PDA

View Full Version : Just when you thought Bush couldn't surprise you...



Pages : [1] 2 3

Salem
07-03-2007, 10:51 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6263616.stm
Someone should ask Bush how many other criminal cases he's reviewed recently and whether any of those were incorrect in his expert "legal" opinion.

Govtcheez
07-03-2007, 10:53 AM
Pfft, that's not a surprise at all.

Dollars to doughnuts he's completely pardoned when Bush leaves office and never even has to pay that fine

indigo0086
07-03-2007, 10:53 AM
All I know is the Daily Show and Colbert Report will be kickass tomorrow.

Kennedy
07-03-2007, 10:58 AM
It is the President's right to pardon anyone he chooses. This has been done numerous times in the past -- and on both sides of the political arena. For example, Alabama was to execute a guy from my town under the drug king pen laws, however, Slick Willie pardoned him to life in prison -- the stupid jerk.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether Bush has an "expert "legal" opinion" or if he is just protecting his friends.

Bajanine
07-03-2007, 11:01 AM
I am never surprised by politicians any more! ;)

Govtcheez
07-03-2007, 11:06 AM
It is the President's right to pardon anyone he chooses. This has been done numerous times in the past -- and on both sides of the political arena. For example, Alabama was to execute a guy from my town under the drug king pen laws, however, Slick Willie pardoned him to life in prison -- the stupid jerk.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether Bush has an "expert "legal" opinion" or if he is just protecting his friends.
No one's saying it's not his right. That doesn't make the cronyism any less transparent, though.

Also, when does "but Clinton did this!" stop being a legitimate excuse in GOP eyes everytime Bush does something bad?

Kennedy
07-03-2007, 11:46 AM
everytime Bush does something bad?

Please define "bad"?

Govtcheez
07-03-2007, 11:49 AM
Basically every time he's done something that everyone (outside of the 20% of the country too dumb to stop supporting) agrees is a bad thing. Hell, I even heard it used as justification for the war.

"but but but clinton fired some cruise missiles there!"

Libby lies to a grand jury about blowing a covert operative's cover and you hear "but clinton lied about getting head!" like it's the same thing. It's an equivalency fallacy, and not even a very good one.

Kennedy
07-03-2007, 11:58 AM
All politicians are the same -- PERIOD. It is EXTREMELY funny to see the bleeding heart liberals, like yourself, getting all bent out of shape when the "other side" does something "bad".

Govtcheez
07-03-2007, 12:02 PM
Funny, I don't see how thinking Bush is a terribly corrupt President makes me a "bleeding heart liberal".

But hey, if you don't have a real argument and can't address points you may as well start calling people names. By your logic about 70-80% of the country are "bleeding heart liberals"

Mario F.
07-03-2007, 01:02 PM
Personally, I feel like I'm inside a anti-smoke commercial everytime someone calls me liberal.
They do it with a purpose, you know. "Liberal!"... no they actually do it more like "LIBERAL!!". As if being liberal was a disease. You liberal rotten you. Get away from me!

It really confuses me to no end. I like liberal. In fact I'm liberal on the side when I'm feeling political and conservatives happen to be too loud. And I like smoking too. Oh, and I usually like conservatives if they happen to be on mini-skirts.


All politicians are the same -- PERIOD.
So Bush is the same too?


President Bush described as "excessive" the 30-month sentence Libby was facing for obstructing an inquiry into the leaking of a CIA agent's name.

When you have a president that passes judgment on court decisions, and makes that judgment public, you already have a problem.

When the president then goes and acts according to that judgment, it's immoral.

Kennedy
07-03-2007, 01:07 PM
> So Bush is the same too?
Yes -- He is way too far left for me.

>When the president then goes and acts according to that judgment, it's immoral.
Therein lies the problem of the US -- moral decline.

Govtcheez
07-03-2007, 02:00 PM
> Yes -- He is way too far left for me.

Who would be a good candidate? If not a specific person, a list of qualities would be good.

Kennedy
07-03-2007, 03:04 PM
>a list of qualities would be good.

