep seeing people saying "no respect for the rule of law." Whether you agree with the original charges, the process, the conviction, the sentence, etc. you have to be pretty dense to accuse the president of being dismissive of the rule of law. POTUS has the constitutional right to commute any sentence or pardon any convicted person at any time and isn't even required to give a reason. He can do it on a whim if he so wishes, and it is spelled out in the constitution as such. Libby was accused, had fair legal representation, went to trial, was convicted, sentenced, and a portion of that sentence was subsequently commuted by the president in accordance with his constitutional powers. Abuse there may be, but it's not of the "rule of law" and you make youself sound silly if you raise that claim.

On the other side, while there are already commentors here and right wing bloggers elsewhere trying to work the "..but. but.. Clinton" theme into the defense to deflect the accusation, it is to no avail. If you choos to go further than saying the legal process was followed and to somehow justify this as "the right thing to do" the hypocricy flag is flying at full mast. Clinton was never "convicted" of anything, but his major crime was lying to the duly appointed investigators. The oral sex wasn't illegal. The lying was. And for that the GOP and it's supporters demanded impeachment. Fairly serious punishment for lying, but there you have it. Sandy Berger was never convicted of lying, even if he did actually lie and obstruct justice. Libby was taken the whole route. He lied and obstructed justice, went through the legal process and was convicted and sentenced. Saying he deserves less after calling for Clinton's scalp for the same thing is no defense at all and is flat out hypocricy.

This is a sad situation all around, and the only relief comes from the chuckles all of you on both sides of the aisel provide as you flail about over the issue.

To the everyday man on the street, this is just another case of a well placed guy in Washington who "got away with it".

GWB, the gift that keeps on giving.

In the words of Gerald Ford, "our long national nightmare is over" the acts of this president, another republican, have saved the union.

Thank you Mr. President, I will sleep better tonight knowing that if I ever lie to Congress or a federal agent in the future, I won't have to do time in the big house.

Although Bush did the right thing here, deeper analysis shows the battle is between Rove/Cheney and the Subpoena Tossin' Dems in Congress. This commutation just ended it in the President's overwhelming favor.

Let the Dems try to go to the mats with contempt of Congress citations for their fishing expeditions. If this ends up in front of the Supreme Court, Bush wins. If this ends up in court, we've seen Bush's response: the President will simply crumple them up and toss them in the trash.

And there's nothing the Dems can do other than to continue to waste taxpayer time and money trying to bring down a man leaving office in 18 months. By all means, keep on energizing the GOP base, depressing the Dems, and making Nancy and Harry antagonize the swing votes even more.

In the end, Bush is gone in 08. And when the voters see 2 years of Democrat control means 2 years of nothing but trying to get Bush gone a little sooner after 6 years of serious legislation and a war to fight and win, the country will be right back to the GOP.

mrlynn, you are so right on all your points. This was nothing more than a political hanging.

At one point the jury (all Democrats, no doubt) asked if the special prosecutor had to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, they were saying, "We have some doubts, but we're just dying to convict - so can we - huh- can we?"

The real criminals in this mess will not be prosecuted: Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and whoever approved sending Joe, who were involved in a conspiracy to bring down Bush's government, which they hated. Hubby didn't even have to submit to usual secrecy standards of the CIA. Even the WAPost, no friend of the Bush Administration, admitted in an editorial that it was Wilson who "blew" his wife's cover.

Bush was stupid to appoint a special prosecutor. He should have called a press conference, denounced Wilson more publicly than he did, and got on with things. He owed nothing to the Wilsons, and just, in his usual stupid way, asked for trouble.

I have no love for Bush, have never liked Cheney, and have no admiration for Scooter Libby, who defended that scum, Marc Rich, whom Clinton pardoned. But right is right and wrong is wrong. The Special Prosecutor business has got to go. It doesn't matter who is caught in the net, Republican or Democrat. It is just a way to prosecute someone for being of the other party.

Ah, well, in a few decades it won't matter. When the current stream of mostly Hispanic illegals is "normalized" along with their chain migration compatriots, they will have a voting bloc so huge that they will rule the country. (Ever wonder why they have to even be a voting bloc? What is it they are after? They haven't been discriminated against any more than any other immigrant group which has come to this country. Quite the contrary.)
Then, we will be like any other socialistic Latin American country, so we'll have much bigger worries than the Special Prosecuter law.

Yes, yes!!! The outrage. Lying to prosecutors. Contempt of court!!! Theft of taxpayer money for their own luxury items. Obstruction of justice. This pardon is an outrage!!! I can't believe the injustice here. This person should have served more prison time. Ridiculous.

Oh wait.....we're not talking about Susan McDougal or Dorothy Rivers, are we? Oops.

Oh well, then, please return to your regularly scheduled hypocrisy. Carry on.

"In Libby's indictment, Fitzgerald states that Plame's employment status was classified."

That's Fitzgerald's opinion. Aprosecution witness testified the CIA did not demand Plame's name be withheld by invoking that law.

"Now, Fitzgerald didn't indict Armitage or Rove in outing her because he did not have evidence that they knew she was covert and intentionally outed her (a requisite of the charge). He could not indict Libby on this charge, but he also could not clear him because of his obstruction of justice."

Libby's perjury is evidence of criminal intent.

If you want to believe Fitzgerald, then crimes of conspiracy can never be prosecuted without self-incriminating testimony by conspirators. In reality, the barrier to prosecuting the leak of what was supposedly a covert agent is not the absence of a full confession by supposed conspirators, it's the contradictory behavior of the CIA regarding her status, as sworn to by third parties.

If Robert Novak is confused (from your viewpoint) into thinking she was not covert, how could a prosecutor erase reasonable doubt as to White House staffers' knowledge that she was covert?

That's Fitzgerald's opinion.

Not really. He cites Plame's CIA employment history to which he had access to.

Here's the link to the summary:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf

Aprosecution witness testified the CIA did not demand Plame's name be withheld by invoking that law.

Plame's status was classified. Invoking that law would imply she was covert.

Here's what the CIA spokesman who Novak spoke to had to say:

PINCUS (7/27/05): Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission [to Niger] and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069.html

The absolutely worthless Democrat Party, which holds benefits, cry-fests and who hands out medals to serial murderers and terrorists (e.g. Mumia Abu-Jamal), wants a good man who faithfully served the country jailed.

