« Illegal Alien Plans "Campaign of Resistance" | Main | Beeb Admits We Aren't All Idiots »

Man, when this was announced yesterday, the Left went into total moonbat meltdown. It was great. A pardon would have sent them over the edge.

I wonder if Bush did it just to elicit the response that it got. That would be great.

"Hey, moonbats, watch what I can do."

It's interesting that there's such a blog explosion over Bush's "my cronies don't do jail" decision. I'm seeing 1000+ responses on some and I hear the White House phone lines and all but shut down. Hat tip for your 2.

"Hey, moonbats, watch what I can do."--------Perhaps that this impressive style of governance is what keeps you 20 something percent entertained.

You want to see an "impressive style of governance"? Check out the impressive list of people pardoned by Pres. Clinton.

A discussion on whether presidents should have the power to pardon, or who they should pardon, is fine. But the complete and unashamed hypocrisy of the left by condemning Bush and excusing Clinton for purely political reasons is inexcusable and embarrassing.

Not that commuting sentence on a victim of a political hit job is in any way comparable to complete pardoning of Marc Rich. But the left is funny that way.

It's interesting (if not disturbing) that the best justification the Republicans can come up with for partisan favoritism is that they are just as much scum bags as the Democrats.

Hey Ron,

Stick a fork in it, man. Libby deserved to be pardoned, since the "rat" was already known by the special prosecutor before investigating. It was the ultimate "gotcha", payback for the impeachment hearings.

What a sham... kind of like the administration that HRC would run if she (very doubtful) becomes President.

I'd be interested to know if you really believe partisan favoritism is wrong no matter who does it, or if you think Bush is inherintly evil while giving a pass to Democrats.

Speak up.

I think partisan favoritism is wrong regardless of who does it AND I think that Bush is indeed evil. That's neither here nor there in this matter.

I can agree that Libby was railroaded into his predicament. I can also concur that he really shouldn't have had to testify like he did. But, he was there and he did testify and at the end of the day, he was convicted by a jury of his peers to lying under oath. This forum seems to imply that that's just fine as long as he was on our side as the other side does it too. Well, it wasn't ok for the other side in my book nor is it ok for Libby. If one can go before the grand jury and lie while knowing that he/she will be exonerated, our investigations and justice department just took a serious credibility hit. But then again, credibility and accountability isn't exactly the Bush administration's long suit.

Bob, to elaborate, I think that Bergar should have served time. I also think Bill Clinton should have been jailed too---even tho his testimony on his cigar shenanigans had nothing whatsoever to do with Whitewater. When you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth AND you're aware that that's the law, you should be held accountable for blatantly disregarding said law. This should apply to me, you, and all Americans, regardless of political favoritism. Do you not agree? Please enlighten me young man.

Berger wasn't convicted by "a jury of his peers," at all. Putzgerald really had to shop around to get one that would deliver the results that he wanted, and the verdict would have undoubtedly been overturned on appeal. Sorta like that other anti-Repug incident down in Tejas.

Ron,

First of all, the Bergar and Clinton cases are not on par with the Libby case. In the first two, serious misconduct was being investigated (especially with Bergar... but you wouldn't know that from the MSM, now would you?).

Just exactly what was really being investigated in the Libby case? The prosecutor already knew who "ratted" out Plame... AND it was also known that she technically wasn't even covert at the time... so no crime was even committed in the first place. Is that really a valid exammple of our system of justice at work?

That's why I used the work "sham", because it was a pointless waste of tax dollars and time. It wouldn't even matter if Libby (if true - not proven) "thought" he was committing a crime about her, since she was not covert. Pointless.

Look, I am all for justice being served, but in this case, it was a joke. There was no crime committed - period - by anyone prior to the investigation beginning. So in my book, the ends do not justify the means - sorry.

And don't get me started on Joe Wilson - he's contradicted himself so many times, his integrity is meaningless.

And I don't know why you chose to characterize me as a "young man", as odds are that I am considerable older than you :-)

Ok Bob, so if one assumes or perhaps it's obvious that their summons to court is unjustified, it's ok to lie? Um, I can lie under oath as this is really a bunch of crap anyways? ? Once again for fear of you misunderstanding-----> ?

