Scooter Libby commuted

[Volourn]

Wat i find funny is I'm no big fan of Bush; but his haters are so asanine, foolish, illogical, and hypocritical in their criticsim of him; they make it *eall* easy for me to support him and me come across more pro Bush than i am.

 

I wanted him to lose the 2000 election, and I like Clinton way more than Bush . Well.. I used to. until his uber supporters went insane.

 

This is another instance where Bush is the Anti Christ despite doing something that pretty much every former President has done as well.

 

*shrug*

[Sand]

Well, I don't think he is the Anti-Christ. Maybe the Anti-Peter or even the Anti-Paul but definitely not the Anti-Christ.

[Guard Dog]

Well, I don't think he is the Anti-Christ. Maybe the Anti-Peter or even the Anti-Paul but definitely not the Anti-Christ.

 

[Pop]

There is no defense, I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. Sand and Pop say they hate Republicans for their corruption but have no problems with corruption from democrats. I don't think Libby deserved a pardon either.

I wasn't exactly jumping for joy when Marc Rich was pardoned. The salt in the wound in this case is how it fits into the bigger picture of above-the-law antics the administration loves so much. And I just love how every conservative pundit on and off the internet pissed and moaned like Libby's sentence was harsh. 30 years for a bag of dope? As it should be. 30 months for obstructing justice and compromising state secrets? Get that man off the cross.

 

But I can still be glad that the Bush administration is 30+ years older than I am, which means that in all likelihood I will have the opportunity to **** on their graves.

[Walsingham]

GD I expect a better defense from you than that. This isn't the fifth grade.

There is no defense, I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. Sand and Pop say they hate Republicans for their corruption but have no problems with corruption from democrats. I don't think Libby deserved a pardon either.

 

*Walinsgham's expression changes to one of alarm as his forward momentum is exploited by GD and he is flung out of the debating ring*

[Kaftan Barlast]

Disrespect for the law? Huh? That's weird. Isn't the President LEGALLY allowed to give pardons, and 'commute' sentences? If so, this was the President upholding and using HIS legal powers. Nothing about disrepecting the law here.

 

 

It is a question of the President stepping all over the judiciary system by using his legal power to pardon a friend of his. And the sentence was not unproportional, IMO, if you consider the sentence he would have got for outing a CIA agent (even if that wasnt actually Libby who did that, but someone at the top)

 

 

If you take this to the extreme: Let's say **** Cheney goes and shoots Patrick Leahy in the face on purpouse, get's sentenced for murder one, and the President commutes his sentence to probation and a fine. That would be legal too, right?

[Walsingham]

It's rather like the Queen having the legal right to call out the Army and change governments. She isn't obliged to listen to parliament. But she doesn't do this because it undermines her legitimacy.

 

This makes me particularly angry because we need strong effective leadership from the USA right now in the global context, and this was a small opportunity to prove Bush wasn't a crony feeding powder monkey*. To rise above critics. This 'proves' everyone's worst fears.

 

 

 

 

* I tried to think of an insult that made sense but none of them were printable.

[Laozi]

On Bush and his almost unwaivering refusal to grant pardons, most Presidents issue the bulk of their pardons in the last few hours of their final term, sidesteping any major scrutiny. Thats a big selling points when scrumming around for campaign contribution, get your boy in office and he'll get you out of jail. Lets wait for Bush to get out of office before we decide who he was in bed with.

 

 

On Libby, the whole point of having a trial now is to get him pardoned. Its a reminder of the power of the office just before the campaigning for the presidency gets into full swing. The best part about doing this way is everybody wins. Well, except that one guy, what was his name? Gosh, I don't even remember that well, must not have been a major player or something.

[Volourn]

"the bigger picture of above-the-law antics the administration loves so much."

 

You seem confused. Bush's actions were presumably LEGAL which means he FOLLOWED the law. Git it?

[Sand]

Sometimes the legal thing to do is not the right thing to do.

[Volourn]

I agree; but that wasn't the issue that some were arguing. They were whining how this proves Bush was going 'above the law' when, in essence, he was following the law.

[Sand]

What proves that Bush was trying to go above the law was him pushing those illegal wire tappings. This is just normal politics. Within the law, but still a questionable act.

[Guard Dog]

What proves that Bush was trying to go above the law was him pushing those illegal wire tappings. This is just normal politics. Within the law, but still a questionable act.

As to the wiretapping, yes they did try to go above the law. That is why we have an independent judiciary. The 4th Circuit Court struck down that part of the Patriot act in 2005. So the system worked after all. Actually, I am amazed. Pretty cool!

