It's essentially a pardon.

We all knew that he was going to pardon Libby--the only question was when.

Nobody commutes these days anymore. With the Internet, he could telecommute to his sentence.

It turns out that there was no underlying crime that has taken place...

Citation?

...Ambassador Wilson did in fact lie to Congress...

Citation?

...Valerie Plame was material in sending her husband on a junket to Niger even though he was not qualified to make the trip...

Citation?

These facts are beyond dispute.

Citation?

"the far-left extremists have demanded heads over Iraq"

it's an extremist posistion to demand accountability amongst our leaders?

that's a very fucked up statement. someone's head does deserve to role (and heads have roll..ed). what makes you think otherwise? our enormous success in iraq? um... that we should "stay the course?" that our leaders are well in control of the situation and a shake-up up top might make things go worse? for fuck's sake, wake up!

bush completely lied about his reasons for getting us into the war. it's pretty damn obvious now that he had far different motives than the ones that he fed us. it really doesn't matter at this point whether or not iraq had wmds, but still...

it's not illegal to lie. especially when the liar just COULD be dumb enough to believe the lies he told. you can't prove that bush isn't that stupid from his actions, but his smirk lets me know that there is something going on up there. no administration would leave such a buffoon up there if he wasn't smart enough to do what he was told. and with such a presence! (and it is a presense of some sort. you can just feel that the man was "touched" by something or other.)

(but will john answer this? or to anything? we shall have to see.)

People didn't just "move on" from the pardon of Nixon. It helped to elect Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford.

Just like you to ignore or distort history to try to weasel in a partisan spin. Does your credibility mean so little to you?

I couldnt get past the first paragraph - this site is wholly irrelevant to me from now on.

Later fred.

Sorry shoulda said second paragraph - the idiocy and ideology drips off my screen and distorts my brain waves...

John,

It's not SPIN

It's not a take

It's not a perspective

or

IGNORANCE

Not even

An ideological difference

This is vile. You are simply lying. What is sad is that you don't think it matters. Some of us want this country back from the pathological liers. Coulter, Rush, and O'Reilly need to be ignored.

Yuck!!!

Are you being willfully ignorant to generate traffic and comments?

"how someone can be guilty of obstruction without an underlying crime."

Have you spent any time in law enforcement? There's no way to tell if there's a crime to charge if there's no investigation. If that investigation is interfered with, it corrupts the whole process. I thought it was only the left that was soft on crime.

"Libby's apparent perjury"

No, he was convicted, so it is actual perjury not apparent. You may not agree with it, but that was the charge.

"It is likely that this maneuver will seem like 'politics as usual,"

Seem like? It is politics as usual. It's all about winning, not doing what is right. They snuck it in between the weekend and the holiday, hoping very few would notice and forget. If you can't see that, you really should give up writing about politics.

Lee, is absolutely right about Nixon. How old were in 1976? Feel free to do some research next time during your stampede to break news.

Check the public record... the facts are clear. You moonbats might not accept it, but the documents and paperwork is there.

Of course, that doesn't fit the template that Bush is Hitler.

and of course, all leftists think bush is hitler, right, jonny boy?

and all leftists are moonbats, i'm sure. because anything to the right of you is extreme, correct?

one day (and only for one day), i'd like to see what john's world would look like if he got his way. it would probably be a pretty rough place.

"The public record" says Libby was convicted and sentenced in a U.S. court of law, with real lawyers, judges, witnesses, gavels, Bibles, flags and everything.

The verdict didn't please God, Cheney, or anybody who really counts anymore (i.e. the White House.) So, once again, Bush declares the truth to be what HE says it is.

Your writings are as uninformed, superficial, "faith-based", and lacking in insight and reason as the "deep thinkers" you shill for.

BTW what is an "academic professional"? Since you're borrowing the status of the U of I, what do you do there? Are you an instructor? A TA? Do you run D-Hall? Answer the phone?

