"Can't...type...laughing...too...hard...."

Really? And just what makes this so damn funny? American, specifically Democrats and Inddependents, have to stop laughing at this "fool." None of anything he does is funny.

"Can't...type...laughing...too...hard...."

Really? And just what makes this so damn funny? Americans, specifically Democrats and Inddependents, have to stop laughing at this "fool." None of anything he does is funny.

In a just world we'd round this crew up and devise a way to put a large quantity of wood, nails and rope to good use.

What renman said. Part of the problem is that people in the know are treating this like an inside joke.

In anycase, everyone compares this to Clinton. Why doesn't anyone compare this with Old Bush's Iran Contra pardons? They're almost perfectly equivalent.

Problem is the lesson learned: Everyone is whining about how bad things are getting if Bush gets away with this, but a Bush did get away and is still getting away with this 15 years ago.

oh another post on the great commutation crisis of 2007?

For a non-hysterical take, here's Tim Noah in Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2169718/

At least USA Today got it right this time. All of Snow's spin should be kept on the opinion pages - leave the front page for facts.

Oh poor Scooter....he won't be able to find any work and he has to pay that $250,000 It will be devastating.

Counterpoint: Paul Wolfowitz already has welfare post at the American Enterprise Institute

Counterpoint #2: Friends of Scooter (most of whom made their millions due to a frenzied attachment to the GOP teat) have already raised $5 million for his defense fund....$250,000 is chump change.

Counterpoint #3: Fred Thompson has been a leader in the fund raising effort. Same Fred Thompson whom, we now learn, served as an active mole for the Nixon White House as a member of the Senate Watergate committee.

I am gaining appreciation for the horrible things we've done to Paris Hilton.

If Bush had had a human mother he would have known better.

"George, if Billy went and jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"

At first I was thinking the USA today should get a moderator to delete, edit, or highlight the hell out of the op-ed.

But when I read it in it's complete form it becomes clear that it is written with the pure genius. There is a parody troll trapped in the whitehouse press secretary's body.

Maybe 25 million requests for comutation would get his attention.Come on lawyers send yours in now.That would be funny.

[Bush] did what he does normally, and what makes those of us who work for him proud.

Does anyone else think Snow is making a sort of insider snide remark here?

What Bush does normally:

Sloughs off the attempt to get his attention onto terrorist threats by bin Laden before 9/11 with the words:
"Now you've covered your ass."

Manages the invasion of Aghanistan so that we fail to get bin Laden and then invade Iraq so the
Taliban rise again.

Invades Iraq with all the competent planning displayed by the Three Stooges.

Keeps doubling down in Iraq with other people's lives and money.

Makes an ass of himself with his Social Security plan.

Fails to deal competently with the slow-motion disaster of Katrina.

Lies about conducting warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

Pretends for as long as possible that there is doubt about the human effect on global warming to allow maximum corporate depredations on our environment.

Stacks the Justice Department with partisan attorneys.

Insists that an obviously corrupt and incompetent man stay as Attorney General.

Makes an ass of himself with his Immigration Bill.

The list goes on and on.

Is Snow really proud of George's "normal" performance? I think it's a slam. But the Boy King won't get it.

B: There is a parody troll trapped in the whitehouse press secretary's body.

Brain share!

That has got to be the most absurd defense possible.

I really love the "Clinton did it too" paragraph. Of course, that is Tony Snow's trademark. That and lying.

Bush has become the #1 defense witness for crooks on trial for perjury and obstruction. Criminals and their lawyers rejoice, prosecutors hang their heads.

"But I felt like the 30-month sentencing was severe; made a judgment, a considered judgment that I believe is the right decision to make in this case, and I stand by it," the president said.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2007/07/the-libby-motio.html

The Libby Motion

Clearly, every criminal defense lawyer who practices in the white collar arena is asking him or herself - why shouldn't my client have this same privilege? After all the client may have been convicted of a perjury or obstruction charge, may have children, may be suffering the collateral consequences of the loss of a law license, may have served their country - perhaps in war, and may be a first offender. Should they not receive the same sentence of "no time."