What's amusing about this ordeal is that you and Libby loyalist have at best 2 arguments: 1) He shouldn't have been put through this so it's ok that he lied under oath and 2) It's ok that he lied considering the Democrats shortcomings. Somewhere, the law of the land needs to apply to all, regardless of their inconvenience or their political status. You seem to come up short in that perspective.

Ron - you assume that since a DC jury found Libby guilty - then he is guilty.

What you ignore, at your own risk - is that the whole process was tainted, and Libby is very likely to be vindicated at a higher level.

DC juries are notoriously liberal - willing to give a pass to Democrats while finding Republicans guilty.

The judge in the case deserves impeachment, in my opinion. He should have thrown the case out - because there was an immediate realization that Libby lacked any "mens rea" - intent to commit a crime - in this case.

Libby could have shucked and jived and "I don't remember" (like the 2 Clintons did all the time between 1993 and 2001, while skillfully lying and evading the collection of truths about a number of serious issues, including ChiComm funding of the DNC, aiding ChiComm missile technology, aiding of ChiComm nuclear weapons technology, etc.) But Libby made an attempt to answer questions - and he didn't answer questions in a manner that matched Tim Russert. There is absolutely NO way to prove who remembered correctly, and there is absolutely NO proof that one recollection is right, and the other recollection is criminally wrong. An incorrect memory, in this case, did NOT affect the ability to collect the truth - because the damned Nifong-type Special Prosecuter KNEW at the beginning who leaked the name (hint - it was Richard Armitage, not Libby.)

So - a good comparison - someone phones in about a bank robbery, and someone suggests that you were across the street acting as an agent of the robbers, ready to tell them that the police were on the way. During investigations, you are questioned about what you were doing there across the bank, why you were there, etc. Somewhere during the questioning (years later) - you mis-state stuff, and the prosecutor has someone else who contradicts your statements. So he prosecutes you and after millions of dollars of legal fees, he wants you to go to jail for 2 1/2 years and pay $250,000. But underlying the whole investigation is that a bank robbery never occurred (an incorrect tip), and nothing you did was illegal ...except the trumped up charge that you hindered an investigation, when the investigator knew that a) there was no crime committed, but b) if he kept questioning you, he might trip you up on a non-relevant fact.

If you think that FitzFong did anything ethical, then you must be a Democrat who wants BigBrother, Inc. to return to power - and Hillary Clinton to take over. Our freedoms and our country will be in even worse shape!!

Mike

Ron,

First - sorry to burst your bubble, but I have no loyalty to Libby - there you go again, characterizing me when you really should just stick to the facts.

Second - no, it's not ok to lie. However, what I am saying is that the investigation should not have happened in the first place.

Think of it this way - suppose that I know for a fact that someone else murdered your wife, but I am going to announce to the world that I am going to investigate you for that murder, without telling anyone that I know differently. I am going to repeatedly test your ability to remember, over several interviews spread out over time, all the while not doing one thing about the press going wild day after day about you being investigated for the murder.

And in the end, I get a jury to convict you of perjury because you tried to answer all questions but I found some "aha!" inconsistencies to brand you a liar.

Does that sound fair, Ron? Maybe in your book, but not in mine.

It seems that it is YOU who are coming up short with that perspective, Ron.

Funny how selective memory works as you've elected to omit the Reagan/Iran Contra "I don't remember" statements. Oh well, a man does seem to see what he wants.

Yes, I do have this concept that when a jury of ones peers says that someone is guilty, that removes the assumption that their not. There are exceptions but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Your assessments of the jury's competence and the justification for the trial seems to contradict the President as he said that although Libby was guilty, the punishment was too severe. Amusingly, he felt a zero penalty was more appropriate(please don't even start with the 250k being relevant).

Your bank robber analogy is at best, retarded. The leak is and should have been a serious matter. In reality, it was indeed an effort to stifle the fact that Iraq did not and could not get uranium from Africa. Accordingly, the investigation was indeed justified.

As usual, Ron, you have missed the point again... and thnaks for throwing in yet another characterization ("at best, retarded") that seems to permeate your gibberish.

The prosecutor was not investigating uranium in Africa; he was investigating the source of a supposed felonious leak that (a) wasn't felonious and (b) he already knew who leaked the name (which is funny, since Plame wasn't covert at the time). But I guess you just admitted why you were in favor of this investigation.

So it's quite simple... so much so that I will leave you to ranting on the other blogs that you do so quite often.

See ya, Ron.