It doesn't actually involve (God forbid) educating anyone, does it?

#10:
"Moonbats" - When your argument is weak, attack the person.

"Bush is Hitler" - setting up a strawman, again when you have nothing else to offer.

(Of course, Hitler did have his Brown Shirts, and Bush does have his legion of Brown-Nosers.)

Nearly all of the people who were instrumental in prosecuting Libby were Republicans.

Rufus rites "how someone can be guilty of obstruction without an underlying crime."

Have you spent any time in law enforcement? There's no way to tell if there's a crime to charge if there's no investigation. If that investigation is interfered with, it corrupts the whole process. I thought it was only the left that was soft on crime.

But before he ever grilled Libby to get him to (maybe) lie, the prosecutor knew that Plame was not in fact undercover or covered by the secrecy statute. Therefore, he knew there was no crime, but kept investigating anyway, with no possible prosecutable offense other than setting the perjury trap that Libby let himself get snagged on.

On top of which, the prosecutor knew who put out Plame's name, and that it wasn't from the vice-president's office. So he kept pursuing it why?

Fitzgerald's is only about a half rung above the infamous Nifong in his ridiculous abuse of prosecutorial power.

So let me get this straight... all the critics can attack me personally (including yourself) and that's legit... but when I do it, it proves I'm wrong.

This is why I usually filter comments to the trash, there simply is so few intelligent people who comment on politics articles here anymore... there are more than enough fever swamp types of all political favors to keep my junk filter going.

Al

You answer to the question "why" that you posed didn't make sense.

What do you mean?

Interfering with an investigation by lying to investigators is obstruction of justice. It is a crime whether or not an underlying crime is uncovered in the course of an investigation. It's quite something to listen to the whining of "law and order" Republicans when the law they cherish is applied to their own by a prosecutor from their own political party. As for the compaint about a harsh sentence coming from the party of lock 'em up and throw away the key, all I can say is cry me a river.

You'll note I didn't take a position on that issue, Dr. X. In fact, I've written elsewhere if he lied to the grand jury he should go down.

However, I'm in no position to evaluate the underlying crime issue.

That said, it does appear from all available evidence that there never should have been an investigation and that Fitzgerald engaged in a witch hunt even though he knew the facts from day one that there was no real crime.

Dr Dreadful - It turns out that there was no underlying crime that has taken place...
Citation?
...Ambassador Wilson did in fact lie to Congress...
Citation?
...Valerie Plame was material in sending her husband on a junket to Niger even though he was not qualified to make the trip...
Citation?
These facts are beyond dispute.
Citation?

Cite this you fool, you have access to Google just like the rest of us - look it up. Plame was no 007, Wilson was full of shiite, and again, just do a search. Lazy hippie.

It really is kind of scary that this crazy prosecution was allowed to continue.

No crime, No leak (from the whitehouse), and Joe Wilson and The New York Times lied in an attempt to discredit Bush.

Fact is Iraq did seek yellow cake from Nigeria. Just as intelligence suggested. Wilson's trip report actually "bolstered the case" in the eyes of the bi-partisan commission established to investigate.

It's alarmingly shameful that the "old media" deceives the public this way.

I would call what Plame, Wilson, and the New York Times does (on a regular basis) "treasonous". Though none are interested in seeing if a legal standard is met.

Zed #18: "You answer to the question "why" that you posed didn't make sense.

What do you mean?"

I think he means that Fitzgerald knew before he began questioning Libby that the crime he was called in to investigate did not meet the legal standard for leaking the name of a "covert" agent. He also knew beforehand that the person who leaked the name to the media was Richard Armitage, who wasn't affiliated with the whitehouse at all.

It was a clear witch hunt all the way. Getting jurors in a district that is 90% anti-Bush and withholding the fact of Plames covert status from them helped fuel this legal disgrace. Plus the ridiculous heavy handed sentence.