This whole article smells funny to me. Why have Tony Snow write it? Are they out of lawyers at the White House these days? Can they come up with no real, overriding reasons, other than the President (The Decider TM) has the right to, and besides, Clinton did it too?

That's beyond pathetic on all counts. I'm suspicious that almost nobody in the White House knew this was coming, that Dick and Fred Fielding wrote the whole commutation themselves, put it under Bush's nose for his signature, and let the chips fall wherever.

Now the staff, as usual, have to run behind and clean up the mess as best they can.

But still...the press secretary is writing op-eds? WTF?

Psssst:

Rita wasn't a first time offender. His previous crime (making false statements as it happens) might not directly affect his sentencing, but he has been convicted of at least one other crime. See this: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/07/rita-and-libby.html

As for the Libby motion, I'm sure all of our Federal judges have enough balls to say that if defendents want to be treated like Libby, all they have to do is petition the President and see where it gets them. The Constitution doesn't give judges the power to commute sentence after all, that's the President perogative.

So until they hears from the President the defendents are going to treat by the judge like judges treat defendents, not Presidents.

Something in the "Clinton did it, too!!" retort seems little commented on. For 8 years Republicans branded every move by Clinton as crude, inept, traitorous or illegal. Clinton was possibly the anti-Christ. Now, how in the hell does it make sense to link anything he did with something Bush does? And to imply some sort of legal/moral/ethical equivilancy is merited? And aren't they now saying that what Clinton did, once reprehensible and worthy of being driven from office, is OK? Pardoning Marc Rich is now OK because commuting Libby is also OK? I for one am happy Libby's plight has served to rehabilitate Clinton in the eyes of Republicans.

Mario,

In the case you describe not filing a "Libby Motion" is probably malpractice.

Here is another example of Tony Snow lying. He is way beyond spin. He just makes it up.

In a just world we'd round this crew up and devise a way to put a large quantity of wood, nails and rope to good use.

Now, steve, let's not go overboard.

Tar and feathers would do nicely.

Libby's sentence no worse than others
...But records show that the Justice Department under the Bush administration frequently has sought sentences that are as long, or longer, in cases similar to Libby's. Three-fourths of the 198 defendants sentenced in federal court last year for obstruction of justice — one of four crimes Libby was found guilty of in March — got some prison time. According to federal data, the average sentence defendants received for that charge alone was 70 months.
Just last week, the Supreme Court upheld a 33-month prison sentence for a decorated Army veteran who was convicted of lying to a federal agent about buying a machine gun. The veteran had a record of public service — fighting in Vietnam and the Gulf War — and no criminal record. But Justice Department lawyers argued his prison term should stand because it fit within the federal sentencing guidelines....

Edward has it wrong: there are three Americas: the best for Republicans, the second best for their wealthy supporters, and the worst for Democrats, peons and people of color.

Normally? The president routinely spends weeks and weeks mulling over commutation applications that haven't even been filed?

Yeah, here's what Bush does "normally":

During Bush's six years as governor 150 men and two women were executed in Texas—a record unmatched by any other governor in modern American history. Each time a person was sentenced to death, Bush received from his legal counsel a document summarizing the facts of the case, usually on the morning of the day scheduled for the execution, and was then briefed on those facts by his counsel; based on this information Bush allowed the execution to proceed in all cases but one. The first fifty-seven of these summaries were prepared by Gonzales...

...Gonzales's summaries were Bush's primary source of information in deciding whether someone would live or die. Each is only three to seven pages long and generally consists of little more than a brief description of the crime, a paragraph or two on the defendant's personal background, and a condensed legal history. Although the summaries rarely make a recommendation for or against execution, many have a clear prosecutorial bias, and all seem to assume that if an appeals court rejected one or another of a defendant's claims, there is no conceivable rationale for the governor to revisit that claim. This assumption ignores one of the most basic reasons for clemency: the fact that the justice system makes mistakes.

A close examination of the Gonzales memoranda suggests that Governor Bush frequently approved executions based on only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute. In fact, in these documents Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence.