Willing to do the job w/out pay -- NOT H. Ross, though -- so that the $$ isn't the issue.
Willing to put out an agenda that would revamp G'mnt -- get rid of pork, remove the pay from the congress (let the states pay the congress reps, in place of it coming out of the general Federal Fund), then we get to set the pay rates of the reps.
FOLLOW the agenda.
One that isn't a lawyer already -- ~90% lawyer == crook.
Has a good record of being very moral.
Raises children well -- kids are well behaved, and are old enough so that you and I see them well behaved throughout their life.
Sound financial practices within family/business</current political office>
Cannot easily be enticed based on the almighty dollar.

the list goes on and on.

BobMcGee123
07-03-2007, 03:17 PM
feminist lesbians are harder to fight than attractive females...and the fat ones are harder to kidnap.

Boosh can do anything he wants that is one of the perks of being president, stop complaining...unpatriotic scum.

robwhit
07-03-2007, 03:21 PM
BobMcGee123 I don't think you're aware of the fact that America has three branches of government which specifically limit the President's and others' power. So, no, he can't legally do /anything/ he wants.

Mario F.
07-03-2007, 03:23 PM
He just did

Govtcheez
07-03-2007, 03:23 PM
> so that the $$ isn't the issue.

You really think people spend millions of dollars running for president so they can collect a $400K/year salary? I'd imagine that's a pay cut to the vast majority of people running.

> get rid of pork

Dependent on Congress almost completely

> remove the pay from the congress

I'm pretty sure that's beyond the power of the President. Besides, he'd have to get them to approve it.

> let the states pay the congress reps, in place of it coming out of the general Federal Fund

I'm not totally against this, it's a neat idea

> we get to set the pay rates of the reps.

Last time I checked no one asked me what I wanted our state reps to be paid.

> One that isn't a lawyer already -- ~90&#37; lawyer == crook.

:rolleyes:

> Has a good record of being very moral.

Who decides what's moral?

> Raises children well -- kids are well behaved, and are old enough so that you and I see them well behaved throughout their life.

How the heck does this affect a person's ability to govern the most powerful country in the world?

> Sound financial practices within family/business</current political office>

Definitely

> Cannot easily be enticed based on the almighty dollar.

Definitely, but good luck with that one

Mario F.
07-03-2007, 03:28 PM
> Raises children well -- kids are well behaved, and are old enough so that you and I see them well behaved throughout their life.

How the heck does this affect a person's ability to govern the most powerful country in the world?

You really understand nothing of american society. If I were your president you and the whole liberals you represent would be shot on sight you scum.

Govtcheez
07-03-2007, 03:30 PM
You really understand nothing of american society. If I were your president you and the whole liberals you represent would be shot on sight you scum.
Cristiano Ronaldo is the worst thing to happen to football since Mexico discovered the game

robwhit
07-03-2007, 03:31 PM
He just didIt is in the legal power of the President to pardon people. It's also something that Governors can do. Whether they should or not is a question of opinion, not legality.

Mario F.
07-03-2007, 03:39 PM
Cristiano Ronaldo is the worst thing to happen to football since Mexico discovered the game

The thing with trying to strike an argument with you is that sooner or later you will end up saying something that while even maybe not being true, I can' help but agree.

bah!

QuestionC
07-03-2007, 04:41 PM
It is the President's right to pardon anyone he chooses. This has been done numerous times in the past -- and on both sides of the political arena. For example, Alabama was to execute a guy from my town under the drug king pen laws, however, Slick Willie pardoned him to life in prison -- the stupid jerk.

I don't know the details of this particular pardon, but this sounds like an example of appropriate use of presidential pardon. The executive is granted the exceptional power to override judges or laws on a per-criminal basis. Feeling that drug crimes did not merit a death sentence, Clinton exercised these powers.
It gives the executive a check on the judicial and legislative. If you have a problem with it, you have a problem with the American system of government. I'm a fan of it personally.

If you want something to compare it to something, compare it to Susan McDougal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal)'s pardon by Clinton, as she had possibly covered up for Clinton.