John - RE: The commutation will be one of the last chapters of a rather absurd episode in Washington politics over the last few years. It turns out that there was no underlying crime that has taken place.

This is a lie that will travel at the speed of light throughout the blogosphere. It's odd that none of the court challenges to Libby's conviction, nor any of the Libby support letters sent by Libby supporters have made the ridiculous claim that there was no underlying crime.

Bush's carefully worded speech announcing the commutation did not claim that there was no underlying crime, only that the jail sentence was too harsh.

It is preposterous, but predictable, that even though you and anyone else can easily search the Internet for details on the charges against Libby and their legal precedent, instead you fall back on the ludicrous spin that the Libby case was just a bunch of mush hyped up by hysterical "liberals." Preposterous and somewhat shameful.

RE: Ambassador Wilson did in fact lie to Congress and that Valerie Plame was material in sending her husband on a junket to Niger even though he was not qualified to make the trip. These facts are beyond dispute.

These facts are indeed in dispute. But even if this were true, it would be absolutely irrelevant to Libby's conviction. Unless, of course, you are following the party line of hebephrenic neo-con William Kristol and others who claim that the Ambassador Wilson affair was just typical Beltway Hardball, a political game that has nothing to do with truth, honor, or national security, and that the court case was nothing more than a case of sore losers -- Democrats and liberals -- not playing the game fairly.

So, John, the cynical insiders are playing you for a sucker by hoping that you will regurgitate their talking points for them. The question is, why do you go along with it?

This is a holiday weekend, so many of the talk radio and cable TV talking heads are away on vacation, so I am betting that the Bush Administration believes that they will have every aspect of this story under control when this longish July 4 holiday period is over.

But here is a wild card. In Southern California and elsewhere, there is a smoldering fire of resentment against the Bush Administration for not pardoning Ramos and Compean, two border patrol agents who were convicted of shooting a man who turned out to be a drug smuggler. The Bush Administration, through their spokes-hole Tony Snow, claimed that they were studying the issue and did not want to prematurely get involved in the case. But apparently they were studying hard day and night to find the right opportunity to make sure that Libby would not have to spend even a night in jail.

The contrast between the two cases highlights the fact that Bush cares more about cronies and loyalists than he does about the average American or the rule of law.

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans could control the anger that many average voters felt over the immigration bill. The Libby commutation may end up being strike two.

BriMan - don't flee so easily. If you look around BC you'll have no trouble finding articles just as skewed from the other perspective. Look for items by Realist, perhaps.

As for JB's assertions, he's right on some and wrong on others. He's probably correct on the absence of an underlying crime, but he's wrong about an obstruction charge being inappropriate. Libby could well have obstructed the determination that there was no crime by his behavior, and that's just as bad as covering up an actual crime.

I think Bush's reasoning was that Libby is an idiot and it's not nice to jail people just for that.

Dave

John B - Re: However, I'm in no position to evaluate the underlying crime issue.

If this is the case, then you are in no position to judge whether or not Fitzgerald was engaged in a witch hunt, or whether Libby's commutation was appropriate. What exactly, then is the point of your post if you acknowledge ignorance of the issues involved?

Odd, isn't it that the judge not only slapped down the arguments of those who submitted letters on Libby's behalf, and that no judge, no Justice Department official, nor even Bush in his commutation speech, declared that no crime was involved (unlike, for example the infamous Duke case). Why do you persist in taking a stand that not even the Bush Administration is asserting?

Note that I am simply trying to understand exactly why Bush Administration true believers make up facts to justify their blind loyalty to Dubya and his actions?

One does not have to rely on the supposedly biased mainstream media on this. Wikipedia has a good article on US v Libby, but more importantly has external links to court documents. There is also a link to a transcript of Fitzgerald's reasoning for indicting Libby. Here is a key passage:

FITZGERALD: At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

RE: I think Bush's reasoning was that Libby is an idiot and it's not nice to jail people just for that.

Bush apparently recognized his own kind.