[Pop]

"the bigger picture of above-the-law antics the administration loves so much."

 

You seem confused. Bush's actions were presumably LEGAL which means he FOLLOWED the law. Git it?

Do you know what a "signing statement" is, Vol?

 

You play D&D, right? You should know the difference between the letter and spirit of law. The power of pardon is assigned to the President as a check (as in checks and balances, see high school Civics for further detail) against the power of the judiciary branch. He can't strike down a Supreme Court ruling, but he can step in on matters of punitive justice. This doesn't mean he should. A pardon is supposed to be intended for matters in which the judiciary has been overzealous or has ignored mitigating circumstances. Historically, it has instead been used as a tool of political expediency, from the pardoning of Tricky **** Nixon by Ford to the pardoning of the six Reagan officials fingered in Iran-Contra by Bush I on down to the pardoning of billionare fugitive Marc Rich via Clinton. Very rarely has a pardon been meted out to, say, those punished by three-strikes laws, sentenced to effective life sentences for petty shoplifting. This is equivalent to, say, the Supreme Court striking down a law passed by Congress because it cuts into the payroll of the law clerks under the Court.

 

So was the Libby pardon illegal? No, not really. Was it justified? **** no, it wasn't. 30 months is nothing, given the nature of the crime and the minimum security facility Libby would have ended up in. Read the transcript of Bush's speech that he made upon his decision. He openly admits that Libby broke the law. He just feels that, you know, Libby was a loyal friend and he doesn't deserve to be treated so badly. If adverse reaction to this really rubs you the wrong way you're way more obtuse than we give you credit for.

Edited July 4, 2007 by Pop

[Sand]

As to the wiretapping, yes they did try to go above the law. That is why we have an independent judiciary. The 4th Circuit Court struck down that part of the Patriot act in 2005. So the system worked after all. Actually, I am amazed. Pretty cool!

 

I was surprised that it was struck down to tell the truth.

[Meshugger]

Keith Olbermann's head explodes after hearing the news...

[Walsingham]

Holy Crab Nebula! I don't know that guy should be posing as an achorman. But I like his guts.

[Pop]

Keith really, really wants to be Edward R. Murrow. He should be somewhere other than cable news.

[Sand]

WOW! GO GO KEITH!

[Kaftan Barlast]

I think it's time to impeach Bush, seriously, they cannot be allowed to get away with all they have done. From Enron to Iraq to Libby, its insane really.

[Volourn]

He did nothing illegal in the Libby case as far as anyone knows so its not an impeachable offense whether you (or I) like it or not.

 

What does Enron have to do with Bush? I musta missed that.Outside of eveyrone being rich businessfolks and Bush likes the rich business folks.

 

As far as the Iraq war.. while it has obviously been mishandled by EVERYBODY involved; I don't see how that's relaly impeachable either. And, no disagreeing with it is not enough.

[Sand]

We invaded Iraq based on lies from the Bush Administration. Lies that have gotten tens of thousands killed. If that isn't an impeachable offense then nothing is.

[Volourn]

O RLY?

 

It's a lie to state that Hussein was mass murdering his fellow Iraqis? That he had WOMD which was *proven* to be the case since they HAD USED THEM? That he paid suicide bombing terrorists? That he was a threat to the US and its allies?

 

While it's true that not everything was accurtae, and Bush (or those who reported to him) lied about certain things; not everything was a lie. And, i don't think that inofitself is enough for impeachment.

 

Don't bring up Clinton as I opposed his impeachment as well so it won't work..

 

P.S. I am more pro Clinton than Bush which is why I felt the Iraq War wa sjustified as Clinton stated it was when *he* was in office and his constant bombing of Iraq.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Well, impeachment or no, this goverment is without a doubt the biggest gathering of crooks ever to have resided in the white house. If there is no way to throw them out of office, then one needs to be invented.

 

 

he had WOMD which was *proven* to be the case since they HAD USED THEM?

 

Do you have anything to back this statement? As far as I now, the only unconventional weapon he used was mustard gas against the Kurds. And mustard gas is not a WMD by any means.

 

 

 

p.s

 

and yes, I know im not an US-anian.. but since our politics are so boring, Im borrowing yours.. and Volo is a Canardian so i can do it if he can

Edited July 5, 2007 by Kaftan Barlast

[Volourn]

Hmm. I figured mustard gas was considered WMD. Ah well. Did he use some on Iran? If not, than ah well.

 

Anyways, Iraq did have WMD which is why they agreed to destroy them all, and later claimed they did just that without actually proving they had.