Clinton is what he is, you are correct, but were you so adamant about his pardons as you are about GW's? Where were all the socialist/libs when he pardoned all his friends, drug dealers, terrorists, political cronys?
This really isn't about Libby, it is about the hate for someone that took your almost stolen election away. It is really about GW, Libby is just a bit actor in your problem. He did very little wrong and GW is doing what your man did before him.
Get over it, it was ok when clinton did it. How can it be wrong now?

dude, you are seriously F'ed up. and you've pointed out a big difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats, at least the ones I know, eat their own. We were all very disappointed in Clinton, we think he's a scumbag for doing what he did and yes, were more adamant about his pardons and his major failings. But Republicans are dogmatic automatons. Unless someone tells you to be outraged by Bush's commutation of Libby, you'll sweep your ethics and morals under the carpet and go back 7-8 years to Clinton. That's the party line. Morally reprehensible, and as your one of your brethren states, moral equivalence is cowardly.

here's a clue: if you're going to be the party that cleans up the White House, then have a little backbone and actually do what you say. Otherwise you're just a whiny hypocrite reliving a mental masturbation episode that happened 8 years ago.

WRONG. it wasn't OK then, and it's even more wrong now, since you should know better. Shame on you for your moral equivalence.

"dude, you are seriously F'ed up. and you've pointed out a big difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats, at least the ones I know, eat their own. We were all very disappointed in Clinton, we think he's a scumbag for doing what he did and yes, were more adamant about his pardons and his major failings."

Maybe you don't know many socialist/liberal democrats.

I don't really believe I am F'ed up at all, maybe it is you that has the problem. I just see things in a better, more clear way than you and your friends. Scumbag and all, will you be voting for hillary?
I actually like GW more for this. like I said, this isn't about Libby to you, it is still about your hate for GW. Nothing else. The fact that the sentence was way out of hand has nothing to do with it, and I am sure a lot of people expected GW to do this. Just waiting in the wings to jump when he did it. Hitlery sure didn't pass up the chance to jump him and defend her husband. 140 pardons in his last few days.

if the
Quote:
Special Prosecuter PF in disclosed court filings of internal CIA summeries of VP's employment indicated that her status was "covert" as of July 2003.


Why did she out her self here??


Quote:
--Federal election records show that Plame donated money--under her own name--to Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign. Her employer is listed as Brewster Jennings, the CIA front company that provided her NOC for many years.



How could she be "covert" after she went public??

Just for the record, I have in the past voted across party lines, republican, independent, democratic etc. Unless I see some outrage from the Republican party about commuting the sentence of a convicted criminal I won't be voting for a republican at any level in the next election. Perhaps the sentence was too severe but Libby should have served some of it. George Bush just pounded another nail into the gallows that is being built to hang the Republican party.

Eat your own?!?! BS. Democrats hold onto the the scumbags no matter how vile - Ted Kennedy, both Clintons, that congressman who had the money in his freezer - Jefferson I think was his name, Robert KKK Byrd, Abscam Murtha, Gary Condit, Gary Studds (buggered a 17 year old intern). None of these freaks was asked to resign or even lose their committee seats.

On the contrary, the party circled the wagons (media) and defended the a-holes and counter-attacked the accusers.

Meanwhile, if you screw up in the GOP you get thrown under the bus - Nixon, Agnew, Delay, Gingrich, Lott (lost his chairman's spot). Fortunately, there are plenty of good republicans to take thier place.

Can't say the same for the other side.

I thought this thread was about LIBBY. :rolleyes:

No, as always, it is really about President G. W. Bush.

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.

Like Foley? Yea, they really sacked him, didn't they? :rolleyes:

Umm yes they did. What do you remember happening:rolleyes:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.

Like Foley? Yea, they really sacked him, didn't they? :rolleyes: [/QUOTE ]
You lost me. Foley was a Democrat. He was the only sitting speaker of the house to ever get voted out. The good citizens of Oregon did what the Democrats wouldn't.

I think he means Mark Foley (R-FL), the pedophile, and he was run out of town.

So little faith in our judicial system? Irrespective of our beliefs about what is or isn't legal or just - filtered, no doubt, through ideology, didn't plaintiff and defendant have their day in court?