"Fact is Iraq did seek yellow cake from Nigeria. Just as intelligence suggested."

Uh, no. It's not a fact. It's a complete lie. The White House went on to admit that the whole thing was based on forged documents and was complete crap.

I'll quote Ari Fleischer here:

"So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement."

Only in neo-con fantasy world, are any claims about Iraq even remotely accurate.

After reading your opinion piece, I realised you are less qualified as a political analyst than many of those in Hollywood, which conservatives love to criticize. Apparently, you mistake poor analysis as fact.

Regardless of your inaccurate, even false, claims about Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson, here are some indisputable facts.

1. Valerie Plame was a NOC operative in the CIA. As such, it was illegal to identify her publicly.

2. Jospeh Wilson's report from his trip to Niger, proved to be accurate. Not long after, the IAEA also found the documentation claiming Iraq attempted to buy yellow cake to be forgeries.

3. Someone in the White House identified Valerie Plame to multiple reporters, one of whom published her name and function in the CIA.

4. A jury and a judge, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush, found the evidence more than convincing to convict Libby of obstruction of justice for lying to a grand jury.

5. No one was held accountable for breaking the law against revealing NOC opertives. Had someone been held accountable, Bush would have demonstrated even more strongly the falseness of his early statements that if someone in his administration was found to have broken the law that person would have to be held accountable. I expect no less from this president. He has lied to America so many times, he cannot be trusted.

I suppose lying to a legal body is acceptable to the conservatives if it is conservatives doing the lying. If it is a Democratic president lying about a blow job from someone not his wife, he should be removed from office. Luckily for Bush, the Democratic House leadership is not terribly interested in voting articles of impeachment for a president and vice president who lied to get their invasion of Iraq, broke laws against domestic spying, ignored legal requirements to get warrants for wiretapping, have bled the country's treasury, unilaterally withdrawn from treaties without seeking the consent of Congress, have held people without charge or access to the courts simply on the President's descretion, and instituted policies allowing kidnapping and torture.

I hope you conservatives appreciate the shredding of the Constitution. It will bring your long sought after failure of the national government, our government. Your activist judges and the social conservatives who want to engineer society to be some sort of vague theocracy not to mention the conservative inability to balance the budget will destroy this country far more efficiently than any terrorist could ever hope.

So the question remains, John, what will it take for you to hold this administration accountable? Must Cheney kill a hooker on live TV? Are you not offended by ANY of this?

do you know how batshit crazy your side would be if this were a Dem? Come on, Y'all took down the President of the United States for lying about pussy... don't you think lying about the yellow cake purchase, then smiting wilson by outing his wife, then covering the whole thing up by lying to a grand jury... that isn't serious?

I guess you live with the school of Nixon:
It isn't illegal if the President does it

you disgust me, because you will not stand up to your own party and hold them accountable.

regarding these super wrong words:

...Ambassador Wilson did in fact lie to Congress...

wrongo. Wilson told them point blank that there was no evidence Iraq was seeking yellow cake from Niger

...Valerie Plame was material in sending her husband on a junket to Niger even though he was not qualified to make the trip...

wrongo > Wilson was a previous ambassador to Africa, that is how he got chosen

I understand that y'all on the right probably think we are pussy winers who think everything Bush does is a scandal. I know this, I have several friends on the right.

Know this, what we on the left want to know is if you will EVER be offended by this group or ever hold them publicly accountable? I am going to leave you with a quote by Al Franken. Don't freak out, just read it and think about it. By the way, I am paraphrasing as I don't have the book in front of me:

Republicans love America like it is a two year old and can do no wrong.

Democrats love America like it is a teenager. Still unconditionally, but we understand it doesn't always make the best decisions for itself and can use occasional corrections.

Oh yeah, one more thing. I still want the head of Robert Novak delivered to me. He is the most guilty, to me, of all parties. He took the info and published it. That was pure malice and disregard for the Wilson family. He, too, is a traitor to the United States of America.