If anyone should be locked up, it's shyster Fitzgerald for staging this absurd show trial in the first place.

It's still Fitzgerald's conclusion, not uncontrovertible fact.

Novak, who Fitzgerald put on the stand, testifies to a different conversation with Harlow.

I keep harping on this because as a kneejerk ruthless law-and-order Republican I have every reason to want better prosecutors than Fitzgerald. Here's a guy who believes he's hit on a criminal conspiracy, who says so from the courthouse steps and to a jury; then he goes after a minor gopher and builds a winning case that prevents any further prosecution of principals. And I'm sure that's been explained to him by his peers, which is why he's giving such lame excuses about the stalled investigation. "The suspects wouldn't help me". Puhlease.

It's still Fitzgerald's conclusion, not uncontrovertible fact.

So, Yell, do you think Fitzgerald is lying? I think it's pretty clear he's not incompetent (at least to the degree to which he would misinterpret employment history documents.)

You'll also notice that the CIA spokesman testified that he checked Plame's employment status and that she was an undercover operative.

There's two sources for you. I don't understand how you can stil say Plame was not covert. Where's your evidence that she is not?

Here's a simple question, then Tom: why is no one being prosecuted for something that appears so obviously (according to your citations) a crime?

What you have is

1. A federal prosecutor's interpretation of statute.

2. Various CIA officials' opinion on the status of a former employee-- AFTER a politically-charged disclosure. Harlow's testimony comes AFTER. Tenet's opinion comes AFTER. I certainly think the CIA, especially the current CIA, is capable of lies to cover their own ass.

Plame? Covert or not?

Fitzgerald? RINO or not?

Jury? Fair or not?

Libby? Guilty or not?

No longer matter.

In 2008, all that folks will remember is that some rich white Republican named Scooter got off scott free.

GWB, the gift that keeps on giving.

Well, Johnny, because the law states you must knowingly out a covert agent.

Apparantly, Fitzgerald didn't have evidence that Rove, Armitage and Libby knew she was covert. He cites Libby's obstruction as one reason for this.

Again, Yell, I'll ask: where's the evidence that Plame was not covert?

The person who wrote the law in question has stated that beyond a shadow of a doubt, Plame was not covert.

Regardless, Plame was outed by Aldrich Aimes years ago, that's why she had to be brought back from overseas.

Unbelievable. Whatever happens confirms the delusion.

This was your statement above, was it not?:

All the while, a covert CIA agent was outed in a unnecessary political attack. Not only was it a covert agent, but one working on the Iraqi WMD issue that we went to war over.

That implies intent, does it not, Tom?

So even Fitzgerald has no evidence of that as you just stated. But you do, apparently?

Whatever. But you're the paragon of honesty, though, right? Isn't that what you had your nightie all in an uproar about the other day? That first statement you made, knowing Fitzgerald has no evidence of that claim, couldn't be construed as either "misleading" or "dishonest?" No, of course not.

"In 2008, all that folks will remember is that some rich white Republican named Scooter got off scott free."

Gee cont, who's going to bring it up?

Hillary!? The same dingbat who defended her hubby for pardoning FALN terrorists? Whose impeached husband pardoned criminal Marc Rich?

Libby was convicted of being a Republican, by a joke of a prosecutor, who wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in a political witch hunt.

The Democrats pardon bomb-making terrorists.

I've said Fitzgerald blew it because he built a case that prevents him from pursuing a conspiracy he believes exists. And that's true.

But I don't believe the conspiracy exists. Two good reasons:

1. If Dick Cheney were going to break a law, he wouldn't turn to Dick Armitage for help.

2. And even if he had been that dumb, Dick Armitage wouldn't keep mum about it.

Continuum:
Scooter Libby worked for guys who will be out of a job in January 2009; it's one of those guys who let him out; there's nothing to prevent the 2008 Republican candidates from saying "Yeah, he should be breaking rocks."

The person who wrote the law in question has stated that beyond a shadow of a doubt, Plame was not covert.

Oh really?

Toensing claims Plame wasn't covert because she hadn't worked overseas within 5 years of the leak:

On Dec. 30, 2003, the day Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel, he should have known (all he had to do was ask the CIA) that Plame was not covert, knowledge that should have stopped the investigation right there. The law prohibiting disclosure of a covert agent's identity requires that the person have a foreign assignment at the time or have had one within five years of the disclosure, that the government be taking affirmative steps to conceal the government relationship, and for the discloser to have actual knowledge of the covert status.

Well, she was wrong. If you read this summary of Plame's CIA employment history, it shows she traveled overseas 7 times with official and non-official (NOC) cover since 2002. This document also shows the CIA was taking steps to conceal Plame's relationship with them, the second requirement she cites for an agent to be considered covert:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf

Of course, you're free to believe Toensing knows more about Plame's CIA employment history than Plame or the CIA.

Great name "Scooter".

Easy to remember.

Sort of like "ENRON".

Or, Kenny Lay.

Or, "The Dukester".

Or, "Greeted with flowers and candy."

Or, "Mission Accomplished".

Most folks remember the words, but don't debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

GOP has a knack for quick, short words that reawaken memories that they would best like forgotten.

GWB, the gift that keeps on giving.

(Can we quickly amend the constitiution so that Bush can run for a third term?)

That implies intent, does it not, Tom?

No, i was simply stating the facts of what happened. A covert CIA agent was outed in an unnecessary political attack.

Never once do I say they knew she was a covert agent, just that she was.

There are two scenerios that could have happened. They knew she was covert and leaked her ID to the press (which would be a crime).

Or they didn't know she was covert and leaked her ID to the press (which wouldn't be).

Under both scenerios, a covert agent was outed. I did not imply intent.

I called in a unnecessary political attack because they claim Wilson said Cheney chose him to go to Niger. Their justification for revealing plame worked for the CIA was to correct the record.

But if you look at Wilson's Niger op-ed he correctly stated the chain of events that led him to go to Niger. The record did not need correcting thus, it was an unncessary attack.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

I'd like somebody to explain how traveling in your own name using "non-official cover" jibes with covert status. Perhaps she claimed to be a free-lance writer for the Washington Post? haha.

