Bush pardons Libby, panders to the hard right...

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I see you are still sucking the hind tit of the neokons and klannish, some things never change...

Pretty pathetic watching you defend the neokons and klannish all these years, still incapable of any type of independent thought...

Saxon, the braiwashed...

:( :( :(
More...


....and aren't you the same person who gave Al Gore a total pass on his video about Iraq and Terrorism ties? You said it was ok because he's a career politician and everybody made that smae claim.....yet now, when Bush does one commute ( not pardon)......you want absolutes again....that makes sense...Bush does what every president has done.

By the way...you spelled BRAINWASH wrong.....LOL:D you have to use your BRAIN sometimes before you insult people.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

There is no long thing for Bush apologists, they are at a level that doesn't take long to grasp...
More...

if that were true, then why was he re-elected ?

Are you still upset about the 2000 election results and re-count ?
 
Just apply the same level of scrutiny that's all. Clinton pardoned terrorists for god sakes and a good portion of Clinton's pardons followed a large donation to his library.



"On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations."


Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Still sticking with the red herring as a defense of Bush?

Man oh man, the Bush defenders are like down syndrome pit bulls...
More...
 
I have a better idea....take away the presidential pardon or at the very least....if 60% of senate disapproves....its not granted...It was not set up for this purpose.....it was a way that the president could free patriots...not Libby, McDougal, Rich and Nixon!!!
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I see you are still sucking the hind tit of the neokons and klannish, some things never change...

Pretty pathetic watching you defend the neokons and klannish all these years, still incapable of any type of independent thought...

Saxon, the braiwashed...

:( :( :(
More...

zzz...please call 911 and order this book NOW!!

Logic and Critical Thinking -- Salmon

It will change your life, and maybe even your posts.
 
Quote from OldTrader:

Perhaps you could discuss how this differs from the 140 pardons Clinton gave on January 20, 2001.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/20/clinton.pardon/index.html
More...

George Bush, Feb 2004:

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. . . . If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of. I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job. I want to know the truth. . . . Leaks of classified information are bad things."

At the time I thought "taken care of" meant the person would be severely punished.
 
Quote from ghostzapper:

Bush is a great president. I'm soo glad he was re-elected. I'm not going to get into a long thing w you zzz, but i'd rather fight the al-qaeda and the suicide bombers in Iraq rather than here.

And why has there been no suicide bombing in Israel lately ?? B/c they're all in iraq fighting our troops. Bravo to president Bush for standing up and protecting the USA.

As for babak, he deserves anything I say and more. its not just his crap about Bush, its everything this maggot says. He's a jealous troll. Period.
More...

It is sure nice that the US military and the US taxpayers are helping Israel with their Palestinian pogrom.
 
Quote from Sparohok:


Lewis Libby is going to do JUST FINE. Ruined my ass. The Republican machine takes care of its own. Somehow I don't think the Libbys are going to starve.

Bush commuted the one part of the sentence that largesse and patronage cannot touch.

With that said, ruination is the very least that should happen to a lawyer convicted of perjury and obstructing justice.


What, facts like, he was convicted by a jury of his peers and given a sentence consistent with the sentencing guidelines for his offense?

The prosecutor doesn't declare guilt or innocence. The prosecutor doesn't determine the sentence. The jury could have found him innocent, they could have nullified law if necessary, and the judge can give the minimum sentence. They were all there, they saw all the facts of the case, and Libby was convicted and sentenced. That's how justice works. So where are the egregious facts?

Martin [/B]
More...

I'll explain this once more. Bush called for a special counsel to investigate the apparent leaking of a CIA employees name to the media. The very first day of his tenure, the Special Counsel learned who leaked her name. The Justice Department already knew, as he had turned himself in. At that point, the investigation should have ended. How could the prosecutor have been obstructed when he already had the answer? The prosecution is even less justifiable than one like the Martha Stewart case where there was no underlying crime to obstruct. Here there was not only no underlying crime, but there was no obstruction. It was purely a made-up crime so that the ambitious prosecutor would not look like a failure.

I don't respect the jury's verdict. The trial was purely a swearing match between a committed democrat journalist, Tim russert, and Libby. Absent some sort of recording, there is no reason to accept one's version over the other. Russert had at least as great a motivation to lie as Libby. Even if you accept Russert's version, that doesn't mean that Libby was lying. He could have just been mistaken.

Libby wouldn't have been in this situation without the intense partisan attacks on the White House over this. Sending a guy to jail for three years because he got caught in a political crossfire doesn't seem fair to me. To others, everyone connected to this administration is fair game and should be sent to prison on any pretext.
 
Even if we take it as a given that:

1) the leak began and ended with Armitage (which does not appear to be the case)...
2) Fitzgerald could have known without further investigation that the leak began and ended with Armitage (which is implausible), and...
3) nobody else in the administration mentioned Plame to journalists (which is obviously false)...

...that still would not excuse Libby of lying to a grand jury. He was not coerced, he was not entrapped; he lied under oath.

The grand jury's job is to determine whether a case should go to trial. Sometimes they determine that there is sufficient evidence for trial; sometimes there isn't. Either way, however, witnesses to the grand jury are compelled to uphold their oath. Just because the grand jury fails to indict does not mean that anyone should get a free pass on perjury or obstruction.

Here's a simple analogy. If you see a traffic accident, and you decide based on what you saw that no crime was committed, that doesn't mean that you can lie to the cops (or the jury) about what you saw. Whether or not there is an underlying crime, your lies are every bit as serious and subversive of justice.

Martin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top