....Gonzales usually presented an execution summary to the governor on the day of an execution and...as he has acknowledged, his briefings typically lasted no more than thirty minutes - far too little time for a serious discussion of a complex clemency plea. Bush's appointment calendar for the morning of Washington's execution shows a half-hour slot marked "Al G—Execution."

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200307/berlow

Of course they "have nothing", but they don't really NEED anything except power -- and they know they have that for the next 19 months. The only reason they deigned even to throw out this thin fig leaf was as boob-bait for the Fundies, a few of whom might turn against Bush if he said flat-out: "Yeah, I'm a gangster. What are you gonna do about it?" President Cheney, I imagine, wouldn't have done that much -- or issued any public explanation for his actions at all.

Looking at the recent Presidential pardon statistics, Clinton doesn't look too bad:

Clinton: 456
Bush I: 77
Reagan: 406
Carter: 566
Ford: 409 (in 3 years)
Nixon: 926 (in 5 years)

Also, I believe the one-day record is still held by Nixon, with 204 pardons at the end of his first term.

Snow - cherry-picker. But we knew that; he worked for Faux News.

Now, steve, let's not go overboard.
Tar and feathers would do nicely.
Posted by: Gregory on July 5, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gregory, Bush has conducted a campaign of genocide against civilian populations in Afghanistan and Iraq. He's flouted the Geneva Conventions, directing acts of torture and illegal detainment. He's ordered the destruction of wide swaths of foreign lands through the use of depleted uranium munitions, poisoning the enviroment and peoples for many generations to come. He's prevented enactment of methods and procedures for oversight of funds dispensed in his wars. The result has been untold billions of taxpayer money lost, stolen or diverted to persons doing little or no work in return. Hanging is too good for him. Dozens in his employ deserve the same fate.

Uh, mhrrr, ("We'll take the gold and frankincense, but you can keep the mhrrr.") check the subject again, will ya? Bot software error!

The president was not motivated by politics in making this decision.

Lordy. This conjures an image of Tony Snowjob saying this in front of a camera during some movie-type outtakes and just busting up. Say the line, struggle to remain serious, and then just lose it.

Pathetic. And instead of getting me uber-pissed at these fuckwads, I find myself uber-pissed at the lack of concern by the American Idol and Brangelina obsessed fans everywhere.

Strick writes:

"I'm sure all of our Federal judges have enough balls to say that if defendents want to be treated like Libby, all they have to do is petition the President and see where it gets them"

Juries can be as fair as they want to be and federal prosecutors are already speaking out.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-libby4jul04,1,2591950,full.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

Several federal prosecutors interviewed by The Times also said they were concerned that Bush's decision would send the wrong message to judges, giving them reason to lighten sentences and undermining the goal of a more uniform justice system.

"Consistency and fidelity to the law are extraordinarily important. We have expended a lot of credibility to get judges to buy off on this," said one senior federal prosecutor who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue.

"I don't know how I am going to advise my people," the prosecutor said. "I cannot tell you how depressed and disgusted people are around here with this decision. It really undercuts law enforcement."

Though Libby's sentence may have seemed overly harsh to the president, it comes at a time when courts are upholding stiff sentences. In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld by a 5-4 vote California's "Three Strikes" law and affirmed a life sentence for a petty thief whose third offense was stealing videotapes from a K-Mart.

Former members of the Bush administration have been sentenced to jail time in circumstances roughly analogous to those of Libby.

A former federal procurement official, David H. Safavian, was sentenced to 18 months in October for lying and concealing his dealings with GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Late last month, a federal judge sentenced J. Steven Griles, the former second-ranking official in the Interior Department, to 10 months in prison for obstructing a Senate investigation into his dealings with Abramoff.

EHT: Lordy. This conjures an image of Tony Snowjob saying this in front of a camera during some movie-type outtakes and just busting up. Say the line, struggle to remain serious, and then just lose it.

Very good point. That's why he had to make his points in the uncharacteristic form of an op-ed. He never could have kept a straight face delivering it in a live statement to the press.

Why can't we impeach the stupid VP and his presidential face? It's not funny any more.