Continuum:
Enron, Lay, Dukester = Convicted by Bush DOJ.
I have no idea what Greeted by Flowers and Candy means but it sounds like something from the Starr report...better leave that out.

That first statement you made, knowing Fitzgerald has no evidence of that claim, couldn't be construed as either "misleading" or "dishonest?"

Well, considering you took at statement of mine to be racist, when it wasn't even close to being so, I can't say you won't misconstrue what I say.

But I should have said Fitzgerlad didn't have enough evidence... he may have had evidence, but not enough to indict over. But the point of the investigation was to find that evidence. He didn't know at the beginning of the investigation whether or not there was enough evidence to indict. that's why you have an investigation. during that investigation, Libby lied.

That's why he was indicted and convicted.

Like I said, most folks won't remember the itty-bitty particulars.

"Doin' a heck of a job Brownie!"

GWB, the gift . . . .

Is it common practice for covert CIA agents to drive from their posh mansion in McLean, Virginia to CIA HQ? And back home after work. Every day for five years?

If so, are they stupid or just sloppy? Or not really covert and just a grandstanding, publicity seeking, ditzy wife of some trust fund drunk?

Some republicans are so OUT THERE, they think this is actually going to help them win the election next year... I know, WTF???

The president you voted into office has been a disaster for the republican party. But apparently y'all have become so blinded by your continuing political stupidity, it doesn't even phase you that you're boy is slowly but surely carving out a path to Democratic dominance in the years to come.

Please, by all means, keep making these moronic moves. Your party pretty much just "jumped the shark." Buh-bye repugs. Thanks for playing.

I'd like somebody to explain how traveling in your own name using "non-official cover" jibes with covert status.

This is from wikipedia:

Non-official cover (NOC) is a term used in espionage (particularly by the CIA) for agents or operatives who assume covert roles in organizations without ties to the government for which they work. Such agents or operatives are typically abbreviated in espionage lingo as a NOC (pronounced "knock").

An agent sent to spy on a foreign country might for instance pose as a journalist, a businessperson, a worker for a non-profit organization (such as a humanitarian group), or an academic. Non-official cover is contrasted with official cover, where an agent assumes a position at a seemingly benign department of their government, such as the diplomatic service. If caught, agents under non-official cover are usually trained to deny any connection with their government, and do not have many of the protections offered to (for example) accredited diplomats who are caught spying.

The record did not need correcting thus, it was an unncessary attack.

*yawn*

Whatever, dude. The Senate Intelligence Committee disagreed with you, which I notice that you left out.

So apparently, Tom, the record did need correcting.

But no, neither you, nor anybody who thinks like you, ever implied that this was an intentional outing. Surely not.

Of course, you're free to believe that you know more about the case than the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Apparently the appropriate action in response to leaking the classified identity of a covert agent is... nothing.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at July 2, 2007 10:40 PM

You keep changing the subject. This thread is about Libby. No one was charged with leaking a classified identity. No one was convicted of it, and no one was pardoned for it.

Well, considering you took at statement of mine to be racist, when it wasn't even close to being so

And the fact that you cannot recognize a racist statement as being racist, even if that was not your intent, does not lend credibility to your protestations of denial.

But thank you for finally admitting you were, in fact, misleading about Fitzgerald. You'll notice I did not imply intent. Nor did I criticize the investigation. I myself could care less about Scooter Libby and if he perjured himself, he should be in jail. As I have said before, there are people rotting in prison now for doing their jobs that should have been pardoned first. I notice neither you, nor any of the other likeminded fools at this site had anything to say about my 7:11am comment. I'm sure you missed it in your outrage over Libby.

Johnny,

Read what I said: Wilson correctly stated that CIA officials sent him to Niger because of questions the vice president had.

That is absolutely facutally correct. I do understand that the sentate intelligent committee concluded that Plame did recommend her husband. But since then, the CIA has stated Plame only facilitated her husband's trip after other officials suggested Wilson based on past work he had done for the agency (for which he was recommended by plame).

But the point is, Wilson correctly stated the chain of events that led Wilson to go to Africa. The record did not need correcting.

Even if it was true that Plame recommended her husband, she was a CIA official. Wilson said CIA officials asked him to go, NOT Cheney.

And instead of going after the substance of Wilson's op-ed, Cheney and company decided to try and hit his credibility by saying he needed his wife to get him the gig, which is kind of silly, but also ended up outing a covert agent.

Good point, Check Sum. What was that you were saying, Tom, about not being misleading?

And the fact that you cannot recognize a racist statement as being racist, even if that was not your intent, does not lend credibility to your protestations of denial.

OK, again, I'm not going to stand for you mischaracterizing my comments as racist.

So here is a post you never replied to. Feel free to do so now. Something I didn't mention in the following post. NOWHERE do I mention race or ethnicity when I cite the reasons that the US invasion has hurt the cause of democracy in Iraq. Just circumstance. No reasonable person can take my comments as racists.

_____________________

Ok, I can’t let this go. Calling someone racist (or, I’m sorry Johnny, saying someone has racists views), is a serious thing (at least for me). I don’t take it lightly, and I’m not going to let Johnny get away with calling me one when I in no way made any racist remarks.
Now, Johnny, you accuse me of mischaracterization in a post. But that’s exactly what you did with my argument.

Here’s the exact point you did it:

you assume that one of the oldest civilizations in the world, one from whom many of the current ideas of human rights originated, would not have chosen a representative republic in the absence of Saddam Hussein. Not only is that view insular, its racist, too.

Now, read again the post you responded to:

My point with the "installing democracy" comment was, you can't force people to do the "right thing."

I don't think anyone would disagree that multiple view points on the radio would be a bad thing. Just as I don't think many Americans would argue that an Iraqi democracy would be a bad thing.

Problem is, when you try and force people to do either of those things, you get push back. It's no longer that act of "free people" but of people doing so because of a law or because a large foreign military force is patrolling the streets. People don't like to be forced to do things and they're going to rebel against something that's ultimately good.

Where in there do I assume Iraq would not have chosen democracy in absence of Hussein? I don’t. No where. It’s not even implied.

