Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Bush

At Huffpo's request, I put together several of my strands of thought on the Libby commutation, added a few and put them in a single post, Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Bush.

Update: The Washington Post reports Bush didn't run the decision through DOJ channels.

Here's the video of Marcy Wheeler on Hardball.

The New York Times castigates Bush for Libby's commutation:

Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.

< Very Special Treatment | Squaring These Circular Statements >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Just More Proof... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by JHFarr on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:06:20 AM EST
    ... that nothing short of impeachment and conviction will stop these people. Dodd and Pelosi are dead, dead wrong: the American people need to see an impeachment trial, so we know there's still something to believe in.

    Anything else is like the Democrats are commuting Bush's sentence, and they WILL be punished for that.

    Poppy (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:10:20 PM EST
    The apple falls not far from the tree.

    Elliott Abrams et al.  It is like the night of the living dead, colorized version.

    Link (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:12:03 PM EST
    Investigate Fitzgerald! (1.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Fritz on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:41:56 AM EST
    Since responding to critics has become a criminal offense, the New York Times should call for the immediate investigation of the Office of Special Council.  Today Patrick Fitzgerald responded to President Bush by saying, "We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as "excessive."

    Did Patrick Fitzgerald take issue with this word?  Are there doodles on the President's statement, "do they really allow President's to grant clemency, did Laura Bush weigh in on this?  Was he angry, upset?  Is President Bush a harsh critic of Fitzgerald's work?

    Wh-I-I-INE! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:57:59 AM EST
    Since responding to critics has become a criminal offense

    Please provide an example.  


    This investigation. (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Fritz on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 10:12:33 AM EST
    What are we? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:56:35 PM EST
    Chopped liver?


    Nice piece.

    Was a nice piece, and TL got a shout out on NPR (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jerry on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 07:16:25 AM EST
    That was a good piece thank you.

    NPR's ATC this morning had a piece with Henry Copeland and Presidential Candidates advertising o blogs.  He mentioned TL twice by name, and if I heard the piece correctly, yours was the only blog he mentioned by name.


    Empty Platitudes (1.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Fritz on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:04:16 AM EST
    To compare Justice Department rules for clemency of individuals the President doesn't know is nonsense; he intimately knows this case.  The President didn't give Libby a pass, he called him a liar and correctly acknowledged Libby's guilt.  What he did not allow from this case, was the imposition of a sentence for a crime Libby did not commit.  "Handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury" is dead on.  Fitzgerald and Walton allowed partisan bias to influence their decisions.  The checks & balances you cafeteria constitutionalists scream about was dutifully executed by the Executive Branch yesterday.

    Fitz and Walton are republican appointees (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by lilybart on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:27:00 AM EST
    AND the crime he was convicted of, perjury, has a Federal sentence exactly inline with what Libby got. In fact in June the SC upheld another perjury sentence of 34 months, because they said it was within the Federal guidlines and so, he was not allowed to challenge it.

    If you are implying that Libby got a sentence for the treason he committed, you are wrong.


    I have never (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Fritz on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 10:03:54 AM EST
    defended Libby.  He is guilty of his crimes, but this investigation went outside the bounds of the original referral.  Fitzgerald had absolutely no right to question the motivations of any White House official, it is not illegal nor improper for decimating information in response to allegations.  He had no right to investigate the truthfulness of the Administration's response.  His job was solely to investigate the public mention of a CIA operative and did such mention constitute a crime.  Was mentioning her sloppy, yes, but by the same token, bringing attention to yourself is sloppy and just as irresponsible.

    Read JM carefully (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 10:21:28 AM EST
    Bush didn't just reduce Libby's prison term to a lesser amount that was not, in his view, excessive. He eliminated it altogether.

    At best, using a canon to swat a fly. At worst, per the Original Intent of the Founders, it is an impeachable offense:

    In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:
    [I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty..

    Cheney said Scooter put himself in the meat grinder at the President's request. So the Bush opportuned him to commit the crime and then commuted the time.

    Finally consider this:

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court made it harder Thursday for most defendants to challenge their federal prison sentences.
    Appeals courts that review prison terms imposed by trial judges may deem them reasonable if they fall within federal sentencing guidelines adopted in the mid-1980s, the high court said.
    The justices upheld a 33-month sentence given to Victor Rita for perjury and making false statements. Rita is a 25-year military veteran and former civilian federal employee.
    The prison term falls within the guidelines range and was upheld by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, posing the question of whether sentences within the guidelines ordinarily will be considered reasonable.