This administration boldfaces lies and when they're done lying, they lie somemore - Snow didn't provide an excuse, explaination - he didn't even try too. Snow explained nothing and really I'm tired of laughing about issue of national security - it isn't funny - I want Bush and Dick Cheney impeached. I want them impeached.

This administration lies about war, it lies about everything, turns the DOj into witchhunt tool for Dem congress members, violates the oath of office to protect the US Constitution with wiretapping and torture, and it's no laughing matter.

It’s time to talk about matters of impeachment. We have more than enought to move toward impeachment.

*[Bush] believes pardons and commutations should reflect a genuine determination to strengthen the rule of law and increase public faith in government.*

It's one of the key traits of the Bush Admin, illustrating how they took an example from the Clinton days, and improved upon it -- immensely.

Clinton's approach to any charge -- "Just deny it".

Bush's approach to any charge -- "Assert the opposite".

Well put, but you make one warranted assumption, which is that Snow was "given" 382 words. Probably he was offered or asked to write an editorial, and told (given his exalted status) to write whatever he wanted, no problem. Tt's short most likely not because some editor cut him off but because, as you said, he really has nothing to say.

"...382 words isn't much..."

The Gettysburg Address was 269 words.
Just saying.

"The president was not motivated by politics in making this decision."

I actually believe this. I think the Little Emperor was motivated to cover his ass and keep Scooter from testifying against him and the Big Dick.

This commutation should be the basis for a formal impeachment of the president. It's the only legal remedy we have at the moment.

But then again if a certain magazine's editors and owner had focused on the bottomless Abu Ghraib details in Spring 2004, we wouldn't be here now. Ahem!

If W learned anything from his old man it was to keep the guys out of jail who could out you there.

MHR: "I can only suppose that those alleged doctors were engaged (allegedly) in 'killing the infidel for allah.' "

Yep. Which is just further evidence that, when you're fighting Voldemort, it's very unwise to choose Cornelius Fudge as your President.

Walter: Bush should have given Libby a full pardon and an apology, fired Fitznifong and given the CIA 24 hours to either submit complete evidence of Plame's legal standing as a covert agent or the resignations of anyone who alluded to her status as covert. Sandy Burglar, Sandy Burglar, Sandy Burglar, Sandy Burglar, Sandy Burglar, Sandy Burglar.

Take. More. Meds. Now. Walter.

Did anybody read the Slate article referenced above by Timothy Noah?

Can anybody who has done so not see that Timothy Noah is a worthless piece of shit?

His excuse for pardoning Libby? That Clinton got away with lying about Monica.

Forgetting about the fact that the lie was about blowjobs and nothing more, how about the little difference that Clinton was NEVER CONVICTED of perjury or obstruction of justice.

I read stuff like Noah's crap and I have no doubt but that the reason the press is so wretched is because they are so stupid. Obviously, there are no real standards for admission to that sorry lot than an adequate command of the English language. Careful thinking, analytical ability, common sense, and the capability of seeing things in their proper perspective have no bearing on one's prominence in that profession.

Really, the man is a disgrace.

Al's true identity revealed!

Well, Tony Snow is right about one thing in that piece he wrote, Bush clearly did not do this for partisan political reasons. No, he did it for self-serving reasons, primarily to avoid being tried sentenced and convicted for his part in (at the minimum) being an accomplice after the fact in the conspiracy to cover-up the involvement of Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and others (possibly including himself in terms of providing suggestions and/or a promise of commutation/pardon if anyone is caught by the law for their crimes so that they do not see one second in jail) in the deliberate outing of the highly classified identity of a as covert as you can get CIA spy, the former NOC Valerie Plame Wilson. This commutation is a direct example of GWB aiding in Libby's obstruction of justice and perjury for which he was convicted and for which the only rational/reasonable reason for was to protect his bosses Cheney and Bush. After all, Libby lied not just about what he didn't remember but what he claimed he did remember, as was show in his trial by NINE different witnesses including several of his co-workers and not just reporters as some would have folks think. Bush only commuted for now to keep Libby out of jail (clearly afraid that otherwise Libby and/or Libby's wife would start spilling their secrets to the public or worse Fitzgerald) and is waiting until after the next election to complete the pay off for Libby's active lying and obstructing the tracing back (in a provable in court manner that is, in terms of hding it altogether that has already failed thanks to Libby's trial) to Cheney and possibly Bush himself of their campaign to out a true American patriot (as any NOC is, given that they place not just their own lives but all those they care about in risk if their true profession is ever revealed as it was with VPW, which btw means that unlike Libby's kids hers were placed at risk for retaliation by foreign governments and agencies when her cover was sold out by Bushco) for at best the partisan purposes of trying to discredit a critic with the credentials to be taken seriously when discussing the many lies that made up the nuclear case for war with Iraq.