What I say is that because we invaded and set up our own government as a groundwork for a democracy (all the while our troops around patrolling the cities of Iraq), we are in essence forcing a democracy on Iraq. They didn’t ask us to come in and do this… we decided to do this. We didn’t take out Saddam then leave and let the Iraqis to figure out what they want to do with their country, we stayed, set up the provisional American government who then appointed Iraqis to write a constitution. The decision for an Iraq to become a democracy was an American one, not an Iraqi. That’s just a fact.

If we hadn’t invaded, I would hope we kept pressure on Hussein, fostered any democratic movement inside Iraq so that when Hussein was weak enough, there could have been an internal movement toward democracy. Whether that could have happened was made a moot point with the invasion.

So, again, Johnny, you mischaracterized my views as racist (I still challenge you to show me the exact words I used that made you believe my views were racist). Then accused me of mischaracterization. I honestly don’t know how or why you did this. I won’t make any assumptions about this.

Posted by Tom Shipley at June 28, 2007 8:21 AM

CheckSum: You keep changing the subject. This thread is about Libby. No one was charged with leaking a classified identity. No one was convicted of it, and no one was pardoned for it.

Johnny Mozart: Good point, Check Sum. What was that you were saying, Tom, about not being misleading?

Johnny, weren't you the one who was complaining no one was commenting on your post about Clinton administration scandals? If Checksum makes a good point about this thread being about Libby, then quit your bitchin'.

And I am simply pointing out that Bush promised that the leakers would be dealt with appropriately. Rove was shown to be a leaker, yet no action has been taken against him.

That's all. I have no idea how that is misleading.

Tom,Tom, Tom.

How come nowhere in your narrative do you ever mention the actual leaker the actual source,the non partisan gunslinger who actually revealed the info to Novak who was the only one to actually write about this. This same non partisan gunslinger previously leaked the same info to Bob Woodward a month earlier. His name is Armitage. And he didn't work for the Vice President.

Granted you have a jones, because of your partisanship, to find some grand conspiracies that implicate the Bushies, but can you please for once at least include the source of the Novak article in your conspiracy theory?

LIbby has not been found guilty of leaking anything, so you can't necessarily call him a leaker. You can however call Armitage a leaker though. And yet, there is no outrage from the left about why he's not frog marched and behind bars. Wonder why that is? Maybe because there's no underlying crime there?

Ok, obviously I was wrong, Tom Shipley, and for that I apologize. I clearly was in error.

I refer of course to my earlier estimation of your "obvious intelligence". I clearly, clearly, overestimated it.

So Tom, since you are obviously reading comprehension impaired, I will repeat my earlier post, so when you insist, as you did that we are "installing democracy", you are by default implying one of two things only 1) We are doing this against the wishes of the Iraqis, which is clearly denied by the fact of 90% of 24 million people voting in two democratic elections, your protestations about the insurgency, which even the most outrageous estimates put at 100,000 people, notwithstanding, or 2) The Iraqis are incapable or establishing their own form of free government. There are no other choices, Tom.

So, by saying that the US "installed democracy" you are either saying number 1, which is stupid, or number 2, which is racist. Take your pick. Whether or not you intend it is immaterial. So be as indignant as you want, you only continue to make yourself look more stupid than you already do. And for the millionth, I neither believe that you are a racist, nor do I believe that your views are racist. What I do believe, Tom, is that you hold a view that can be construed as racist, even though you yourself may not be, and that you are either too stupid or too stubborn to admit that, neither of which is my problem. It was an assualt on your character, Tom, no matter how myuch you would like to make it so. Just an observation that is a specious and dishonest to make about our efforts in Iraq, especially when you were using it as a favorable comparison to the Fairness Doctrine, which is limiting people's choices. thers will judge between us on this, Tom. Feel free to have the last word.

Now, back to Libby,

Apparently the appropriate action in response to leaking the classified identity of a covert agent is... nothing.

This is a misleading statement, Tom. The only intentional wrongdoing here that you can prove is the perjury. You betray yourself when you lament no punishment for the leak, which if intentional was not a crime, when what was punished was the perjury. And the Senate Intelligence Committee said more than you reveal. The record did need correcting because Wilson consistently did not tell the truth.

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Yes, one "misstatement" of a series. I will say again, if Libby perjured himself, he should not be above the law. However, if this was a defense from a liar like Joe Wilson, then this was inadvertent and there was no "leak", as well as no crime. Certainly not a "revenge outing" as we have heard ad nauseum. If it was a crime, then Armitage should be prosecuted.

But please don't insult us by saying that you and your party hasn't been trying to make this an intentional "revenge outing" from the very first. That's what you're upset about, Tom. Not the perjury, or even the pardon. You believe a crime was committed with the leak and you are mad because you think the leak was a crime, even though you, (and fitzgerald) have no evidence. So prove that a crime was committed and collect your Pulitzer, or STFU.

There are no other choices, Tom.

No? There are only two choices? That I'm an idiot or racist? I'm done with this.

You AGAIN mischaracterize what I say. It's there for all to see in my post. So whatever.

I believe I explained myself adequately above. You see, Tom, when you say things, words have meaning. When you say "we are installing democracy" that has an actual meaning, and that meaning isn't "whatever I want it to mean at the time". It actually means something in the context of actual facts. So when the fact is that 90% of Iraqis voted democratically without duress from the US, as determined by numerous independent agencies, and then you say "The US installed a democracy", then for what you assert is true to actually BE true, then other things have to be true also. Those are stated above and in the previous thread. But by all means, continue to play the martyr.

As I said, others will judge between us. Have a nice day.

While you guys are dicking around about whether a crime was committed or not, Joesix Pack and his wife are seeing the residual effects of republican rule. And they don't like it.

"...21% of Americans agree with President Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's prison sentence, 60% say Bush should have left the judge's prison sentence in place, and 17% wanted a full pardon."

From a new SurveyUSA instant poll.

I don't care how you try to shake this one out Libby supporters, your president's decision(s) (and yours) aren't doing your party a lick of good politically. You are truly lost in the wilderness these days.

Keep bickering about Plame's covert status, whatever blows your skirt up. Though it's basically irrelevant at this point.