    Rita's wife and children have probably suffered too. At least Rita has exhausted the appeals process.


    Neither Bush or Cheney (1.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Fritz on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 10:34:26 AM EST
    told libby to lie to investigators or the Grand Jury.  Libby made up the story on his own to protect himself.  

    Is there anybody IN there? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:12:51 AM EST
    Just nod if you can hear me
    Is there anyone at home?

    I never said Libby said that. We have Cheney's own notes.

    On the latter document, the Vice President wrote "Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy the Pres that was asked to put his neck in the meat grinder

    Case closed: Bush opportuned Libby to commit the crime and Bush commuted the time.

    Madison was very clear this is grounds for impeachment  as previously quoted.


    MB (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:11:39 PM EST
    Whatever Bush did it was the correct thing to do.

    And no doubt, (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:20:04 PM EST
    everything the Fuhrer does in the futher will be the correct thing..Seig Heil herr Poker!

    Just Like a King (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:24:21 PM EST
    Next Presidential Act (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:48:00 PM EST
    Will be conferring Knighthoods.

    I always said you were a Monarchist (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:51:20 PM EST
    Why do you hate the rule of law? Why do you hate American democracy?


    More like a militarist/fascist (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:57:15 PM EST
    who believes in the chain of command.

    He definitely believes in that chain of command (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:46:17 PM EST
    thing.  We can never be friends.  I spent the first year of marriage parking in the General Officers parking space on post.  High ranking officers are often assigned parking spaces at the post exchange, hospital, commissary, I'm such a civilian that I read off the spaces Colonel, W4, General Officers......my husband was a W2 so I was sure they wouldn't mind if I parked in the spot reserved for all other officers in general.  It was a great parking space right by the front door of everything, the military was so considerate.  When my husband found out I was parking in the General's parking spot for a year he almost passed out.  I was laughing too hard.  Then I asked him why nobody questioned me about it and he said everybody is too scared to question anybody parking in the General's parking space because I could be a General's neice or a General's granddaughter or daughter-in-law and they could end up in huge trouble over it because they were rude to me in Chain of Command World.  Isn't it all too rich?  You should come visit me and we could park in the Generals parking spot all day all over the place and laugh like hyenas.

    Classic! (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:34:52 PM EST
    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:02:30 AM EST
    my husband was a W2 so I was sure they wouldn't mind if I parked in the spot reserved for all other officers in general.

    You must have been a writer for the "I Love Lucy Show."

    BTW - I don't believe you, but it is a funny story.


    Smoking Gun! (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Fritz on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:12:10 PM EST
    So the President is not allowed to request staff to rebuff the meat-grinders?  Where's the crime?  Internal deliberations of providing information to the press is criminal?  

    Molly was right. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:14:17 PM EST
    There's nobody home. Jarober is more challenging. And he's a cakewalk.

    Protect himself? (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:55:47 AM EST
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. Protect himself? Let's see: One Count - Obstruction. One Count - False Statement. Two Counts - Perjury. Felony convictions. A quarter million dollar fine.

    Protected himself?


    If people LIE you cannot properly investigate (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by lilybart on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:18:39 AM EST
    the crime of outing the CIA agent. WHY IS PEOPLE LIKE YOU REFUSE TO SEE THIS?!

    If we can all just lie anytime law enforcement asks us a question, then how can you investigate ANYTHING?  

    There have to be consequences for lying, or we can all just lie to get out of anything.


    The Mobius Defense (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    It's terribly unfair to send Scooter Libby to jail for false testimony, because there was no underlying crime, as was revealed in the false testimony of Scooter Libby.

    lilybart - Want facts?? (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:19:08 PM EST
    Why don't you try and resolve the fact that Armitage said that Wilson was calling everyone???



    Who's defending it? (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Fritz on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:33:46 PM EST
    I agree, he lied and should be punished, but to use unproven alleged crimes as justification for sentence is BS.  Your argument would have greater credence had he been charged with outing a CIA operative; the severe crime.  I mean, if people lie how can we properly investigate patterns & practice in a sexual harassment civil suit.