In any case, I just hope that Bush gets raked over the coals for this. At the very least, he's going to be confronted with the question "Why" an awful lot.

MacGyver
07-03-2007, 05:33 PM
I, for one, am disappointed that Libby only received a commuted sentence. He should have received a full pardon imo. The entire case was prejudiced against Mr. Libby because he was Cheney's aide.

The whole case was a travesty of justice. The crime in question never occurred. If there was a crime, it was perpetrated by Richard Armitage, a liberal, who leaked the name in question to Novak. So why isn't Armitage charged with anything? Because there was no crime, and no intent to harm anyone.

Throughout the investigation the administration put up with all kinds of accusations, specifically directed at Karl Rove, Bush's aide. Since the driving force behind this investigation could not go after Bush's aide, they went after Cheney's aide. Mr. Libby had no reason to lie. He wasn't even charged with a crime, and there is still no accusation of him actually doing anything wrong, other than lying for a crime that he never committed and actually never happened.

Since the left-wing partisan investigation team couldn't pin anything on the Mario, they went for the Luigi. If this was just a game, it could be played, but the liberals in this case are playing with a man's life. Mr. Libby has an acceptional record throughout his entire life that is now tarnished by the rabid desire of the left to injure the Bush administration.

Bush should have pardoned him because this should never have taken place.

Mario F.
07-03-2007, 05:41 PM
Of course! It's a cabala against the good folks in power.

MacGyver
07-03-2007, 05:51 PM
It's nice you can joke about this when a man's reputation is being trashed because of political crap. I'm guessing you prefer to make fun of it because you lack the means and ability to debate.

Mario F.
07-03-2007, 05:59 PM
Don't get personal mate. It's all right.

However, I can't really debate with you. Not when your input to the debate has some pearls like "The whole case was a travesty of justice", "the driving force behind this investigation", "the left-wing partisan investigation team", and "rabid desire of the left to injure the Bush administration"

You obviously have your mind made up and no manner of debate will remove you from your righteous and holly place. So, I move on to other matters and keep making fun of the whole affair.

As for the reputation of the person in question, his verticality, honor, outstanding service sheet and medals and other nice things he probably has hanging at his office, I'm sorry if I don't give a rat's arse. ok?

Daved
07-03-2007, 06:04 PM
>> Bush should have pardoned him because this should never have taken place.
If I'm not mistaken, he was convicted by a jury and he was allowed to defend himself before that jury. They apparently thought he committed a crime.

>> It's nice you can joke about this when a man's reputation is being trashed because of political crap. I'm guessing you prefer to make fun of it because you lack the means and ability to debate.
If joking on a programming forum about a subject tangential to a discussion about a man who was convicted of a crime yet still has his health and family and will certainly not become destitute because of his situation is not appropriate, then at what point is it ever ok to joke? And since when is it required of someone who wishes to make a comment in a discussion to debate the topic in detail?

MacGyver
07-03-2007, 06:07 PM
However, I can't really debate with you. Not when your input to the debate has some pearls like "The whole case was a travesty of justice", "the driving force behind this investigation", "the left-wing partisan investigation team", and "rabid desire of the left to injure the Bush administration"

I don't usually debate with people to change their mind. More often than not, I debate to change the mind of the people who are ignorant of the issues but watching said debate. :)


You obviously have your mind made up and no manner of debate will remove you from your righteous and holly place. So, I move on to other matters and keep making fun of the whole affair.

Would you prefer to debate a weak-minded opponent who is unsure of his present position? If you take a position on an issue, you should definitely think your position is right. Are you surprised I'm sure of myself?

You can better tell if your position can withstand scrutiny, when dealing with a knowledgable and able adversary, though I do not claim to be one.


As for the reputation of the person in question, his verticality, honor, outstanding service sheet and medals and other nice things he probably has hanging at his office, I'm sorry if I don't give a rat's arse. ok?

This is a major problem imo, because too many people are willing to let Mr. Libby fry and rot because they just don't give a care.