Hey dude, I agree. You don't have to convince me. A witch hunt is a witch hunt, and I believe that this was, perjury remains against the law. I think all the Republicans trying to pretend in 1998 that they never had a blowjob should remember that.

tom shipley wrote:
Even if it was true that Plame recommended her husband, she was a CIA official. Wilson said CIA officials asked him to go, NOT Cheney.

You do see though that by withholding that bit of info there is some subterfuge going on by the Plames don't you? It wasn't just any cia official who recommended Joe Wilson, it was Joe Wilsons wife. That opens up a whole can of worms and questions about the reasons that Wilson was chosen.

In fact both Woodward,and Novak,both seasoned reporters asked the obvious question, why on earth would Joe Wilson have been sent, and their source (Armitage) in both cases said that his wife works at the CIA.

But if youre going to suggest that Plame was a CIA official, thus there is nothing untoward when Wilson said the CIA suggested he go investigate the claims, then by the same token,when its that innocent and innocuous, there's similarly nothing sinister about those seeking to question Wilsons story to simply state the facts as to how Wilson was chosen and by whom.
If Wilson was so worried about his wifes covert status he should never have published something, as a "whistleblower" in theNYT when he knew that his wife suggested him for the job, and that any reporter worth his salt,would have questions about why he was sent in the first place.
To top it all off, what did he even whistleblow? The presidnent,in his16 words cited British intelligence, intelligence which Wilson never saw thus could not claim to discredit (said intelligence also mentioned the Congo which is why Bush said Africa not Niger - and I know that WIlson in his travels never visited the Congo).

"your president's decision(s) (and yours) aren't doing your party a lick of good politically." DHIM_08_DOA

Yes, what can we do but succumb to the Democrat juggernaut?

17% approval ratings for the failed Democrat Congress, FALN/Marc Rich pardons (that dwarf this one), being the surrender party, William "the freezer" Jefferson, Harry "the generals/troops are incompetent losers", Pelosi in burqa and on kneepads with Assad, Democrats coddling terrorists and giving the vote to felons, Democrats presiding over crime-ridden inner cities and overfunded, underperforming inner city public schools . . .

There's no point in even holding elections in 2008. Why waste the time? The American people are just enthralled with the absolutely worthless Democrat Party.

"In 2008, all that folks will remember is that some rich white Republican named Scooter got off scott free."

I've got some free advise for you Tom:

Get a grip.

That'll be $250,000 please.

As I said, others will judge between us.

Absolutely, but how does my opinion that we are installing democracy become a racist statement?

My reasoning is that it's human nature to push back on something that is forced upon you. Not Iraqi

I never say anything about Iraqis inherently not being able to create or want a democracy. My point is that the US hurt the cause of democracy by invading and installing one (and they most definitely did install one).

There is NOTHING racial about it.

It's telling that you post your interpretation of what I said when I asked you to post my exact words that you feel are racist.

And if other people are going to judge, then you may want to know that I received an email from the proprietor of this site complementing me on the very post that sent you off on this you're a liar/you're a racist rant.

Immolate,

I didn't say that.

And I thought you said it was free advice...

And I am simply pointing out that Bush promised that the leakers would be dealt with appropriately. Rove was shown to be a leaker, yet no action has been taken against him.

That's all. I have no idea how that is misleading.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at July 3, 2007 9:04 AM

It's misleading because it’s not true. Bush was always talking about illegal leaking. Rove was never proven to do any illegal leaking. He wasn't even charged with anything

Checksum,

No he wasn't. He later came out and put the "illegal" caveat in there. But his intitial statement was that he would deal with the leakers appropriately.

Here's the exact quote:

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it and we'll take the appropriate action.

Yes he was. Always. There is nothing wrong with Whitehouse staff talking to reporters. Bush was always talking about law breaking. Always.

I can't believe we still have this sniping back and forth ... when you break this down to the bottom line it is what it is, a friend of the president was tried, convicted, sentenced and then got off his jail time by the President. You can talk about who said this and who said that, but it was Libby who lied, lied, lied and lied. And, he was probably not the only one who lied, afterall these are politicians and political hacks.

You would think the so called party of morality would have a problem with a person who places his hand on the holy book, promises to tell the truth, and then lies. But evidently that only applies if you have a (D) behind your name.

What difference does it make what the case was about, when you are under oath and you lie and then charges are brought against you because you lied ... gee how hard is that for your pinheads to understand without trying to excuse it for this or that reason?

Again, no one was charged, convicted, or pardoned for knowingly leaking classified infomation. Even you have said that there is no proof than anyone (other than Wison) believed Val was covert. Another misleading statement?

but how does my opinion that we are installing democracy become a racist statement

Jesus Christ. Look up the meaning of the word "default". Regardless of the Captain's support, how can you ask that? Were you absent the day they taught English in English class?

For the millionth time, by saying we installed democracy, you imply by default that either we ARE installing it over the opposition of the Iraqis, or because the Iraqis are incapable of doing themselves, Which. Is. Inherently. Racist. There is a third option, of course, Tom, and that is that we have facilitated a democracy, but then if that is the case, then we aren't "installing" anything, are we? What is hard to understand about that, Tom? Would pictures help?

And despite your continued efforts to rush to be wax apoplectic about my backhanded and unintentional assault on your character that you took so personally, you continue to miss the point I was making with that comment which was that you were using that specious and dishonest example of us "installing democracy" to explain why the Fairness Doctrine was wrong. We have given Iraqis more choices than they have had in thirty years. It was a dishonest horseshit argument then, Tom, and it still is.

You're right checksum, but it has been shown that that Armitage, Libby and Rove leaked classified information that led to the outing of a covert CIA agent.

Again, here's Bush's initial reaction to the news of the leak:

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it and we'll take the appropriate action.

All I was asking was, in light of this quote, why no action against Rove.

...why no action against Rove.

Because, as it has been pointed out time and again, there has never been any evidence that what Rove, Armitage, or Libby did was against any law. Which is what anyone with at least an eight grade reading comprehension would know, is what the President meant. Even the article you failed to cite was talking about illegal leaking.

Johnny, I know what default means. I just don't think you're are anywhere near correct in saying my positions must by default mean two things.