Aside from that though Snow is completely in fantasyland with this op-ed, not like that is any surprise given how far into making their own reality the Bush WH has been all along. I would make one other point, and that is this nonsense trying to use Clinton as some sort of equivalency talking point so as to try and claim Dems have no moral authority/credibility to be upset with this. When the GOP can point to any commutation/pardon of a senior member of Clinton's WH who was working there right until they were indicted for the crimes which they were subsequently convicted (which given the indictments and subsequent convictions were because Libby actively lied and obstructed the investigation into the actions of the absolute top level of the Administration only underscores that Libby could only have lied and obstructed to protect his two bosses Cheney and Bush whereas no such similar example exists in the Clinton history in the WH) then they would have an argument. The problem for the GOPers though is that there is no such comparison. Trying to use the rash of pardons Clinton did at the end of his term is yet more deception in play, as that has always been the main period when Presidents make the most controversial pardons they hand out, as Bush41 did, Reagan did etc. Indeed, one must look back to Bush 41 to find the last reasonable and comparable example to the Libby commutation when he pardoned his former co-workers in the Reagan WH for their respective roles in the Iran-Contra scandal. Yet this is something the GOPers do not want Americans to remember, gee I can't ever imagine why not given all their repeated avowals of how the truth is all that matters and how they are the only honest truth-tellers unlike all those filthy lying Dems. (Last sentence is HEAVILY sarcastic for those unable to tell)

No, this was not a politically motivated commutation, this was the act of a fellow conspirator protecting himself from being charged by his loyal flunky who took the fall for perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation to prevent those that headed the conspiracy from facing their proper just rewards, being charged, tried, convicted and sentenced for their heinous act of treachery in destroying a critical network of intelligence assets dealing with nuclear counter-proliferation in a time of Bush declared war. What is usually the punishment for those that betray spies of their nation in times of war historically, I wonder, could that be what Bush is truly afraid of and why he acted so swiftly Monday mere hours after Libby's last chance to avoid ANY jail time (since the last two courts Libby could have appealed to would not be sitting until after a month or so after Libby was to report to begin serving his time)? Clearly Bushco is clearly afraid that even that short a period of time was going to be too much to keep Libby onside and staying silent about the criminal actions taken by Cheney and clearly endorsed if not before the fact by Bush then after the fact by his actions and inactions around all this.

Bush's commutation of Libby makes every one of Nixon's bad acts look trivial by comparison, because it tied Bush directly into the effort to cover-up the outing of a national security asset during times of war, while Nixon just spied on his political enemies (not a minor thing, but let's face it by comparison it is relatively so to what Bushco did with Plame). This is clearly the most criminally minded Presidency in American history and will undoubtedly be remembered as such, if not by America herself then by the rest of the world that watched in horror and increasing disgust during Bush's first term, and then watching with absolutely revulsion as Bush was "re-elected" in 2004 even after Abu Ghraib had come out (partially anyways since it has still not been fully revealed to this day) and that Iraq clearly posed no threat to anyone outside its borders and had no WMDs, be the chemical, biological and especially nuclear. That there was not a massive rejection of Bush in 2004 is what tarred the American people with his sins, because while you did not know what you were getting in 2000 (and Bush being selected not elected that year also helped in this regard) there was no excuse that Americans did not know (or should have known given all that was in the public domain by this point) what Bush was, someone entirely unfit to hold the office he holds and someone that has taken the American Constitution and used it as toilet paper and who took America's moral credibility and honour earned (especially from the Cold War and WWII) and completely destroyed it.

