Why is Libby smiling? Vice Pres Cheney's Chief of Staff

[BillyTheMountain]

Ever notice, everyday they show Libby getting out of his car going to Court, or leaving Court, and he is always smiling. a really big smile, like he's the happiest guy.

And he is going to get convicted of perjury, and neither he nor Vice Pres Cheney will testify.

So why is Libby smiling all the time????

[howdigetsogood]

cause he didnt spend 15600.00 of our tax dollars to hide that perfect dental arrangement in his mouth. he was severely criticised as a child for having krooked buttery teeth. but now he got them fixed and loves to show it off!

[steveyo]

Ever notice, everyday they show Libby getting out of his car going to Court, or leaving Court, and he is always smiling. a really big smile, like he's the happiest guy.

And he is going to get convicted of perjury, and neither he nor Vice Pres Cheney will testify.

So why is Libby smiling all the time????Because he'll be pardoned.

[BillyTheMountain]

Because he'll be pardoned.

I wonder.....

[koebwil]

Cheney shot a guy in the face and he apologized to Cheney. I don't think it would be hard for them to get Scooter to smile.

[BillyTheMountain]

Cheney shot a guy in the face and he apologized to Cheney. I don't think it would be hard for them to get Scooter to smile.

You may be on to something....

[BillyTheMountain]

What's the verdict??

[BillyTheMountain]

Because he'll be pardoned.

Wow!!!!!

Not only is Steveyo a fantastic uni rider, Steveyo CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE!!!

How do you do it???

BTM

[TheObieOne3226]

He wasn't pardoned he still has to pay a fine and serve probation.

[maestro8]

He wasn't pardoned he still has to pay a fine and serve probation.
Don't drink the kool-aid, Obie.

While Bush was governor of Texas, he allowed over 150 executions to take place, commuting the death penalty for only one prisoner. That's almost 15% of the total number of inmates that have been executed in the entire history of the United States! (See http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/)

Considering these numbers, Bush must be "tough on crime," right?

Right?

Oh, no, Libby wasn't pardoned, he was just spared from ~2 years in white-collar summer camp. Really, now, would we want poor old Scooter to get his hands dirty? After all, he was only a traitor to his country...

Despite how much Bush loves the death sentence, he couldn't even stand the thought of his pal Scooter doing 2 years of arts & crafts, calisthenics and snack time with the other white-collar criminals.

This, son, is no less than an outrage.

You must be too stoned to care.

[john_childs]

Don't drink the kool-aid, Obie..
You can stay away from whatever it is that you're drinking too. Your level of knowledge shows that this story is more than just a passing curiosity for you.

Clinton was handy (http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm) with the pardons (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/20/clinton.pardon/index.html) too. (I had to Google to grep my memory about any of that).

If you want to get outraged then don't make it a Democrat vs. Republican fight because both parties are just as bad in that respect. Just business as usual. Direct your outrage at the system. This story rates as a "meh" for me.

[steveyo]

John, while I highly value your unicycle-mechanic knowledge, I fear you are too easy with your "meh"s. Without making a comparison via dems and repubs, what Bush has done here is clear.

He has shown that he values his and Cheney's reputations more than the national interest, and that his underlings may, nay, SHOULD lie to protect them, and there will be no repercussions when they do so.

No, not "meh". Not at all.

[MuniAddict]

You can stay away from whatever it is that you're drinking too. Your level of knowledge shows that this story is more than just a passing curiosity for you.

Clinton was handy (http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm) with the pardons (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/20/clinton.pardon/index.html) too. (I had to Google to grep my memory about any of that).

If you want to get outraged then don't make it a Democrat vs. Republican fight because both parties are just as bad in that respect. Just business as usual. Direct your outrage at the system. This story rates as a "meh" for me.Libs seem to have no shortage of "selective outrage". Here's Clinton's pardon and commutations list: (Scroll down to see the actual offenses/convictions by each "pardon-ee", which include money laundering, cocaine importation, tax evasion, lying before a grand jury (sound familiar?) and on and on!) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1859857/posts

[MuniAddict]

And you think the Libby pardon is a big deal? Remember Clinton's Mark Rich pardon? That was the most outrageous of them all....by far!: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99302,00.html

This pardon sparked a firestorm of outrage from *both* parties, Dems and republicans alike, and rightly so. This makes Libby look like Mother Teresa! :)

[steveyo]

Terry - I do not make excuses for Clinton. He's an a$$hole. What you're doing is a tactic often used by Bush supporter/apologists, which is to show how badly Clinton or some other democrat acted. I'm not just one of your "Libs", but protested Clinton's shortcomings as well. Either way, what previous bad guys did is moot.