Joe #21: you have access to Google just like the rest of us

No shit.

It obviously didn't occur to you that I tried looking it up... and couldn't find anything to confirm John's assertions. Is it so unreasonable to ask where he got his "indisputable facts" from?

I hope you didn't call your college professors lazy hippies when they asked you to cite your sources.

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

But Alec, you're just as wrong about this as JB is about some of his assertions. You just quoted Fitzgerald, who also admited that the scenario you describe was NOT true. Libby wasn't at the beginning OR end of any chain of phonecalls disclosing the information. He was at best the second person to reveal information about Plame, and more realistically the 4th if you count the two accidental leaks of her identity by the CIA.

In addition, it has been VERY clearly established that Libby had no idea he was leaking someone's covert identity when he referred obliquely to 'ambassador wilson's wife'. Fitzgerald has been very clear that there is no evidence that Libby made an intentional leak of Plame's identity or was even aware that there was anything to be concerned about in mentioning her. He had no intent to do harm.

Two quotes from Fitzgerald:

"To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work."

"And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion."

It's not unreasonable to assume that Libby's commuted sentence was largely the result of the fact that he didn't really do anything major wrong.

Dave

It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who assert as facts that which is simply not true.

In this case, JB, that goes for both the left- and the right-wingers....

JB

It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who assert as facts that which is simply not true.

Like most of your articles, this one being the best example of that.

#17:
"There simply is so few intelligent people..."

Spoken like a true Bushie, JB!

You're hilarious.

#33:
"he really didn't do anything major wrong"

Lying repeatedly to obstruct justice (read cover Cheney's ass) used to be a "major wrong". Maybe it was changed by a signing statement I missed.

Why are you amazed, JB? Seems to me you persistently state as facts things that you only wish were true.

I like the notion that George Bush accepts the decision of the court/justice system ... but only in deciding that Scooter's guilty.

The sentencing aspect, now that's a different ballgame. Gee, there must be hundreds of prisoners down Texas way who are hoping to meet the President.

Lying repeatedly to obstruct justice (read cover Cheney's ass) used to be a "major wrong". Maybe it was changed by a signing statement I missed.

Except that he didn't lie to cover Cheney's ass because it became clear in the investigation that Cheney's ass wasn't exposed. Cheney didn't leak the name, and the question raised here is whether you can obstruct justice solely because you act like an idiot and don't know what the hell is going on.

Dave

#41:
Damning with faint praise, Dave.

Your tolerance for idiots in this administration is off the charts.

Dave - RE: But Alec, you're just as wrong about this as JB is about some of his assertions. You just quoted Fitzgerald, who also admited that the scenario you describe was NOT true. Libby wasn't at the beginning OR end of any chain of phonecalls disclosing the information.

Can you provide a citation on this? Also, it seems to me that this might be material to any appeal that Libby might make, but I have not seen this to be the case anywhere.

My point still stands that material that lays out the case against Libby and exactly what he was convicted of is easily available.


RE: He was at best the second person to reveal information about Plame, and more realistically the 4th if you count the two accidental leaks of her identity by the CIA.

This is still totally irrelevant to the charges against Libby and his conviction for obstruction of justice. He was not charged with leaking Plame's name.

It is also interesting that you, like John, try to minimize the leaking of Plame's name as an accidental leak when some of the usual suspects, the cynical Beltway pundits, acknowledge that the leaking was intentional and meant to discredit Plame and Wilson, but then try to ascribe it to "typical Washington political infighting."

Once again, the Bush Administration and their loyal acolytes cannot be consistent with their lies and obfuscations.

RE: In addition, it has been VERY clearly established that Libby had no idea he was leaking someone's covert identity when he referred obliquely to 'ambassador wilson's wife'.

Again, this is not relevant to Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice.


RE: He had no intent to do harm.