    To claim that anyone has used (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:47:03 PM EST
    unproven alleged crimes as justification for sentence is BS.

    You aspiring to ppj's heights now?


    Blame Bush (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:23:02 PM EST
    they are his sentencing guidelines, the ones Bush wants made mandatory.

    Man you Wingnuts are amazing


    lilybart (1.00 / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:33:23 AM EST
    Armitage claimed that Wilson was calling people because he was pissed. (see my reply to Molly Bloom)

    Now was Armitage lying??

    Armitage claimed that "everybody knows?"

    Was Armitage lying??


    Monument to the lawlessness of Bush administration (none / 0) (#2)
    by Andreas on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:16:45 AM EST
    The WSWS writes:

    President Bush's commutation of the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is a monument to the lawlessness of the Bush administration and the utter corruption of the American ruling elite.

    It is one more expression of the government's brazen contempt for both the law and the American people. ...

    Bush brushed aside the court decisions and the will of the jury for two primary reasons: first, to placate his far-right and fascistic political base--an increasingly small minority of a US population overwhelmingly opposed to the war and Bush himself--and, more immediately, to prevent more revelations from emerging about the illegal actions of the White House and the office of the vice president.

    Bush commutes prison sentence of convicted perjurer and Iraq war conspirator I. Lewis Libby
    By Barry Grey, 3 July 2007

    Can congress call (none / 0) (#3)
    by desertwind on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:41:27 AM EST
    the Pardon Attorney to ask if he/she was consulted? And, if so, what was said? Can the admin block that call?

    This administration is turning us all into lawyers, Jeralyn. Or, at least, into people who finely parse to the point of madness...

    (great piece in HuffPo, btw. Spot on.)

    desertwind (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 08:33:49 AM EST

    Where is it written that the President has to "consult" with anyone before taking action?


    It's not written anywhere. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:05:08 AM EST
    Just as it's not written anywhere that it's not a good idea to shoot himself in both feet while lying to you and the gullible peasants once again.

    Send him an email, ppj. Let him know he has your full support crippling himself and the GOP and making a mockery of American justice and showing no respect for his office or for the American people. Not that your support means anything to him or has ever helped him before. He's certainly able to do those things if he wants. They've been his strongest talents all along.

    No wonder he prays daily. The rest of the GOP will probably start that habit now. I would too if I had your support.


    edger (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:20:04 PM EST
    Well, why are you complaining??

    Well, it's recommended guideline (none / 0) (#53)
    by desertwind on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:18:28 PM EST
    in the DOJ manual on pardons & pardon procedure.

    But, my point is that it would be interesting to know who Bush consulted with. He may claim exec priv and not answer. So, if SJC or HJC spoke with the Pardon Attorney and found out ...

    Oh, never mind. We now know he didn't consult DOJ or its Pardon Attorney. Or with the prosecutor or with the judge. All guidelines in the manual.

    So, what I really want to know is who wrote the statement that accompanied the Citation. Why did Bush not just give the order, here's your paper and say "no comment"...  


    Bob Dylan (none / 0) (#5)
    by lisongare on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 07:50:23 AM EST
    Excellent post, Jeralyn.  I was reminded of the Bob Dylan lyric, "Couldn't help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land
    Where justice is a game" now that Libby is free to drink martinis.  

    i'm sure it's a fine article, (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 08:02:52 AM EST
    but this comes as a surprise to you all why?

    hell, i could spend days listing the flagrant hypocrisies of the present administration. so what? anyone who hadn't figured that out in the first two years of mr. bush's reign just wasn't paying attention.

    so what, exactly, do you plan to do about it? the average person still hasn't a clue what it was that mr. libby was tried and convicted of; they've been force-fed the right-wing stew of "no underlying crime, no foul" by the MSM, who's corporate ownership has a vested financial interest in maintaining the status quo.

    until and unless their lock on the mass media can be broken, y'all are farting in the wind. it might make you feel less bloated, but you still have gas. *

    * disturbing mental image supplied by Kilgore Trout Displays, Inc., a subsidiary of Uranus Corporation.

    NPR & TL (none / 0) (#7)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 08:03:47 AM EST
    If you didn't hear it there was a special segment at the end of the 7am EST hour of All Things Considered this morning and an expert on blogs mentioned TL twice.