We did install a democracy. We removed a dictator, set up an interim government, and appointed people to write a constitution, and set-up elections. That's an installation.

And yes, there were elections with a great turnout, but as I said before, two elections does not a democracy make. And I think the fact that we by force removed the Iraqi government and then installed our own style of government is inherently undemocratic, boarding on a imperialistic act.

As I said before, I believe a lasting democracy has to come from within. The iraqi democracy came from an outside source, and I think that will be it's fatal flaw. It has nothing to do with RACE, but a belief that democracies have to have an internal will or movement to sustain it. And if Iraqis had one, I think the US invasion and installation of a democratic government hurt that cause.

Just look at the Iraqi government over 4 years since the invasion... it's not working. They can't come to terms on basic things. We have entire blocks resigning from it. We have a police force that is more loyal to militias than to the government. And i think this is the case because this democracy did not have it's inception with a movement from within Iraqi. There was not a group of Iraqis who banded together and said "we're going to start a democracy in Iraq." What happened was the United States said "we're going to start a democracy in Iraq."

My belief that this democracy was installed and will fail because it was installed has NOTHING to do with race. I would say the same thing if we invaded Sweden and installed a democracy.

Your claims of racism have absolutely zero basis in reality.

And, you can think my initial comment was dishonest and racist. But Captain Ed thought it was a good comment and thanked me for contributing to the site.

or because the Iraqis are incapable of doing themselves, Which. Is. Inherently. Racist.

Johnny, seriously, show me where I say Iraqis are incapable of having a democracy on their own... in fact, my argument is in that Iraqis need to install a democracy on their own, without the US.

The fact that the US made the decision that Iraq was going to be a democracy hurt the cause of democracy in Iraq. Democracy is the government "of the people." When another nation makes the decision that a nation is going to be a democracy, then it's no longer a government "of the people."

To be honest, I don't know how strong the internal will for democracy was inside of Iraq before Hussein was taken out. But I feel the fact that we decided to take out their goverment and set up our own, in the long run, hurt that will because it took it out of the Iraqis hands and made it an American gesture.

But Captain Ed thought it was a good comment and thanked me for contributing to the site.

Then maybe Captain Ed should come down and debate for you, because you are not doing a very good job yourself.

Look ,Tom, I don't know whether you are stubborn, or simply obtuse and not understanding what I'm saying, but it makes debating with you equally tiresome. You are continually demonstrating that you understand neither the definition of "installed" nor "imperialism". Nor "default", for that matter.

We did install a democracy. We removed a dictator, set up an interim government, and appointed people to write a constitution, and set-up elections. That's an installation.

No, what we did was removed a dictator, removed the Baath party set up an interim government, and then allowed the Iraqi people themselves to determine themselves what kind of government they wanted. Everyone agrees on that, even the Carter Center. That is very different from "installing" a government. The Vichy government was an "installed" government, Tom. The French got no say whatsoever, Tom, in going from a democratic republic to a dictatorship. They held no elections. Are you saying the situation is comparable? Because if you are, that's ridiculous. And if you read the Iraqi Constitution, there are provisions even now, which allow them to make changes in their form of governance. And yet they haven't, Tom, which is what I keep pointing out that you are ignoring, whether the Captain is supporting you or not. And they chose a democratic parliamentary style, complete with its own Constitution. I read article where Iraqis were reading John Locke and the Federalist Papers long before the invasion. That is not the same as an "installation".

I told you you have a choice. Either you are saying that we are "installing" a government, and your statements imply that you mean that in doing so we are actually overriding the wishes of the Iraqi people. (as in Vichy France) This is what "boarding imperialist", by which I think you mean "bordering on imperialist" means, Tom. This is not racist, I agree. Its stupid, dishonest, and untrue, but not racist. But as I have said repeatedly, I didn't call you a racist. However, if that isn't what you are saying, which it appears that it is, your alternative to this is that we had to "install" this democracy because the Iraqis were incapable of doing it themselves so we had to do it for them, either because they were too poor, too brown, too backward, or too Muslim. That is racist. Those are your choices. If you're not saying the latter, fine. I didn't say you did. As I said, I think you got all hot and bothered about that for no reason, anyway. But what you can't say is that, "OK, well, the Iraqis did democratically elect their government...twice...but we installed their government.", because obviously that isn't true. I commented in our post that it would be more debatable to suggest that Iraqis chose, but only from the choices we gave them, but even that isn't true. But that isn't what you argued, Tom, you argued that our installation took choices away from Iraqis that they otherwise would have had, when in fact it did the exact opposite.

And yes, there were elections with a great turnout, but as I said before, two elections does not a democracy make.

That's true, but neither did I say it did. It does show, however, that this wasn't an "installation".

I made the comment early on, Tom, that it is fine to oppose the war. It is fine to observe and draw your own opinions from it, but there are legitimate reasons on which to do that. You should not have to make stuff up.

And saying that our invasion of Iraq is comparable to reducing people's choices like the Fairness Doctrine would, Tom, when we have in fact, created a situation where the Iraqis can potentially have and do have much more freedom is dishonest and wrong, and an insult to all the people who have died because they believe its worth fighting for, both American and Iraqi, even if you don't agree with the war.

"So, Yell, do you think Fitzgerald is lying? I think it's pretty clear he's not incompetent (at least to the degree to which he would misinterpret employment history documents.)"

Yes, I think I'll go with that option. I'm not going to take his unsupported word that she made CIA missions out of the country while using her own name. After all, I've already caught him telling the lie that if Libby had made different verbal statements, it would have proved Cheney's knowledge and intent.

Johnny,

OK, so you disagree with me that we installed a democracy. Fine, but again, how is it racist of me to think that?

Did you read what I said? How does race come into the equation?

Johnny, seriously, show me where I say Iraqis are incapable of having a democracy on their own

Tom, seriously, next time actually read some of my posts before commenting.

The fact that the US made the decision that Iraq was going to be a democracy hurt the cause of democracy in Iraq. Democracy is the government "of the people." When another nation makes the decision that a nation is going to be a democracy, then it's no longer a government "of the people."