This is not only irrelevant, but it is also clear that lack of intent is not relevant to whether a crime has been committed. For example, a person who causes the death of another without intent can be charged with and convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The law has always been clear on the principle that lack of intent is not always sufficient to excuse an act from being criminal.

Dave, you are too smart not to know this. Why, then, do you attempt to use this as some phony mitigation?

RE: It's not unreasonable to assume that Libby's commuted sentence was largely the result of the fact that he didn't really do anything major wrong.

Bush is not a lawyer or a judge, and there are stories which claim that he did not run this past the justice department beforehand. There is no legal principle that I am aware of called "didn't do anything major wrong."

There is, however, clear evidence that Bush and Cheney hold themselves above the law.

By the way, the spin currently making the rounds is to compare the Libby Commutation to Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

Ironic, then, to know that Scooter Libby represented Marc Rich from 1985 to 2000, and once testified that he believed "prosecutors of billionaire financier Marc Rich 'misconstrued the facts and the law' when they went after Rich on tax evasion charges."

For the record, I believed that Clinton's pardon of Rich was disgraceful. Apparently, Bush simply saw it as precedent.

Re #17:
JB sniffs the Great Unwashed Masses and squeeks:

"I usually filter comments to the trash..."

Take that, you mean old bullies. One-way communication:that's the goal of JB!

His mind is made up (closed and locked against any different ideas, so he says), so please don't confuse him with the facts.

JB: If you can't stand the heat, maybe you'd better get the hell out of the kitchen.

If this tweaks liberals justice has been served. ZIP-A-DEE-DOO-DA MY O MY WHAT A WONDERFUL DAY. SEE YA ASSHOLES.

John, Dave, everyone: you know, I know and every other idiot who expends more than half a brain cell's worth of attention on this knows that Libby is just the fall guy for whatever went down here. He was asked to lie, so like a good loyal chap he lied. About what, exactly, we may never know.

sr, I enjoy a good tweak every once in a while.

BTW, it's been a while since you've given me the update on those watermelon-sized suppositories. They don't appear to be having any effect.

If I were only a half-wit with a foul mouth and a limited vocabulary, I could talk to sr as an equal!

Come on, Nalle. you are laying down on this one.

It's not unreasonable to assume that Libby's commuted sentence was largely the result of the fact that he didn't really do anything major wrong.

Look at those qualifiers: largely, really, major

stand up to these guys. You are going to need to. One day soon, when the Dems run the country, you guys will be freaking out about everything. When you do, we will quote your words here about 'nothing being majorly wrong'.

in fact, the Dems pretty much have a pass for the next four years after the election. We can: covertly plan a war, fix intelligence to make that war happen, get totally caught lying about all of it, out some CIA operatives, alienate the free world, and have a vice President that absolutely refuses to anything for anyone and won't even answer questions.

Oh, and the will of the people won't be a concern with us either. Bush showed that with the Stem cell bill and the Iraqi time lines veto.

yup, you guys won't stand up to your own leadership... good luck holding our guys accountable when we take over. Set the kool aid down and see what your leadership is doing.

JB -- RE: It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who assert as facts that which is simply not true.

Here is another uncomfortable fact, complete with citation: It appears that in commuting Libby's sentence, Bush exceeded the standard practice of the Office of Pardons. From the New Republic web site blog.

The DOJ's "Standards for Consideration of Clemency Petitions" (via TPM), states that "Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding." Libby's case fails both these tests. What he received is a pardon in sheep's clothing, one that cheapens the term "commutation," with its expectation of a just punishment ultimately curtailed.

Of course, not having to trust the liberal media, we can go straight to the source at the DOJ site (see Section 1-2.113 et seq).

Bush, his cronies and acolytes continually talk about the rule of law, but clearly here Dubya is really the Lord of Misrule.

"in fact, the Dems pretty much have a pass for the next four years after the election. We can: covertly plan a war, fix intelligence to make that war happen, get totally caught lying about all of it, out some CIA operatives, alienate the free world, and have a vice President that absolutely refuses to anything for anyone and won't even answer questions.

