That's exactly my point, Dan. The hypocrite libs that posted before you and I seem to be saying that GWB was the first and only president to have ever done this.

And no, I did not say all libs were hypocrites...

Randy

One Nation,

Under George,

Divided

I have to agree that Libby's sentence being commuted does pale by comparison to the crowd of crooks that got a full pardon from Slick Willy.

I may have many differences with GW but this will not be one of them. The entire investigation and subsequent indictments were all a pathetic political witch hunt and waste of tax-payers money.

That money would have been better spent figuring out how to eliminate 90% of the rest of the crooked government.

Libby was convicted of not having full memory of a non crime.

How many of slick willies onvicted riends, that lived, spent time in jail?

Aren't these two statements contradictory?

PS: Did Libby spend more or less time in jail than Hilton?

Sherwood

I'm actually disappointed. Bush has a long history of staying out of the way of the judiciary, and this in inconsistent with his own precedents.

He did however refuse to criticize Clinton for his abuse of the Presidential Pardon--no matter how egregious.

On the other hand, Libby was convicted of "obstruction of justice", which essentially amounts to: "we want you to go to jail and can't find anything to charge you with". I'm sure every person who has ever testified in court, given a deposition, or has issued a signed statement could be convicted of this if the standard is "inconsistency".

As I understand it Libby did not deserve what he got so I have no problem with this.

When the jurors said they were upset as they really wanted Cheney and Rove I knew it was BS. How in the hell would they have even heard sufficient evidence to claim such a thing as they were not even on trial and thus had no exculpatory evidence submitted.
They basically said they wanted some blood and his was all that was available. That's just wrong.

I would love to talk to one of the jurors.

The leaking of Plame's identity was and has been understood as a crime. You're in denial if you believe otherwise.

Understood as a crime? What was she, an office pog?
What was he convicted of? not remembering.

It's wouldn't matter if it was a crime, it was Armitage that outed her. If it were Libby he would have been convicted of it.

Who was Berger?

I guess I'm in denial then. Plame was perfectly positioned to recommend her Bush-hating hubby for a mission and then for him to write a bogus opinion piece in the NYT with, if you believe she was undercover, immunity from being refuted without revealing her occupation. Nevermind that she donated to Al Gore's 2000 campaign and listed the CIA as her employer on the form or that she was listed in Who's Who in America - not the kind of stuff covert operatives like to do. Now The Wilsons are laughing all the way to the bank, having made more off this fiasco than they both ever would have made in a lifetime of gov't. salaries.

Yes, and do you understand that he was neither charged nor convicted of this crime?

Sandy Berger, a Clinton tool, got a $50000 fine and community service for STEALING CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS.
Somehow, I think Libby got screwed

Exactly. No one even denies that it was Armitage, not Libby, that did it. Armitage himself has admitted it. Of course, a lot of people don't know that, or frankly don't really care.

Was commuting it the right thing to do? I don't know, I didn't follow the whole thing that closely, because it seemed like a waste of time and obviously so politically driven. Which people from BOTH parties do to each other equally (lots and lots of examples of it going both ways).

But certainly Fitzgerald's prosecution raised enough questions that it left the conviction open to being commuted.

I didn't care when Clinton issued all of his get out of jail free cards, and don't really care in this instance. It's fully legal under our system and is a constitutional presidential power. I think Clinton's were as a whole more questionable, but I'd give him the benefit of the doubt - just like with libby, arguments could be made that some of the people he pardoned were victims of political witch hunts (susan mcd, for ex.) -and arguably Clinton did what he felt was just. Same here, there was enough stench involved with Fitzgerald's prosecution that arguably Bush did what he felt was just.

All part of the powers given to the president, they are entitled to use it.

Send bush ansd cheney to the hague as war criminals

or, impeach hitlery now, why wait?

Like driving the sh$t out of your Porsche without oil, destroying it from the inside.
Burn it up and destroy! Go Bush! Faster!! Destroy!!!

Rodeo?

That is exactly what the liberals are doing to this country!!!http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1183437604.jpg

I believe commuting Scooter just means he won't go to jail. Everything else stays in place, most importantly, the obstruction charge.

Scooter isn't in the clear yet - which is what a pardon does for a person - it exonerates them completely.