This one thing Bush has done stands out starkly. He said he'd get to the bottom of the CIA agent (Plame) outing and fire all who were involved. After all, the act was treason and not selling pot or cocaine or something.

So it turns out at least the whole VP branch was being implicated in the investigation. Scooter covers it by lying, and is now not going to answer for this obstruction of justice in a case of treason by the highest levels of officials. The leak was made merely to discredit an outspoken critic (Joe Wilson) of a big piece of the Bush/Cheney false Iraq war propaganda.

Bush granted this pardon (OK - commutation) because he feared what would come out if Libby really did have to go to the slammer.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if you reply to my post with thoughtful ideas in your own wording.

[MuniAddict]

Terry - I do not make excuses for Clinton. He's an a$$hole. What you're doing is a tactic often used by Bush supporter/apologists, which is to show how badly Clinton or some other democrat acted. I'm not just one of your "Libs", but protested Clinton's shortcomings as well. Either way, what previous bad guys did is moot.

This one thing Bush has done stands out starkly. He said he'd get to the bottom of the CIA agent (Plame) outing and fire all who were involved. After all, the act was treason and not selling pot or cocaine or something.

So it turns out at least the whole VP branch was being implicated in the investigation. Scooter covers it by lying, and is now not going to answer for this obstruction of justice in a case of treason by the highest levels of officials. The leak was made merely to discredit an outspoken critic (Joe Wilson) of a big piece of the Bush/Cheney false Iraq war propaganda.

Bush granted this pardon (OK - commutation) because he feared what would come out if Libby really did have to go to the slammer.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if you reply to my post with thoughtful ideas in your own wording.I'm not a fan of Bush by a long shot, and my political leanings tend to be more libertarian, but your claim (directly above) has no basis in fact; that is *your opinion*. I firmly stand by what I said about "selective outrage", and yes, that goes for both sides. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, just don't try to pass them off as facts.

[john_childs]

No, not "meh". Not at all.
It's a "meh" to me and I'm generally consistent in my "mehs".

The whole thing is a soap opera of inside politics. It is hardball partisan politics to be sure. But the whole Valerie Plame thing never resonated with me as anything to get worked up about. The inside partisan politics game usually doesn't interest me unless it affects some of the issues I care about.

The Valerie Plame thing fits in the category of what I call manufactured outrage and not outrage based on its merits.

The part of the story that initially had my interest was the part about Robert Novak being pressured to reveal his sources. That was a press issue.

[JJuggle]

Apropos of nothing, but an interesting coincidence, assuming one believes in coincidences - note, V did not - Scooter Libby was Marc Rich's attorney.

[steveyo]

It's a "meh" to me and I'm generally consistent in my "mehs".

The whole thing is a soap opera of inside politics. It is hardball partisan politics to be sure. But the whole Valerie Plame thing never resonated with me as anything to get worked up about. The inside partisan politics game usually doesn't interest me unless it affects some of the issues I care about.

The Plame "thing" is a sidebar of the outrageous war-drums banged by Bush et al. They claimed Iraq sought uranium from Niger, which was already discredited by US intellence agencies. Then Wilson was sent to Niger and he also reported there was no truth to the yellowcake claims. Bush/Cheney then disregarded all the prior intelligence, and Wilson's report, and included an outright falsehood in the State of the F---ing Union address to rile up the nation for a war with Iraq.

Wilson was outraged and published his famous op-ed in the NY Times completely discrediting the uranium issue. The Cheney/Rove machine decided it would discredit Wilson by claiming that his wife had sent him to Niger on what they termed a "junket". It was, in fact, CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division which selected him for his trip based his previous experience in Niger.