But such is life. :(


>> Bush should have pardoned him because this should never have taken place.
If I'm not mistaken, he was convicted by a jury and he was allowed to defend himself before that jury. They apparently thought he committed a crime.

He was also limitted in his defense to said jury. Members of that jury also made statements which displayed a complete bias against Mr. Libby by stating that they believed Karl Rove was behind it all. That's stupid. Rove had nothing to do with it, and to say such as a juror for the case you've heard shows you to be a biased idiot.

In addition, one jury memeber even said that they believed Libby should be pardoned. So there goes that.


>> It's nice you can joke about this when a man's reputation is being trashed because of political crap. I'm guessing you prefer to make fun of it because you lack the means and ability to debate.
If joking on a programming forum about a subject tangential to a discussion about a man who was convicted of a crime yet still has his health and family and will certainly not become destitute because of his situation is not appropriate, then at what point is it ever ok to joke? And since when is it required of someone who wishes to make a comment in a discussion to debate the topic in detail?

It always amazes me that people start serious discussions here, and then when the subject matter reflects the seriousness of the subject, people revert to saying it's a programming forum, with a given reasoning being that we shouldn't discuss something from so serious an angle. Let's not start the discussion if we can't handle the seriousness of something. Many of us can be called programmers, and some pretend to be, but regardless, being a programmer has a prerequisite of thinking logically (to some extent). Such should enable us to hold political discussions with some level of seriousness.

With that said, I just found it irritating that Mario is willing to make fun of a man that has dedicated so much of his life to public service, and yet was caught up in a witch hunt, where there wasn't any witch, at least not on the Republican side.

Tell jokes. Make fun of the man's circumstance... Just do not expect any sympathy from the world if such an event befalls you.

Dave_Sinkula
07-03-2007, 06:24 PM
@Kennedy: Ron Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul)? Fred Thompson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Fred_Thompson)?

[edit]Other takes on the commutation:
YES, FREE LIBBY (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTJmNWMxZGMyNDI1Y2YzODE2ZTRiMjhiZTk2N2E0OGQ=)
Fitzgerald's Folly, A Textbook Case for a Speedy Pardon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030801499.html)

Daved
07-03-2007, 06:27 PM
>> It always amazes me that people start serious discussions here, and then when the subject matter reflects the seriousness of the subject, people revert to saying it's a programming forum, with a given reasoning being that we shouldn't discuss something from so serious an angle.

In this case you are talking about two different people. Just because one, two or ten people want a serious discussion, does not make it inappropriate, especially in this forum, for others to chime in with less than completely serious responses. Nobody said that you cannot discuss something from a serious angle. I only challenged you for calling out someone who chooses not to join the serious side of the discussion.

Sometimes people are extra sensitive to certain situations for whatever reason. If that's the case here, simply asking people not to joke would be acceptable. Otherwise, I think this is the wrong place to expect everybody to be completely serious.

Mario F.
07-03-2007, 06:35 PM
Ok... I'll make an effort...

> too many people are willing to let Mr. Libby fry and rot because they just don't give a care

Naturally you don't match in kind your worry for the Plame's couple. Understandable considering your obvious position on this matter.

> Would you prefer to debate a weak-minded opponent who is unsure of his present position?

Of course! You said so yourself... where is it?... ah! here... "More often than not, I debate to change the mind of the people who are ignorant of the issues but watching said debate."

> You can better tell if your position can withstand scrutiny, when dealing with a knowledgable and able adversary, though I do not claim to be one.

If you don't claim to be one, why the adjectives on your initial post? I'm confused.

> But such is life.

Life is thankfully a lot more, at least to me than debating passionately about some person I don't know in a country not my own. But I'll do you the effort and tell you what I think (dispassionately)

First a disclaimer: I'm not American. I was once called one. Or rather said to look like an American. I did take great offense at the time since I was spending my vacations in a trailer park. I'm an European, Portuguese to be more exact.

And that is my bias. You see... at least over here the system is a lot different. A president or a prime-minister commenting on a judge decision would see him out the door next elections. The separation between the judicial and executive power is very dear to the society in general.