The Libby commutation is only one more example of how America is run by a criminal organization headed by Cheney-Bush (clearly Cheney is the brains in this outfit) that places nothing more sacred than their own power and certainly not the basic laws and rules of the nation and certainly not the American Constitution. Which among so many other things makes them all Oath breakers, and for this if no other reason I hope the Christian idea of Hell exists because Oath breakers are ranked as some of the worst and treated accordingly, and this crew has much to answer for not just in this world but the next as well.

In my post above, "His excuse for pardoning Libby?"

Should read, "His excuse for commuting Libby's sentence?"

Not, of course, that there's much of a substantial difference in "punishment" between a full pardon and the commutation issued. In fact, of course, since pardons are almost always handed out AFTER some punishment has been incurred, it's in fact the other way around in this case.

Just to follow up on my previous post, there's a rather important point to press here.

Namely, the idea is put out that commuting Libby's sentence imposes more punishment than a full pardon would.

But this is actually in virtually every case, if not indeed every case, simply false. In fact, virtually every pardon is issued only AFTER some time in prison has been endured. In fact, a commutation BEFOREHAND exacts far less punishment than does a pardon afterwards.

So when wingnuts and fellow enablers like Timothy Noah act as though Libby's not getting off easy, it's important to point out what a phony argument that is.

Not, of course, that there's much of a substantial difference in "punishment" between a full pardon and the commutation issued.

There is of course a substantial difference between pardon and commutation. Pardon is a carrot, commutation is a carrot on a stick. It tells Libby that there will be a reward for continuing to keep his mouth shut.

Watching from the sidelines the last several days, I think I am beginning to understand why Bush commuted Libby's sentence.

Tony Snow is Right! It is so hypocritical for us to criticize Bush for this, and yet we never said one word when Al Gore's chief of staff was convicted of perjury in connection with outing a covert CIA operative, only to have Clinton commute his sentence in a clearly politically motivated act, because it's just.....

....wait a minute.....

Watching from the sidelines the last several days, I think I am beginning to understand why Bush commuted Libby's sentence.

Oh, don't stop there, Yancey! By all means share your ruggedly individualist opinion with us!

Somehow I don't expect that by "watching from the sidelines" you've become convinced that Bush is engaging in a cover-up.

"Watching from the sidelines the last several days, I think I am beginning to understand why Bush commuted Libby's sentence." Posted by: Yancey Ward on July 5, 2007 at 3:02 PM

If that understanding is anything other than he is protecting his own legal ass then you are either a moron, deluded, ignorant, or a liar. Libby repeatedly lied and perjured himself into a national security investigation launched at the request of the GOP controlled CIA to the GOP (for the first three months by Ashcroft himself) controlled DoJ (which clearly agreed that Plame was covert otherwise the investigation would have died right there) and was prosecuted by an independent (politically speaking) US Attorney appointed by GWB (and who has a solid track record in prosecuting successfully corruption charges on both GOP and Dem targets as well as terrorism convictions in the 1993 WTC bombing, hardly a partisan political operator despite the claims by Libby/Bush defenders to the contrary) successfully demonstrated the legal necessity of subpoenaing journalists according to DoJ rules, indicted Libby and tried him under a GOP judge whose three judicial appointments were by Reagan, Bush41 and Bush43 respectively, and Libby's denial of staying out on bond/bail while appealing said convictions was turned down unanimously by a three judge panel, two of whom were GOP appointees and one of those two the man that put Ken Starr in the position to conduct his witch-hunt into Bill Clinton. Therefore the idea that there is any partisan basis to this investigation and subsequent prosecution and successful conviction of Libby is complete and utter nonsense.