Oh, and the will of the people won't be a concern with us either. Bush showed that with the Stem cell bill and the Iraqi time lines veto."

It's OK, because "everybody does it."

Infantile.

I heard Hillary railing against the commutation on the radio last night. Hilarious. Does she think we've forgotten about the pardon festival at the end of her husband's administration?

She tries to take credit for all the wonders of Bill's presidency, ignoring all the scandals. The truth is the opposite. She arguably had nothing to do with his, say, welfare reform, but was implicated in the politically-motivated firings of the White House travel staff.

#53. Clavos - I think you accidentally set your sarcasm detection button to 'off'...

stand up to these guys. You are going to need to. One day soon, when the Dems run the country, you guys will be freaking out about everything. When you do, we will quote your words here about 'nothing being majorly wrong'.

Lono, if the people are dumb enough to put the Democrats into power it's not their scandals we'll be complaining about.

You see, here's the difference between the two parties. The Republicans biggest threat when in power is their scandals and occasional bit of corruption. When the Democrats are in power it's their actual openly-advocated programs which threaten the nation and the citizens.

Dave

oi...not that I don't think Dems are a bunch of screaming meanies or anything...but do you honestly think that the past few years of Rep rule haven't been punctuated by programs 'which threaten the nation and the citizens' - ?

Troll, I truly, honestly think that the fearmongering about the small number of mildly troubling things which Bush has done is totally out of proportion to any real threat.

The single biggest offense is clearly the PATRIOT Act, and it was bipartisan and is still enthusiastically supported by most Democrats.

Dave

James Madison (1751-1836), the father of the U.S. Constitution (1788-2007), added that "if 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."

#56:
"...the small number of mildly troubling things which Bush has done..."

Such as war without end in Iraq

budget deficits out the wazoo

torture

erosion of civil liberties

loss of prestige and moral authority around the world...

Yeh, mildly troubling.

don't worry, it's just dave's "moral relativism" meter fucking up again.

Re #59:

Mr. sr, you must have misunderstood my comment. (Does that seem to happen to you a lot?)

I was expressing my profound admiration for your superlative achievement in attaining those rare and remarkable distinguishing characteristics that you alone possess in such abundance.

And then the brilliance in your reply of a "yo mama"!! Well, I mean!!!

Few of us dim wits could ever dream of coming close to you. You are truly beyond compare!

Mr Richards. Thank you for commenting to my comment. Depending upon my rum consumption maybe I misunderstood. My wife tells me that every day since she has to clean the toilet because I miss alot. Yes Im truly beyond compare. Of course that depends upon who you compare me with. A good day to you Sir.

sr - do you miss a lot only while standing, or while sitting down too?

"Fact is Iraq did seek yellow cake from Nigeria. Just as intelligence suggested."

Chris #27: "Uh, no. It's not a fact. It's a complete lie. The White House went on to admit that the whole thing was based on forged documents and was complete crap."

There were forged documents, but that wasn't what the intelligence was based on. The bi-partisan Senate report on the CIA's intelligence gathering concluded that, contrary to Wilson's statements about his own report, his findings had bolstered rather than undermined the case that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger. This was well after the Italian documents were figured to be forgery's.

The credible sources say that the possibility that Iraq sought yellow cake from Niger is still "an open question", but that's just what is said when absolute proof is unattainable.

Moreover, the British Butler Commission still stands by it's intelligence. And, after all, that is the source Bush cited in his "16 words", so Bush can't reasonably be accused of lying.

One way that a person might reasonably recognize that the persecution of Libby is a sham, is that No one in the biased media actually specifies what it is that Libby has done.

Libby is simply accused (and convicted) of lying under oath about who told him Plames identity.

That's it.

Sure he spread the name to others after the information was out, and everyone who still reads the New York Times knew. (not a crime) But he remembers that Tim Russert was the first to tell him. Russert says no.