In the admin's discrediting of Wilson, the fact that Plame was a covert agent was revealed, though only as a side effect of their real aim, which was to discredit Wilson's criticism of the false uranium claim.

So scaring the American people into a war with previously discredited, false reasons, implying immenent nuclear war, never resonated with you as anything to get worked up about? Hmmm...

(Bush) said he'd get to the bottom of the CIA agent (Plame) outing and fire all who were involved. After all, the act was treason and not selling pot or cocaine or something.

So it turns out at least the whole VP branch was being implicated in the investigation. Scooter covers it by lying, and is now not going to answer for this obstruction of justice in a case of treason by the highest levels of officials. The leak was made merely to discredit an outspoken critic (Joe Wilson) of a big piece of the Bush/Cheney false Iraq war propaganda.

Bush granted this pardon (OK - commutation) because he feared what would come out if Libby really did have to go to the slammer....your claim (directly above) has no basis in fact; that is *your opinion*. ...You are certainly entitled to your opinion, just don't try to pass them off as facts.I highlighted the facts by bolding them in the above quote. The red text is the opinion I offered, though it is rather widely held opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/opinion/03tues1.web.html). Do you disagree with any of the bolded text, because I can substantiate all of it if you'd like.

[maestro8]

Clinton was handy (http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm) with the pardons (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/20/clinton.pardon/index.html) too.
NEWS FLASH: Clinton's no longer president! Did you miss that in your Google search?

So... are you saying "Clinton did it so it's okay for Bush to do it too?" Does Dubya now have Carte Blanche to make all the same mistakes all previous presidents did?

Dubya's track record of riding on his high horse ain't getting any better. It seems he has no concept of accountability.

I'm still betting on Steveyo's prediction. Scooter will get a full pardon before Bushie leaves office.

[steveyo]

...Scooter will get a full pardon before Bushie leaves office.He essentially already has it. There are donated funds (Free Scooter!) to pay his fine so he's not in any way being punished.

[john_childs]

NEWS FLASH: Clinton's no longer president! Did you miss that in your Google search?

So... are you saying "Clinton did it so it's okay for Bush to do it too?" Does Dubya now have Carte Blanche to make all the same mistakes all previous presidents did?
I brought that up because the people pushing the anti-Libby pardon line were likely not worked up about any of the Clinton pardons (except for maybe the Mark Rich pardon and I've long since forgotten about that one). If they're going to be anti-pardon they should be consistent. I tend to take arguments by activists with a lot of skepticism and cynicism. I like to see a consistent moral stand like what Nat Hentoff does. He's consistent in his opinions and doesn't make it partisan.

Now if someone wants to point out editorials and opinions about whether it is appropriate for a President to pardon people he has a personal or working relationship with then yes, I would be interested in following up on that. Judges have to recuse themselves if they have a conflict of interest, but the President can take a criminal case and wipe it clean even when there is a conflict of interest. Is that appropriate? Can it be avoided (who else would get the responsibility if the President passes the decision off to someone without a conflict of interest)?

The only things I find interesting to me in the whole thing is the issues of Robert Novak being compelled to reveal sources and the conflict of interest angle with Presidential pardons. The rest of it is political noise.

[john_childs]

So scaring the American people into a war with previously discredited, false reasons, implying immenent nuclear war, never resonated with you as anything to get worked up about? Hmmm...
It's that whole conspiracy element by the anti-war crowd that makes me discount much of that argument. The anti-war crowd has way too much hate and bias invested for me to bother with trying to weed out what is crap from their version of reality.

So I focus on how things affect my favorite issues and my morals and ignore the rest till something else in the story ticks one of my buttons.

[MuniAddict]

It's that whole conspiracy element by the anti-war crowd that makes me discount much of that argument. The anti-war crowd has way too much hate and bias invested for me to bother with trying to weed out what is crap from their version of reality.

So I focus on how things affect my favorite issues and my morals and ignore the rest till something else in the story ticks one of my buttons.Sorry, but I cant help adding +1!:cool: That first paragraph is so perfectly RIGHT ON the money, it couldn't be stated any better than that! Bravo!