The idea that Libby, a lawyer himself that has worked in the government many years and knows all about the rules in dealing with classified information, perjured himself so extensively and obstructed justice by accident is ludicrous, it had to be by intent. Now, what intent other than to protect his bosses, Cheney and GWB can there be? Come on Yancey Ward tell us what other reason would Libby knowingly have lied, perjured and obstructed justice for in a national security investigation?!? The only reason Libby would do what he did was to protect them, which makes the commutation of Libby's jail time before he served a second of it (which apparently is unprecedented in the history of Presidential commutations, and even in the case of pardons applied to people after they have been conviction since there were some pardons pre conviction like Bush41 and Weinberger) a further act of obstruction by denying Fitzgerald the pressure of serving jail time to convince a convict to talk to try and reduce their sentences. BTW, go read Wolfowitz's letter to judge Reggie Walton pleading for probation for Libby, in it he tells a story of how Libby talked to a journalist to prevent that reporter from identifying a CIA operative, as it shows he knew *EXACTLY* what he was doing when he started leaking about Valerie Plame Wilson to reporters himself and how wrong it was and how harmful to national security it was. It really is that simple Yancey, and no amount of trying to blame anyone other than Libby, Cheney, and Bush himself for the entirely reasonable and understandable firestorm this act of self serving treachery can change that fact.

General:

What is it with GOPers and blaming the victims of their smears/attacks/actions for daring to fight back by not simply lying down and accepting that whatever the GOPers say is true no matter how extremely false/wrong it actually/really is? I just cannot understand that mindset, and I pray I never do, for that way lies true evil no matter in what "noble/moral" ideology/agenda/Faith it claims to be in service to.

Scotian,

Libby lied to protect himself. He did so stupidly since everyone else who disclosed the same information to reporters managed not to get themselves indicted. In some cases, those people had not told the truth, or the whole truth, but still managed to avoid prosecution by coming clean eventually.

The idea that Libby had to lie, in the manner in which he did, to protect Cheney or Bush is simply ludicrous. It simply makes no sense whatsoever. Libby could have simply told the truth about his conversations with the reporters, but then claimed that he did not remember where he learned his information, and Fitzgerald would have had no recourse to do anything to him other than to try to prosecute him for revealing Plame's position. I suspect that Libby lied because he was afraid of being prosecuted for the leak itself. It might even be possible that he knew better than others what her status actually was, or knew better than others the potential legal ramifications of leaking her identity. I don't know why he did it, but if the goal was to protect higher ups, there were far more effective ways to lie than this amateurish method.

As for what I meant when I wrote that I was beginning to understand why Bush commuted the sentence, I was making an subtle joke, but apparently it was too subtle. In any case, I will let it stand at that.

yancy: amateurish

that pretty much describes the entire administration since day-1...

Yancey Ward:

Libby lied because he was afraid the truth would get him convicted eh Yancey? So does that mean you are saying that Libby lied because he was the original leaker of Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA identity? Are you saying then that this WH kept in it's employ for 2 years a man they knew to have broken such serious laws as the IIPA and violated national security protocols and his signed statement that all WH employees must sign that states they will not release nor confirm any possibly classified information until they have verified with a security officer that in fact that it is acceptable to do so?

Yancey, this is nonsensical from you. Your explanations run from Libby being actually guilty of the offence being investigated that he lied, perjured, and obstructed in, or that he was such a clumsy liar that even with his repeated visits to the Grand Jury he was unable to get out from under these charges unlike Karl Rove?!? You are telling us all that Scooter Libby is not as smart as Rove where the law is concerned despite being a lawyer where Rove is not and having the experience in national security affairs unlike Rove AND knowing exactly why one never names a covert operative as shown by his own actions in the letter to judge Walton from Wolfowitz pleading for no jail time for Libby? Come on Yancey, you cannot be so stupid as to believe that makes any sense whatsoever. According to your "logic/reasoning" Libby is guilty of the crime (which since GOPers defending Libby and Bush's actions in this love claiming there was no underlying crime is at least at different than the usual defence) Fitzgerald was tasked with investigating a serious national security criminal act that Libby lied in to prevent being charged with that offence (innocent men have no reason to lie especially in such an investigation, and since Libby was NOT facing a partisan prosecutor run by a opposition controlled agency/body unlike Clinton he had no reason to fear a partisan witch-hunt from Fitzgerald so that reason for lying is invalid despite the repeated attempts by Libby defenders to paint Fitzgerald as an out of control rogue partisan prosecutor) or he is totally incompetent as a lawyer and so ignorant of national security protocols (despite his clear history to the contrary) that he failed to see he was setting himself up for these indictments and convictions. That he not only felt he didn't remember things but that he also created out of whole cloth explanations that would absolve him of the underlying crime makes it impossible to believe (at least in the reality based world) that he was doing anything other than avoiding being charged for the underlying crime himself and given how he obtained Plame's CIA information as shown in the Libby trial he was also protecting Cheney at the minimum.