    Good stuff.  You can probably listen to it later in the day on npr.org.

    You can listen here (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:49:09 AM EST
    Henry Copeland on NPR

    His topic is the role of the internet in presidential politics.

    Thanks for letting me know.


    If I was Bush.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 08:50:37 AM EST
    I'd commute the sentence of one of my boys....but then again I'm not a law and order guy or one respects the law all that much.

    I think it is fair to call Bush a big fat hypocrite...as a supposed law and order guy, he just shat all over the law.

    There you have it. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 10:12:43 AM EST
    Not one minute behind bars.

    Just stopped by to pay my respects to your now-dead profession in this country. I hope you all have fun debating the Troll's dissection of the grammar in your comments.

    This site is officially irrelevant.


    F**k Yeah!

    Honestly Che.... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:06:26 AM EST
    was there ever any doubt?  I don't think any of us can be surprised...or all that outraged for that matter.  Compared to other actions of our govt....this is serious chump change.

    Exactly (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:17:43 AM EST
    It smells fishy and sure it is but frankly this whole mess has been a political court case and there is plenty of mud to go around, on the president, on the congress, on the special prosecuter, on the press and on the Wison's.

    Most if not almost all Americans stopped caring about this when Armitage was shown to be the real leaker and only the partisans on both sides really give a flip about the whole matter.

    A small footnote in history.


    New rightwing talking points please (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:32:39 AM EST
    The fact that Armitage was a leaker, doesn't make him THE ONLY leaker. nor does it preclude anyone else from being charged.

    Since to my knowledge, there is no evidence that Armitage knew Plame's covert status, not charging him under the IIPA was a valid exercise in prosecutorial discreation.

    Now, run along, check your fax machine and see if you have any new rightwing talking points to contribute. These are old and stale and boring as well.


    MB (1.00 / 2) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:22:57 PM EST
    Your right.

    It looks like Wilson was also a leaker.

    Woodward Armitage interview.


    Read more carefully Jim (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:33:32 PM EST
    Nowhere does it say Wilson told everyone his wife was a covert agent.


    MB (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:20:55 AM EST
    Woodward: Why doesn't that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
    Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
    Woodward: Everyone knows?
    Armitage: Yeah. And they know 'cause Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's pissed off 'cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he's all pissed off.

    No, Armitage didn't say she was covert, nor did Armitage say Wilson knew she was covert.

    But really. Are you saying Wilson wouldn't have known?? He is her husband.

    In fact, she had to have told him when she married him because she was, at that point, covert, living under non-offical cover outside the US.

    And we have this

    Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames." If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good.

    Now. If Wilson did not think his wife was covert, naming her as working for the CIA wouldn't expose a thing.

    What I think is that Wilson knew she was no longer covert, and was going for effect. Remember he did that over the forged papers and had to admit he "misspoke" to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    In the end we know that in mid June of 2003, the 13th I think is the date, that Bob Woodward interviewed Armitage and it was recorded on tape.

    During the interview Woodward asked why Plame was such a "big secret?"

    Armitage responds that everybody knows and that Joe Wilson has been calling "everybody" because he is "pissed" off.

    That is a direct statement. Armitage is either correct, or he is not.

    Yet, after four years and not quite one month we still don't know.

    We do know that Armitage was forgiven for leaking because it was believed that he didn't know.

    And the search continued because of "multiple leakers."

    Molly, you comment as a lawyer, and we disagree thoroughly over the war on what I believe are philsophical grounds. Because of that you attack Bush. Because of that I support Bush.

    But in this matter I would think you would want to know the complete truth. Was Armitage lying? If not, who had Wilson called, and what had he said??

    Absent any further information, I am forced to fall back on tools I have used for years. If Armitage was lying, what was his motive?? Remember the interview was 6 months before a SP was appointed. Indeed, it was appointed before Wilson had written his NYT article and before the WaPost article based on Wilson's information, part of which he later admited he had misspoken.

    And do we have any other information that indicates that Wilson would tell people his wife worked for the CIA?

    Well, we do have the ABC interview in which Major General Valley said this:

    Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts.