[john_childs]

I just looked at an RSS feed that included the top stories on Digg.

The top story on Digg is: BUSH was Wrong! It is Time for the American People to be Heard 202-456-1414 (http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/BUSH_was_Wrong_It_is_Time_for_the_American_People_to_be_Heard_202_456_14 14) with over 3700 diggs. That's what I mean by manufactured outrage. It's outrage with a PR campaign. How can you take that sort of activism issue seriously? It becomes just spin and PR and talking points. (How can anyone take Digg seriously anymore? but that's a separate issue)

[maestro8]

It's that whole conspiracy element by the anti-war crowd that makes me discount much of that argument. The anti-war crowd has way too much hate and bias invested for me to bother with trying to weed out what is crap from their version of reality.
*rubs eyes*

Whoa there, did you just lump those who are against the war in with the conspiracy crowd?

Way to compartmentalize those who disagree with you. Call 'em all nuts. Then you don't have to argue with them! Perfect!

Problem is, not all those people are nuts. Most of 'em aren't.

There are many documented bits of evidence that the government fabricated a fairy-tale to lead the public into accepting their declaration of war. Aluminum cylinders, mobile manufacturing units, etc.

Now how are you going to reconcile your position? Still think we're nuts?

How can you take that sort of activism issue seriously? It becomes just spin and PR and talking points.
<sarcasm>Really, man, once a lot of people get angry about a major mistake made by the government I can't take it seriously either. Who cares if their argument has any merit, I just can't stand to hear the screams of the masses.</sarcasm>

So you have a problem with educating the anti-war crowd, eh? That falls in line with your dismissal of their "version of reality"... if they don't speak with one voice they'll sound even nuttier. Yeah. Not buying your rant here.

I'll tell you how to take that sort of activism seriously. To beat Washington we have to play their game: spin and talking points. Looks to me like it's been working... there sure was a bit of a change in the HR and Senate after the last election, dontchathink?

[TheObieOne3226]

Don't drink the kool-aid, Obie.

While Bush was governor of Texas, he allowed over 150 executions to take place, commuting the death penalty for only one prisoner. That's almost 15% of the total number of inmates that have been executed in the entire history of the United States! (See http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/)

Considering these numbers, Bush must be "tough on crime," right?

Right?

Oh, no, Libby wasn't pardoned, he was just spared from ~2 years in white-collar summer camp. Really, now, would we want poor old Scooter to get his hands dirty? After all, he was only a traitor to his country...

Despite how much Bush loves the death sentence, he couldn't even stand the thought of his pal Scooter doing 2 years of arts & crafts, calisthenics and snack time with the other white-collar criminals.

This, son, is no less than an outrage.

You must be too stoned to care.

First of all, fuck you.

Secondly, I merely stated a fact. Note what I didn't say:

Bush reduced Mr. Libby's sentence to a fairer one.
Mr. Libby deserved to have his sentence commuted.
Mr. Libby deserved to be pardoned.
Mr. Libby deserved to spend 30 months in prison.

Please refrain from reading more into my posts than the words on your screen. I was merely pointing out to Billy that Steve was not correct, and likely will not be until January 20th, 2009. I made no mention of my opinion of the matter, and consumed no kool-aid. Please also refrain from calling me son, assuming what I may or may not care about, and guessing about my current mental state. You were wrong on all of the above.

[TheObieOne3226]

To those of you who can discuss politics without needing to call out those who disagree with you (and those who you guess disagree), I will open my rarely opened political vault.

It was obvious croneyism for Bush to commute Libby's sentence. Bush is stingy with pardons, and he does not pardon other perjury convicts. To reason that he did it because of the severity of the sentence is incorrect, as he removed 100% of the jail time. Also, this is the first instance of a presidential commutation for severity without a day having been served. So it is apparent that Bush pardoned Libby for one of two reasons (not because the sentence was too severe). The first is to protect himself or someone close. I do not believe this to be the case, because we know Richard Armitage was the leak. The second is that Bush felt that Libby did not deserve to fall on his sword for showing loyalty to the White House.