Naturally there are presidential pardons just like over there. But these are a lot more complicated than simply the president deciding this person or that person should be pardoned. It happens once an year, by christmas time if memory serves me right.

It is however impossible for a president to pardon someone from the executive. It's like a contest; everyone can buy the raffles, except for the employees.

So... anyways... Mr Libby faced trial. He had an opportunity to defend himself which he did as you and I (yes, there was coverage over here) know. He was convicted of perjury. And not you, or I or Bush can change that. It's all fine you say there was no crime. But then go the extra mile if you please and condemn not only the left wing but also the entire American judicial system. Oh and Bush too. Since nowhere he says Libby didn't commit perjury. Unless you are saying perjury is not a crime.

And what happens next? The president pushes the judicial system aside and declares he knows better and the sentence was too harsh. Naturally, things can't be that different over there than they are here. And thinks like appeals, higher instance courts and even the Supreme court happen to exist in America, don't they? Don't answer.

So... in the end, a President overpowered the judicial system and took matters on his own hands. On some obscure African country we would call this ... But in America you say he did the right thing.

crvenkapa
07-03-2007, 07:22 PM
I hate politics.All polliticians are liers and ..............s.That all from me on this thread.

Dave_Sinkula
07-03-2007, 07:22 PM
So... anyways... Mr Libby faced trial. He had an opportunity to defend himself which he did as you and I (yes, there was coverage over here) know. He was convicted of perjury. And not you, or I or Bush can change that. It's all fine you say there was no crime. But then go the extra mile if you please and condemn not only the left wing but also the entire American judicial system. Oh and Bush too. Since nowhere he says Libby didn't commit perjury. Unless you are saying perjury is not a crime.Obstructing justice in the prosecution of a non-crime? Lying under oath in testimony related to the prosecution of a non-crime?

Stalin, among others, had show trials too. Those folks had an opportunity to 'defend' themselves.

MacGyver
07-03-2007, 07:31 PM
Ok... I'll make an effort...

Much obliged. :)


> too many people are willing to let Mr. Libby fry and rot because they just don't give a care

Naturally you don't match in kind your worry for the Plame's couple. Understandable considering your obvious position on this matter.

Why should I feel sorry for Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson?

It was Plame that moved to get her husband into Africa, and Wilson that threw his hat into the political arena by writing an article blasting the administration for the trip he took. Everyone wanted to know who the @#$# Joe Wilson was, writing an article for a newspaper blasting the administration for some secret journey he took. Did he seriously not think that eventually people would connect him to his wife?


> Would you prefer to debate a weak-minded opponent who is unsure of his present position?

Of course! You said so yourself... where is it?... ah! here... "More often than not, I debate to change the mind of the people who are ignorant of the issues but watching said debate."

I think you mistake my meaning. I prefer to have a real debate with people on issues where the folks who are watching the debate, not participating, may learn from it.

So, no, I did not say that.


> You can better tell if your position can withstand scrutiny, when dealing with a knowledgable and able adversary, though I do not claim to be one.

If you don't claim to be one, why the adjectives on your initial post? I'm confused.

I don't know what you're referring to, but my comment was based upon the idea of how good can come from debating someone who is convinced he's right. ;)


> But such is life.

Life is thankfully a lot more, at least to me than debating passionately about some person I don't know in a country not my own. But I'll do you the effort and tell you what I think (dispassionately)

First a disclaimer: I'm not American. I was once called one. Or rather said to look like an American. I did take great offense at the time since I was spending my vacations in a trailer park. I'm an European, Portuguese to be more exact.

And that is my bias. You see... at least over here the system is a lot different. A president or a prime-minister commenting on a judge decision would see him out the door next elections. The separation between the judicial and executive power is very dear to the society in general.

Naturally there are presidential pardons just like over there. But these are a lot more complicated than simply the president deciding this person or that person should be pardoned. It happens once an year, by christmas time if memory serves me right.

It is however impossible for a president to pardon someone from the executive. It's like a contest; everyone can buy the raffles, except for the employees.