Tom, as I have already said, this is a laudable and coherent argument. I, for the most part, agree with it. However, this is not only not what happened, it is not what you were arguing either. Your above argument is not the same as "installing" a democracy. If we had truly "installed" a democracy, Tom, the freedoms afforded them by their own Constitution would have allowed it to fail by now. Maybe it will ultimately fail, and you are entitled to hold that opinion. But it won't be because we somehow overrided their actual wishes with our "installation".

your alternative to this is that we had to "install" this democracy because the Iraqis were incapable of doing it themselves so we had to do it for them, either because they were too poor, too brown, too backward, or too Muslim. That is racist.

Johnny, this is YOUR alternative. YOU said this, NOT me. This is YOU mischaratierizing what I said. I HAVE NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THIS NATURE.

MY ARGUMENT IS THE OPPOSITE THAT IRAQIS NEEDED TO INTERNALLY DECIDE TO HAVE A DEMOCRACY, NOT HAVE THE US DECIDE FOR THEM.

I have never said or inferred that Iraqis were incapable of forming their own democracy. I just don't think the will is there right now, part of the reason being push back against the US for forcing their style of government on Iraqis.

Yes, I know they have more freedoms than before and more option. I'm fully aware of this. But that doesn't change the fact that WE decide Iraq would be a democracy. The decision has it's origins in the White House. And I think that is a major reason why Iraqis are not coming together as a unified country right now.

STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

Oh for pity's sake, Tom, do you really have that much difficulty reading? Five times, apparently, is not enough times to say I didn't call you a racist.

Ok, tell you what, I'll revise my initial statement: I'll revise it to say: the argument that we "installed" a government in Iraq could be construed in one sense as racist. I thought that that would have been clear enough from my original comment, but maybe it wasn't. Happy?

But it won't be because we somehow overrided their actual wishes with our "installation".

Again, putting words in my mouth. I have never said we overrode their actual wished. I don't think we know what their actual wishes were/are... that's still to be determined. But right now, a unified democracy doesn't seem to be it.

it is not what you were arguing either.

Uh, yes it is. It's what i've been arguing this entire time.

And, again, please explain how my view is racist...

your alternative to this is that we had to "install" this democracy because the Iraqis were incapable of doing it themselves so we had to do it for them, either because they were too poor, too brown, too backward, or too Muslim. That is racist.

Tom, I must confess, I am truly stunned. Do you really not see in this paragraph than when I use the possessive "your", that I am not referring to you in particular, but rather the choice of alternatives? Because if you really don't comprehend that, then that certainly explains a lot.

Another way to say it would be:

the alternative to this (this referring to the other choice implied by the use of the term "installed") is that we had to "install" this democracy because the Iraqis were incapable of doing it themselves so we had to do it for them, either because they were too poor, too brown, too backward, or too Muslim. That is racist.

I have never said we overrode their actual wished.

That is what "installed", means, Tom.

MY ARGUMENT IS THE OPPOSITE THAT IRAQIS NEEDED TO INTERNALLY DECIDE TO HAVE A DEMOCRACY, NOT HAVE THE US DECIDE FOR THEM.

My God, where is Rod Serling?

They did decide, Tom, that is what it means to have an election and vote on a Constitution.

Happy?

No, because I never gave any inclination that the reason I believe democracy doesn't seem to be taking hold in Iraq is because, as YOU state I believe "because they were too poor, too brown, too backward, or too Muslim"

That last part is ALL YOU. I have never said Iraqis were incapable of installing their own democracy. I have said that I think the only way they will have a democracy is if they did so without the US forcing it upon them.

the argument that we "installed" a government in Iraq could be construed in one sense as racist

Yeah, and the argument that Kevin Durant is the best player in this year's draft could be contrued as racist is someone tacked on "because he's very, very black."

That's what you did with my argument. You inserted the racist point of view. And fuck you again for doing that. Idiot.

Tom, seek help.

That is what "installed", means, Tom.

Install does NOT mean overriding one's wishes, Johnny. Here's the definition:

to place in position or connect for service or use:

And, yes, your explanation does make things seem a little clearer, but still, my use of "installation" DOES NOT default to either overriding the Iraqi people's wishes or your racist alternative.

Installation does not mean overriding wishes. I believe we installed it without KNOWING the iraqi people's wishes. They really didn't have a say in the matter, and THAT'S my entire point.

It's no where NEAR a racist point of view.

as YOU state I believe

sigh....No Tom, I specifically stated no less than seven times that I do NOT believe this, but rather that using the term "installed" can in one sense inherently imply it, whether you realize it or not, as anyone who had read this thread will attest. I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that you still refuse to make that distinction.

And fuck you again for doing that. Idiot.

Ah, I'm sorry Tom, was this "debating the issues until the cows come home" or was this being "level headed?" I'm confused. Either way, does this mean we won't be taking warm showers together anymore? Lol.

Oh, and thanks much for your contribution to the site.

Johnny, the reason why I'm so pissed is that all you've done is characterize what I've said, which is evident in your back tracking.

You say that by using the term installation, that it means the US either overrode the wishes of the Iraqis or had to do so because Iraqis were inherently incapable of doing it themselves.

I find the latter argument idiotic because I've repeatedly said I think Iraqis need to start a democracy on their own.

But there are more than two default options as you claim. One being, we didn't know the wishes of the Iraqis when we installed the democracy and that the fact the WE initiated this form of government, in the long run, takes power (perceived or real) out of the hands of the iraqis and hurts the cause of democracy in Iraq.

From the beginning, you mis-characterized my views by saying they HAD to mean one of two things. That's completely false. that's why I am pissed.

I will apologize for my language, as your explanation of the use of "your" does show me you weren't saying this is what you thought I believed. But it's still an extrapolation of my argument that great mis-characterizes it. THAT'S being dishonest.

Install does NOT mean overriding one's wishes, Johnny. Here's the definition:

In the context in which you are using it, Tom, that's exactly what it means. Please see my Vichy government example. In addition, in common usage, that is how it is understood to be meant, that is, in its "imperialist" connotation.

They really didn't have a say in the matter, and THAT'S my entire point.

And as I have pointed out numerous times, their two elections invalidate that point, as does the character of their Consititution, which it is obvious by your continued comments that you have never bothered to read.

This is my last comment on this subject, as you have made it clear that you cannot be bothered to read, much less actually understand, anything anybody posts.