The first scenario above would bother me. That is, if I felt Bush commuted Libby's sentence to protect himself or someone else in case Libby decided he wanted to reveal some new information to lessen his sentence, it would bother me. The second does not bother me. I can think of at least a dozen people I would lie to a grand jury to protect. That is loyalty. I would hope they would see this as a favor and repay this. Bush is the president, and he repaid Libby's loyalty by using his constitutional power. Croneyism is bad, but common. Many presidents issue pardons to their cronies. While that is not an excuse, I am not going to be outraged by croneyism.

There is another factor. I believe (not 100% though) that the prosecutor knew at the time of the trial that Mr. Armitage was the source of the leak. If that was the case, the only reason to question Libby would be to entrap him to perjure himself. That would mean Libby should not have been convicted, as entrapment should get him off the hook. Obviously he still lied, and that is still illegal. However, Libby has not exhausted his appeals, and if he were to claim entrapment, it is likely he would walk. Between that, the severity of the sentence, and Libby's loyalty, Bush made the right decision.

Discuss?

[steveyo]

It's that whole conspiracy element by the anti-war crowd that makes me discount much of that argument. The anti-war crowd has way too much hate and bias invested for me to bother with trying to weed out what is crap from their version of reality.Huh? It's not a conspiracy to say the intellegence for the war was cherry picked and misrepresented, nor to say that this war in Iraq was a huge mistake and worsened by incompetent management.

[Gilby]

Huh? It's not a conspiracy to say the intellegence for the war was cherry picked and misrepresented, nor to say that this war in Iraq was a huge mistake and worsened by incompetent management. To think that the government did wrong apparently makes you a conspiracy nut.

[BillyTheMountain]

Wow!!!!!

Not only is Steveyo a fantastic uni rider, Steveyo CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE!!!

How do you do it???

BTM

Steveyo,

It's good to see no one takes issue with my statement about you being a fantastic uni rider!

I'm amazed when I skate through controversy. :D

Billy

[steveyo]

Steveyo,

It's good to see no one takes issue with my statement about you being a fantastic uni rider!

I'm amazed when I skate through controversy. :D

Billy
I take issue with that.

I can't hop up more than a foot or do more than a 180, and I can't idle on my Coker.

I'm a hack uni rider.

[BillyTheMountain]

I take issue with that.

I can't hop up more than a foot or do more than a 180, and I can't idle on my Coker.

I'm a hack uni rider.

Let the obvious be known: that YOU stirred up THIS controversy.....

[john_childs]

Huh? It's not a conspiracy to say the intellegence for the war was cherry picked and misrepresented, nor to say that this war in Iraq was a huge mistake and worsened by incompetent management.
Conspiracy as in multiple organizations and multiple people all involved in plans that are interwoven. Those actions and interwoven threads can be interpreted in different ways. That's all you need for fun with conspiracy.

If there was no conspiracy and things were so simple that there was no way to cherry pick or reinterpret then Fahrenheit 9/11 would have been a very short film with no entertainment value and no controversy.

[steveyo]

Conspiracy as in multiple organizations and multiple people all involved in plans that are interwoven. Those actions and interwoven threads can be interpreted in different ways. That's all you need for fun with conspiracy.

If there was no conspiracy and things were so simple that there was no way to cherry pick or reinterpret then Fahrenheit 9/11 would have been a very short film with no entertainment value and no controversy.
Yebbut, that was a, oh I don't know, oh yeah, a movie.

Bush/Cheney started a pre-emptive war based on their cherry-picked intelligence. People dying and losing limbs. A whole country plunged into the dark ages.

[johnfoss]

Conspiracy as in multiple organizations and multiple people all involved in plans that are interwoven. Those actions and interwoven threads can be interpreted in different ways. That's all you need for fun with conspiracy.

If there was no conspiracy and things were so simple that there was no way to cherry pick or reinterpret then Fahrenheit 9/11 would have been a very short film with no entertainment value and no controversy.In other words, it's not *necessarily* a conspiracy to say the intelligence for the war was cherry picked and misrepresented. JC, are you of the belief that there was no "clouding" of intelligence to help tip our nation into this war? That the facts were all presented objectively to the people who made the decisions? I sure don't believe that.