Armitage was smart enough (from his days in Intel) to realize - once he started hearing from journalists to confirm the Plame-Wilson connection - that he was a potential fall guy and did the one thing no player in DC expects - he told the truth. Libby should have followed Armitage's example, they do work in the same administration under the same boss after all; admit he did something wrong and stupid in the heat of a moment while he had hundreds of other things going on, take some punishment and move on.

Instead, he was caught in a tangled web. The question is not what ideology or conspiracy is behind the web. The real question is why is there a web in the first place?

Originally posted by cmccuist
Eat your own?!?! BS. Democrats hold onto the the scumbags no matter how vile - Ted Kennedy, both Clintons, that congressman who had the money in his freezer - Jefferson I think was his name, Robert KKK Byrd, Abscam Murtha, Gary Condit, Gary Studds (buggered a 17 year old intern). None of these freaks was asked to resign or even lose their committee seats.

On the contrary, the party circled the wagons (media) and defended the a-holes and counter-attacked the accusers.

Marion Barry, Barny Frank, and even though he hasn't held Public Office, he has tried, Al Sharpton. All loved by the Democrats no matter what they do.

Right, Foley the pedophile. Sorry, I got the wrong Foley. What a scumbag he was.

At least when there's a Democrat sex scandal there's some actual sex involved. This guy just sent creepy text messages to kids. And there was some hesitation on the GOP's part.

I think the GOP lost that seat in 2006.

"And it's perfectly legal for Bush to commute Libby's sentence or pardon him outright. Hell, Bush could let Charles Manson go if he wants. A second term president can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants to - he's not up for re-election."

Not so sure. Newspaper article brought up the fact that commuting a sentence not yet formalized is highly unusual. Libby has been on appeal, so his conviction is not yet a done deal until it's denied or accepted. POTUS is setting a precedent with this preemptive strike.

Other random thoughts:

- Bush supporters argue lots of comparisions between Bush and Clinton, Kennedy, Jefferson, etc. Not sure what to make of it. By comparing Clinton's escapades with Bush's suggests there are either similarities to criticize or to admire. That means either censure, comdemnation and/or impeachment for both ..... or else praise for both. Which is it? Please make up mind as comparisons without clarification confuses more than enlightens.

- Clinton signed pardons at the end of his tenure, the usual time line for such generosity. Bush is doing this now with over a year left in his term of office. One questions if he's planning to spread future commutes over that period of time.

- Bush's pre-appeal announcement could be a quid pro quo arrangement with Libby for not vocalizing further revelations to the Grand Jury as he's being measured for prison garb and jail cell curtains.

- and finally, Libby was convicted by a jury of his peers. Prosecutor (Fitzpatrick) and presiding judge (Walton) were nominated by Republicans whom I would presume conduct this in party-favored fairness.

MHO,
Sherwood

If people raise too much of a stink about Bush commuting the sentence, he could just give a full pardon then. I doubt Bush came up with the commutation on his own, but rather hashed it out long beforehand with WH counsel and DOJ lawyers. If they say it's legal, Bush has no reason to doubt them. Personally, for all the $hit he's catching over this, he might as well have just issues a full pardon. It doesn't have to come on his last day in office. He can do it whenever he wants, even before a conviction, during a trial, anytime.

if it was OK for Clinton, why isn't it OK for Bush.
Here are a couple of Clinton's Pardons,

President Clinton granted 140 pardons and 36 commutations, many of them controversial.

One of those pardoned was Marc Rich, who had fled the country after being indicted for tax evasion and whose wife had donated more than $1 million to Democratic causes.

Clinton's half brother, Roger, who was convicted of distributing cocaine and lobbied the White House on behalf of others, also received a pardon.

Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, was paid tens of thousands of dollars in his successful bid to win pardons for a businessman under investigation for money laundering and a commutation for a convicted drug trafficker. Her other brother, Tony, lobbied successfully for clemency on behalf of a couple convicted of bank fraud

Rick,
As you surmise, Bush decided this route with full legal advise. As I had read, a full pardon might expose Libby to further scrutiny and required testimony, something the legal team doesn't prefer.

Sherwood