Again, seek help.

Johnny, I will admitt I didn't do a great job reading all your posts, and I think my misinterpretation of some of what you wrote led to my anger over the racists remarks.

I still think they don't really belong in this conversation, but my anger was unjustified looking back on it. So I apoligize for that. I'm guessing this conversation would have gone much differently if it occurred face to face with less room for misunderstanding.

I'm not conceding my central points, but as you noted, this has gone on long enough, so that's all I will say.

ok, Tom, this is actually my last comment. I appreciate the apology and the recognition that I am actually not calling you a racist, and I genuinely apologize for antagonizing you, however inadvertent it was.

I do not think that I am as much "mischaracterizing" your views as much as I am pointing out that the use of particular terms in particular contexts has particular implications which you are either not recognizing or not admitting. Terms which, when used to analogize the Fairness Doctrine, are not valid, which you will recall, was the start of this. And that perhaps, just perhaps, maybe you should choose a less inflammatory description for what your views actually are and use instead terminology that reflects what you actually think, as opposed to terminology that can be, and usually is, construed to mean something else entirely than what is happening in Iraq.(see again Vichy government)

I'm not sure exactly how you think an elected government takes power out of the hands of the Iraqi people, but I am simply not willing to debate it further. I apologize for antagonizing you.

Not to interrupt the dialogue between Johnny and Tom, but one leftover point:

Tom, quoting Wikipedia, writes, "Non-official cover (NOC) is a term used in espionage (particularly by the CIA) for agents or operatives who assume covert roles in organizations without ties to the government for which they work. Such agents or operatives are typically abbreviated in espionage lingo as a NOC (pronounced "knock").

Joe Wilson's wife, Miz Plame (whom Robert Novak found in Who's Who), commuted to Langley every day. Her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA. That doesn't sound like a NOC to me. If someone at the CIA claimed she was 'covert' or that her status was 'classified', that was clearly factitious.

There was no underlying crime. Should have been the end of the story; instead it became a labyrinth in which Scooter Libby got caught. Liberal icons like Tim Russert managed to sneak out unscathed.

/Mr Lynn

Tom,
The problem of course is that a dictatorship is not a democracy either. Therefore, it wasn't iraqis decisions to impose Sadaam's rule on themselves, so Its kind of hard to complain about an imposed democracy, when you seem to have no problem with Iraqis living under an imposed dictatorship with no end in sight.

Further, if you say give democracy a chance to flourish, rather than impose it, what if it never happens? One of the common traits of dictatorships is their ruthlessness to their opponents, (for example Sadaams treatment of the Kurds). So what if a democratic movement tries to achieve results, but can't because its leaders are all killed off or terrorized? Are we allowed to help by funding and arming freedom movements? or is that more cultural imperialism. and how do we know that those we fund will in fact be democratic once they assume power? Funny, but there's a long track record of the US funding various groups, and having the left say those groups are puppets of the US. who are not freedom fighters but murderous regimes. If we don't fund these opposition groups in any way, does that preclude other countries from funding their opposition groups or the dictatorship? For example, Iran is waging various proxy wars in Iraq, in Israel, in Lebanon, and when Iraq was run by Sadaam it was paying suicide bombers to wage proxy wars against israel etc. it was working with various terrorist groups and training them, housing them and arming them so that they could wage wars against its neighbors and against us. Again, if we do back certain parties, then the left accuses them of beign americas stooges or on americas payroll. Of course if that's off limits, it again, doesn't mean that others wont back their guys to impose their will. And if its not democracy it will be dictatorship or whatever other form of govt gets imposed.

And lets suppose that there is a freedom movement in Iraq and they are somehow magically able to overcome and defeat Sadaam and decide to start democracy. Are they going to be met with 100% approval. What about the Baathists who are still in the country. Are they going to willingly accept that they are no longer in power or are they going to oppose the implementation of democracy. Say 70% of the public wants democracy, but 30% doesn't. Is that 70% of the populace then not imposing its will on the 30%? Is that then democratic?

The point is, whatever form of govt is put in place, it will be imposed on someone, either by us or by someone else, and not everyone will be happy with the decision. Even the most perfect utopia ever conceived in the world still has to be imposed on the populace if its not already in place.

As to the notion that we imposed anything. We had a beef with a regime that was defying the UN, that was belligerent, that trained and armed terrorists and was a threat to its neighbors. We didn't take down Iraq simply to impose democracy. We took down Iraq because we could no longer maintain the status quo with such a regime. However, the byproduct of taking down said regime is democracy for that country.
If we do remove the regime there has to be something in its place. Now you say that's imposing democracy, but as opposed to what? The Baath regime wasn't an imposed dictatorship? How do you get from one to another? Should we simply drop bombs on a country and then when the dust settles accept whatevers there as the new govt? How are we sure that will not be imposed. it most certainly would have to be as in order to get any form of govt up and running some group will have to take control and lead.

If we do take out the previous govt because of whatever reason, then I don't know how you get to a new govt without some imposition on our part. We provided the security, we provided some guidelines, but they're the ones who actually wrote the constiution, elected their leaders and voted for things. If we didn't someone somewhere would have had to impose something on Iraqis. If we're off limits its going to be Iraqs neighbors, and theyre going to try imposing their brand of laws and rules onto the iraqis. If its iraqis themselves then they're going to be fighting over which group will impose which rules on the people. At least when its a democracy they have some say as to how the govt will run.

Now, on the other hand the argument is we shouldn't have taken out the regime in the first place, that at some point they would have become democratic. It's not something we can necessarily count on though is it. In the meantime we'd have to then deal with the status quo as it was, while waiting for something that most likely would never occur on its own, based on some notion that we can't interfere as if we were governed by Star Trek rules. The world doesn't run like that.

If our dealings with a country is so bad that we end up invading them, then obviously mainting the status quo wasn't necessarily a realistic option. And there's no reason on earth why, when its no longer in our interest to maintain the status quo and the negatives of keeping a dictatorship in power outweigh the benefits of dealing with teh problem and removing it once and for all, we would then hold off on dealing with the problem because some day that country might turn democratic on its own.

General Hayden (CIA director nominated by Bush no less) says Plame was covert.