[BillyTheMountain]

Paul Krugman reminds us: Back when the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity bagan, Mr. Bush insisted that if anyone in his administration had violated the law, "that person will be taken care of." Now we know what he meant. :D

Mr. Bush employs, as a deputy national security advisor, none other than Elliot Abrams, who pleaded guilty to unlawfully withholding information from Congress in the Iran-Contra affair. Mr. Abrams was one of six Iran-contra defendants pardoned by Mr. Bush's father, who was himself a subject of the special prosecutor's investigation of the scandal.

[BillyTheMountain]

Looks like John Child's has no response ....

Back when the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity bagan, Mr. Bush insisted that if anyone in his administration had violated the law, "that person will be taken care of." Now we know what he meant. :D



Looks like 2 generations of Bush's waging illegal wars and deceiving the US people. Obstruction of justice is a family tradition. And being a loyal Bushie means never having to say you're sorry.

PS: I saw Richie Havens last night!!!!! Singing the TRUTH!!!

[MuniAddict]

Looks like John Child's has no response ....Allow me to *repost* John's "response":

It's that whole conspiracy element by the anti-war crowd that makes me discount much of that argument. The anti-war crowd has way too much hate and bias invested for me to bother with trying to weed out what is crap from their version of reality.

So I focus on how things affect my favorite issues and my morals and ignore the rest till something else in the story ticks one of my buttons.

[BillyTheMountain]

MuniAddict: Join a 12-step program to deal with your addiction, and read these threads before responding with non sequitors.

Allow me to repost John Foss' response to John Childs:

In other words, it's not *necessarily* a conspiracy to say the intelligence for the war was cherry picked and misrepresented. JC, are you of the belief that there was no "clouding" of intelligence to help tip our nation into this war? That the facts were all presented objectively to the people who made the decisions? I sure don't believe that.

[MuniAddict]

MuniAddict: Join a 12-step program to deal with your addiction, and read these threads before responding with non sequitors.Ok thanks!:D I was thinking purple would still be a better color for the cadillac.:p

[john_childs]

Looks like John Child's has no response ....
Sorry. I've been distracted by other things. Been out riding and other things rather than keeping up with every thread. I hadn't even looked at this thread for several days.

[john_childs]

In other words, it's not *necessarily* a conspiracy to say the intelligence for the war was cherry picked and misrepresented. JC, are you of the belief that there was no "clouding" of intelligence to help tip our nation into this war? That the facts were all presented objectively to the people who made the decisions? I sure don't believe that.
My angle was as it related to the whole Valerie Plame affair. The people who are interested about the Valerie Plame affair are, for the most part, people who already have a clear bias and agenda against Bush and against the war.

The people who know too much about the Valerie Plame affair strike me as the type of people who know too much about the conspiracy du jour and talking points du jour. Rarely do those things turn out to be anything other than political soap opera.

What the heck is yellowcake (http://www.slate.com/id/2085848/)? Does anyone using the word in regards to the Valerie Plame affair know what it is? The people educating themselves about yellowcake and throwing around the term are the Left's version of the Right who were educating themselves about trivialities of the Whitewater affair and the Vince Foster suicide. Those aren't the kind of sources I go for high value and unbiased info about a subject.

[johnfoss]

So the argument has no merit because the people doing the argument have studied up on it? Or because they're zealous? That doesn't make them wrong, or even misinformed. There are always zealots on both sides of a political issue. What are the Republican ones saying on this issue? Stay the course or something?

At what point is it acceptable to intentionally "out" one your nation's own spies? Only if that spy is doing more harm that good (for our side). Otherwise the person doing the outing is the one doing the harm. If this administration were willing to bear some responsibility for its actions I might be able to take it more seriously. So far that hasn't happened, and the pattern says it won't happen until January '09 at the earliest. Until then the Bush administration will only backpedal as necessary to keep the party from totally disassociating with them, and to keep the Congress from acting as I wish they already had.

[BillyTheMountain]

+1

[maestro8]

If this administration were willing to bear some responsibility for its actions I might be able to take it more seriously. So far that hasn't happened, and the pattern says it won't happen until January '09 at the earliest. Until then the Bush administration will only backpedal as necessary to keep the party from totally disassociating with them, and to keep the Congress from acting as I wish they already had.
Bush admits administration leaked CIA name (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19728346/)

Bush just one-upped you, John. Not only are they not backpedaling, they are dodging responsibility.