So sorry Yancey Ward, your rebuttal is as weak in logic and sense as Bush's claim that 30 months for 2 counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice in a national security criminal investigation is "excessive". Indeed, Bush by doing this before Libby was in jail a second for his crimes is stating by his actions that *ANY* jail time for these convictions is "excessive". Why are you being such an apologist for these clearly heinous acts?

Don't do Clinton comparisons either; there are none that are comparable in neither scope nor offensiveness than this one. You have to go back to GHWB's pardoning of the Iran-Contra six to find anything comparable.

The idea that Libby had to lie, in the manner in which he did, to protect Cheney or Bush is simply ludicrous. It simply makes no sense whatsoever.

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. Libby lied to protect Cheney, to obstruct Fitzgerald's investigation into whether Cheney knew of Plames's covert status when he authorized the leak.

Libby could have simply told the truth about his conversations with the reporters, but then claimed that he did not remember where he learned his information, and Fitzgerald would have had no recourse to do anything to him other than to try to prosecute him for revealing Plame's position.

Yes, indeed, so why didn't he? Libby has offered no plausible explanation for why he lied.

I suspect that Libby lied because he was afraid of being prosecuted for the leak itself.

Libby knew full well what the relevant IIPA statute said. If he was afraid of being prosecuted for the leak itself it had to be because he broke the law, which makes his perjury and obstruction more rather than less serious.

It might even be possible that he knew better than others what her status actually was, or knew better than others the potential legal ramifications of leaking her identity.

Again, if so, this makes him doubly guilty.

I don't know why he did it, but if the goal was to protect higher ups, there were far more effective ways to lie than this amateurish method.

On the contrary, it was quite effective -- the investigation dead-ended at Libby, and Fitzgerald was never able to prove Libby and Cheney's knowledge of Plame's covert status due to Libby's obstruction.

As for the Libby motion, I'm sure all of our Federal judges have enough balls to say that if defendents want to be treated like Libby, all they have to do is petition the President and see where it gets them.

Libby didn't petition the President.

I think Yancey Ward's comment that Libby could have slip-slided his way out of this is correct. As it was, I think Scooter actually was "foggy on the details" and also blundered his way into a conviction. I'm not saying he's pure -- few in Washington are, after all (see Saint Murtha for one example of many many) -- but his legal strategy was flawed and he got himself outmaneuvered. It was a chess match that Wilson/Plame/Fitzgerald won smartly, but it was only a penny ante contest.

I think we could go down the list of recent presidents and find other moves that are at least comparable, and argue until the cows come home about which one trumps which other one.

Politics is a dirty, nasty business, and governance is increasingly political. Therefore, governance is increasingly dirty and nasty. Our choice is to demand (at the polling places) a wholesale change in Washington, both parties. If we fail to try, or try and fail, it will be like the movie Groundhog Day. The political affiliation of the "righteously indignant" may change, but the indignation will continue and be well justified.

For starters, we need to sever our addiction to Bushes and Clintons living in the White House and repudiate their fellow travelers. That's a first step, not necessarily sufficient but necessary.

Its not called a "Snow"-job for nothin'!

Its not called a "Snow"-job for nothin'!

….I think we could go down the list of recent presidents… Politics is a dirty, nasty business, and governance is increasingly political. .Terry Ott at 12:47 AM

If you examine recent presidential actions, you will find that only a couple pardoned for cover-up: Bush and Bush. Furthermore, with the last Bush, as everyone has said, all decisions in this White House are political. Consequently, if you remove the possibility that any more Bush's will take over the White House, you lower the odds of similar actions occurring in the future.

Before you can cause any change, you have to be certain all votes are counted, all eligible voters can vote, and factual information gets to the voter: not just corporate and 527 bushshit spin.