The US government was designed so each branch could keep an eye on another in some manner. The Legislative keeps a check on the Executive, which keeps a check on the Judicial, which keeps a check on the Legislative. That was the intent and design.

If your only problem with the case is the system of government that the United States has, that's not a major problem, but I hope Mr. Libby does not suffer your good opinion on that dislike alone. :)


So... anyways... Mr Libby faced trial. He had an opportunity to defend himself which he did as you and I (yes, there was coverage over here) know. He was convicted of perjury. And not you, or I or Bush can change that. It's all fine you say there was no crime. But then go the extra mile if you please and condemn not only the left wing but also the entire American judicial system. Oh and Bush too. Since nowhere he says Libby didn't commit perjury. Unless you are saying perjury is not a crime.

As I said before, his ability to defend himself was hampered greatly by the judge in the case. He was not allowed to display a real defense. He couldn't even be allowed to mention who Novak's real leak was, if I remember correcting. He wasn't allowed to show that he had no real reason to lie.


And what happens next? The president pushes the judicial system aside and declares he knows better and the sentence was too harsh. Naturally, things can't be that different over there than they are here. And thinks like appeals, higher instance courts and even the Supreme court happen to exist in America, don't they? Don't answer.

This has been going on for over 200 years. I hope you stated your objections during the other US pardons that have occurred in your lifetime. :)

In addition, you stated yourself that your own country has a process to receive a pardon, albeit more complicated.

Other countries have the same thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon

I don't understand why in America the pardon process appears illegal in your eyes, but in other countries, such as your own, it's fine. If I'm misunderstanding you, please help me out.


So... in the end, a President overpowered the judicial system and took matters on his own hands.

The Constitution of the United States grants this power, hence there is no "overpowering" that was not intended by the writers. The Constitution lays out the rules and allows this explicitly. The Executive Branch of government is supposed to keep an eye on the Judicial Branch. This is why it's the President of the United States that selects and appoints judges, and not Congress. Congress is meant to make sure the President doesn't go out of line, and the Supreme Court is meant to make sure Congress doesn't make any bad, inherently illegal laws.


On some obscure African country we would call this ... But in America you say he did the right thing.

Please continue. I'd love to hear it. :)

Edit:

BTW, this is an excellent article on the subject (that actually Dave_Sinkula posted on page 2):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030801499.html

This particular case is as disgusting to me as the Duke case, and the overeagerness of the prosecutor to find a crime is not too unstrikingly similar.

Govtcheez
07-03-2007, 10:35 PM
Ron Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul)?
The candidate of choice for David Duke AND Scientology! Awesome!

Dave_Sinkula
07-03-2007, 10:47 PM
I shudder to ask what the choice of the left might be.
:rolleyes:

Govtcheez
07-03-2007, 10:51 PM
I haven't heard of any major democratic candidates that are endorsed by cults-masquerading-as-religions or major white supremacist leaders

Thantos
07-03-2007, 10:51 PM
And not you, or I or Bush can change that
*cough*nor*cough*


The Executive Branch of government is supposed to keep an eye on the Judicial Branch. This is why it's the President of the United States that selects and appoints judges, and not Congress. Congress is meant to make sure the President doesn't go out of line, and the Supreme Court is meant to make sure Congress doesn't make any bad, inherently illegal laws.
Actually, each branch is suppose to balance out both of the other branches. Congress has certain powers over the President and the Courts, the courts have certain powers over the President and Congress, and the President has certain powers over Congress and the Courts.


As for this subject of this topic: I don't think anyone was surprised. Like it or not this is within the powers given to the President. Modern Presidents have pardon/commuted hundreds of people each during their term. Most go without notice.

Dave_Sinkula
07-03-2007, 10:52 PM
I haven't heard of any major democratic candidates that are endorsed by cults-masquerading-as-religions or major white supremacist leadersWuss.

Thantos
07-03-2007, 10:55 PM
cults-masquerading-as-religions
Have you been talking to the German government (http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/25/cruise.germany.reut/index.html) again?