Apparently they think their statue of limitations is about 48 hours or so... which, sadly, may be right, given the 30-second attention span of the average US citizen.

This Bush quote genuinely baffles me:
I've often thought about what would have happened if that person had come forth and said, 'I did it.' Would we have had this endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter? But, so, it's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House. It's run its course and now we're going to move on.
Would we have wasted so many resources had someone outed themself? Duhhhhhhh...

It's run its course? Yeah. Everyone's forgotten about it by now.

This guy needs a return ticket from la-la-land back to reality. Followed by an escort to show him his way outta the White House.

So the argument has no merit because the people doing the argument have studied up on it? Or because they're zealous? That doesn't make them wrong, or even misinformed. There are always zealots on both sides of a political issue. What are the Republican ones saying on this issue? Stay the course or something?
I ask the same questions... JC, you're not making much sense.

[BillyTheMountain]

More Bushies saying "F-- you" to Congress and the American people.

Harriet Myers did not even show up when required to testify, and the other woman refused to answer key questions.

Bushies have contempt for the law, the truth, and the American people.

[steveyo]

More Bushies saying "F-- you" to Congress and the American people.

Harriet Myers did not even show up when required to testify, and the other woman refused to answer key questions.

Bushies have contempt for the law, the truth, and the American people.
I find myself agreeing with Billy here.

[BillyTheMountain]

I find myself agreeing with Billy here.

Does anyone have confidence in Bush's Attorney General Gonzalez????

[maestro8]

Does anyone have confidence in Bush's Attorney General Gonzalez????
I am confident that if Mr Gonzalez ever regained his memory and started flapping his lips, that there'd be a lot of red faces in Washington. Of course, no one in Congress would do anything about it...

[steveyo]

I am confident that if Mr Gonzalez ever regained his memory and started flapping his lips, that there'd be a lot of red faces in Washington. Of course, no one in Congress would do anything about it...
And isn't that just a kick in the groin, though?

[maestro8]

And isn't that just a kick in the groin, though?
It's par for the course.

[BluntRM]

Power insulates. We simply don't have the choice of meaningful action at that level of government. Here, we've been relegated to consumers, passively accepting what's available, without the discretion to simply not consume the will of an elite leadership. Without the direct ability to act on administrators who are filling terms soon set to expire, what motivation is there for any of them to temper their contempt or ambition? Everything this administration has built, every law and policy, has been forced through, not with the goal of a common consent, but with the knowledge that any counteraction will be retroactive. A war, a firing, a wiretap-- everything is done before the theory of democracy can even approach it.

[hobo_chuck]

i was looking through the gallary of GIF files and i think i found out why.....

http://www.freemyspacegraphics.com/Graphics/Funny_Animations/images/funny_new_59.gif

[brendan]

i love the way the US law system just is ruled by money - and you guys seem to think thats normal.

[BillyTheMountain]

i love the way the US law system just is ruled by money - and you guys seem to think thats normal.

Bush was honest.

Recall when he announced, in the heat of the controversy, that he would "take care of" anyone found connected to any wrongdoing?

Well, he took care of Libby.

[JJuggle]

Power insulates. We simply don't have the choice of meaningful action at that level of government. Here, we've been relegated to consumers, passively accepting what's available, without the discretion to simply not consume the will of an elite leadership. Without the direct ability to act on administrators who are filling terms soon set to expire, what motivation is there for any of them to temper their contempt or ambition? Everything this administration has built, every law and policy, has been forced through, not with the goal of a common consent, but with the knowledge that any counteraction will be retroactive. A war, a firing, a wiretap-- everything is done before the theory of democracy can even approach it.
I find this to be compelling. Yet I am frightened by the conclusions that seem to follow from it.

[BillyTheMountain]

I find this to be compelling. Yet I am frightened by the conclusions that seem to follow from it.

Too frightened even to spell them out?

[JJuggle]

Too frightened even to spell them out?
Yes.