    Now I know you won't like WND anymore than I do KOS, but the man they are quoting is a retired Major General. That doesn't mean a lot in the world of the Left, but people don't get to be Major Generals by being liars. The system weeds them out. Plus:

    "He was rather open about his wife working at the CIA," said Vallely, who retired in 1991 as the Army's deputy commanding general in the Pacific.

    Vallely made his claim in an interview Thursday night on the ABC radio network's John Batchelor show.


    So, don't you think there is enough evidence to warrant a thorough investigation?

    Was Armitage lying? Was Maj Gen. Valley lying?

    Or are you interested only in attacking Bush?

    Truth or attack?? Which is it??


    I nearly spit my coffee out laughing (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 07:16:01 AM EST
    Of course Wilson knew. What silliness is this? How does the fact that Wilson knew his wife's occupation get transplanted to Armitage told Woodward that Wilson told everyone what his wife's occupation was.

    This is it? This is the best you can do?


    I generally don't find it fun to be a fool. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 09:32:23 AM EST
    You may be right about PPJ


    As far as I'm concerned..... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:00:19 PM EST
    they're all guilty upon being sworn in....every freakin' one of 'em.

    When the system is so broken and corrupted that we go from land of the free and beacon of liberty to imperial occupiers overseas and police state at home...why quibble over details.


    Most if not almost all Americans stopped caring? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:51:16 AM EST
    Fell through the mirror again, slado?

    Most Americans Believe Libby Deserves To Be Behind Bars, Poll says
    July 3, 2007

    Sixty percent of Americans believe that President Bush should have left former White House aide I Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 2 ? year prison sentence in place, according to a new poll.

    The SurveyUSA poll found that 21 percent of Americans support the President's decision to commute the sentence, and 17 percent of respondents wanted Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff to receive a full pardon.

    When separated out by party affiliation, the poll found that 32 percent of Republicans agree with the President's decision, compared to 14 percent of Democrats and 20 percent of Independents.

    seemingly no end to the hypocrisy (none / 0) (#22)
    by tworivers on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 10:54:13 AM EST
    I would like the President to explain how his decision to commute Libby's sentence jibes with his stated desire to keep this country safe.

    Because of Libby's (and Rove's, and Armitage's) loose lips, Brewster Jennings, the cover organization the CIA painstakingly created to track WMD's and other important matters in the Middle east, was outed along with Plame and rendered useless.  Those who want to argue that Libby was simply responding forcefully to a critic seem to have conveniently forgotten this.  

    Does a man who played a large role in destroying such a valuable intelligence tool deserve a commutation of his sentence?  If so, why?  

    Bush claims to put the security of the nation first and foremost, yet he commutes the sentence of a person whose reckless tongue-wagging made the country significantly less safe.

    Like Jeralyn said, the level of hypocrisy on display here truly boggles the mind.

    tworivers (1.00 / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:30:55 AM EST
    Yes, Mrs. Wilson was certainly trying hard. (sarcasm alert)

    Yesterday, Plame didn't return a message left with Wilson requesting an interview, but she had listed her employer as "Brewster-Jennings & Associates" in a filing when she donated $1,000 to Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign. She listed her occupation as "analyst."

    Both factors would have aroused the suspicions of anyone who tried to check up on Brewster Jennings, said David Armstrong, an Andover researcher for the Public Education Center, a liberal Washington think tank.

    ...At the least, a dummy company ought to create the appearance of activity, with an office and a valid mailing address, he said. "A cover that falls apart on first inspection isn't very good. What you want is a cover that actually holds up and this one certainly doesn't."

    Boston Globe


    Snow Job (none / 0) (#27)
    by Saul on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:18:54 AM EST
    What a name for the President's, spokesman.  Yeah we got another Snow Job from Tony.  You wait, Bush will give full pardon to Scooter right as he is leaving in 09.  The reason being is that congress can still investigate Scooter and maybe it won't go as good as it did the first time with his trial.    Bush and the republicans know that they have lost the white house in o8 and they fear they will also loose the rest of the senate by a overwhelming margin.  If this happens they know congress can investigate Scooter and others without any objections from the republicans.  Bush and Cheney don't want to have Scooter be caught in the corner and maybe sing like a canary to save his hide and tell all about what really happened.  I have a question maybe someone knows the answer.  If in 09 Democarats control everything why can't they call Cheney and Bush, Karl Rove to testify under oath since they will no longer have executive privileges anymore?