Govtcheez
07-03-2007, 11:04 PM
Have you been talking to the German government (http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/25/cruise.germany.reut/index.html) again?
Nope, talking from personal experience here

anonytmouse
07-03-2007, 11:08 PM
I haven't read all the posts but are you talking about that guy who got into trouble for exposing the super secret military space-plane, and then got pardoned by the president at the last minute? I saw a documentary about it.

Govtcheez
07-03-2007, 11:13 PM
I haven't read all the posts but are you talking about that guy who got into trouble for exposing the super secret military space-plane, and then got pardoned by the president at the last minute? I saw a documentary about it.Um... no.

I think you meant to say "I haven't read any of the posts or the article in the first post"

MacGyver
07-03-2007, 11:24 PM
I haven't heard of any major democratic candidates that are endorsed by cults-masquerading-as-religions or major white supremacist leaders

Too bad Robert Byrd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd) isn't a candidate. He was even anti-war on the grounds he would refuse to fight beside someone black. Tried to scuttle the Civil Rights Act of 1964.... Used the N word in 2001 in poor taste, and only in 1982 decided that parents love their children no matter their race. So apparently before that he didn't think blacks had feelings either, I guess, since apparently we know he didn't have any.

Yup.

Good candidate.

David Duke would be proud.

:rolleyes:

novacain
07-04-2007, 12:15 AM
A skeptical observer could say that;
Libby’s motivation to lie was to protect someone higher up (or the administration).

Libby threatened to expose that person (or the administration) if he went to prison.

That ‘higher up’ arranged for Libby’s sentence to be commuted to protect themselves (or the administration).

Either way, it appears (to the outside observer) that US ‘justice’ is based not on the decision of the courts, but by whom you know.

Hilton can get out because the bars don’t go with her outfit.
Libby can lie to a grand jury and get away with a slap on the wrist (the fine is nothing compared to the amount he earns).

This seemed a balanced view of the result;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/06/DI2007030600559.html


Washington Post: Will Libby get a pardon?
Jeralyn Merritt: That is anyone's guess. Mine would be that if Libby maintains his silence and stoically goes off to do any sentence the judge imposes, he will get one before Bush leaves office. But, that's a political opinion, not a legal one.

Dave_Sinkula
07-04-2007, 12:18 AM
Another skeptical observer could say that a man was convicted of no crime for trying to prevent a de facto coup d'etat by this CIA on the US government. But who's to say?

MacGyver
07-04-2007, 12:55 AM
A skeptical observer could say that;
Libby’s motivation to lie was to protect someone higher up (or the administration).

If it's so obvious Libby is covering up a crime by someone else, Fitzgerald wouldn't have pulled a Nifong. He would have chosen who to indict by means of who performed the crime, not someone with a bad memory. In addition, the judge in this case was completely biased against Libby by throwing out the option for the defense to bring in evidence that was supposed to show Russert's memory was just as crappy as or even worse than Libby's. Libby should never have been charged, let alone convicted.

It was already well know the other reporters and people in the case couldn't remember a freaking thing, and they all testified different things. No one was charged but Libby, and it was because of political bias.

The absurdity of this becomes a little more clear when we realize that we know for a fact Libby was not covering up Novak's primary source because we know who Novak's primary source was: Richard Armitage.

So where was the crime in the Bush administration? Who was the higher up that invented this plan? The left-wing ate this entire story up from the beginning as an opportunity to get at Bush, and it turned out they screwed up in jumping to conclusions and ranting all day and night that Karl Rove was going to get burned. Apparently some couldn't let it go, and they had to make it look good, and Libby took the fall because they couldn't get at anyone bigger, so they picked on a decent guy that just couldn't remember what happened when.

g4j31a5
07-04-2007, 01:37 AM
So does this mean the government is above the law? I guess the statement power tends to corrupt is true after all. :rolleyes:

laserlight
07-04-2007, 02:26 AM
So does this mean the government is above the law?
No, since the law empowered the executive branch of that government to do what it did.