How can a jury meet the standard of reasonable doubt based on two peoples' conflicting testimony?

Finding Ron Goldmans blood in OJ's vehicle wasn't enough for another infamous jury.

The leaker, Richard Armitage, read Plames name to Robert Novak from an unclassified memo at the CIA. Apparantley Valerie Plame's code name was Valerie Plame.

Correction: It wasn't The New York Times that carried Bob Novaks story.

It was the NYT that carried Joe Wilsons lie.

It's interesting that Bush took this one on himself. He didn't consult with DoJ or Cheney. It makes sense.

A friend is in trouble. You don't want to pardon him, but you can't stand by while a friend lands in prison. So you take the middle path, protecting him from the worst but letting the conviction stand.

And you don't try to pass it off as a reasoned decision. You take the hit. The funny thing is, if Bush explained it this way, he'd probably get some support from the electorate. But Bush never explains or defends anything he does. I guess he trusts CBS to explain his actions fairly. As bad as he is at speaking, he does far more damage to his cause when he doesn't speak.

He did issue a statement explaining his actions, you know.

I don't know where you boneheads are getting your news.

Bush indicated in a press conference on Tuesday that he is not ruling out anything--including a complete pardon of Scooter Pie.

Can you provide a citation on this? Also, it seems to me that this might be material to any appeal that Libby might make, but I have not seen this to be the case anywhere.

My point still stands that material that lays out the case against Libby and exactly what he was convicted of is easily available.

Yes it is. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it rather than asking people to provide citations for facts which anyone even vaguely familiar with the case should know.

It is also interesting that you, like John, try to minimize the leaking of Plame's name as an accidental leak when some of the usual suspects, the cynical Beltway pundits, acknowledge that the leaking was intentional and meant to discredit Plame and Wilson, but then try to ascribe it to "typical Washington political infighting."

You aren't reading closely enough. I didn't minimize the leaking of Plame's name. I pointed out that Fitzgerald said that Libby's revealing of Plame (such as it was) seemed to be done entirely in ignorance. Armitage's leaking was presumably intentional, though his motives are somewhat obscure.

Once again, the Bush Administration and their loyal acolytes cannot be consistent with their lies and obfuscations.

And you trot out the same old jargon, accusing us of being Bush administration flunkies just because we don't agree with you. If that's the best you can do, why bother?

This is not only irrelevant, but it is also clear that lack of intent is not relevant to whether a crime has been committed.

No, but it's entirely relevant to the severity of the crime and the type of punishment it deserves.

For example, a person who causes the death of another without intent can be charged with and convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Yes, but he cannot be convicted of murder.

The law has always been clear on the principle that lack of intent is not always sufficient to excuse an act from being criminal.

But it's indisputible that it changes the severity of the crime.

Dave, you are too smart not to know this. Why, then, do you attempt to use this as some phony mitigation?

Because your argument that an unintentional act and an intentional act are treated the same under the law is just dead wrong.

Bush is not a lawyer or a judge, and there are stories which claim that he did not run this past the justice department beforehand. There is no legal principle that I am aware of called "didn't do anything major wrong."

He's not a lawyer or a judge, he's the president. He has the power to commute sentences and actually doesn't really need a reason. That's the way it works. It's external to the normal system of justice.

There is, however, clear evidence that Bush and Cheney hold themselves above the law.

Citation? Any evidence that they believe this? I'd be amused to see it.


For the record, I believed that Clinton's pardon of Rich was disgraceful. Apparently, Bush simply saw it as precedent.

See my current article on the Reagan administration. Bush Sr. pardonned or commuted the sentences of dozens of Reagan era officials convicted of a variety of crimes.

Dave

The thing that's funny about Nalle is he just does not see that the Bushies' rubbing you guys' noses in their shit clearly DOES inidicate they hold themselves to be above the law.

Anbd, in a behavioral sense, they are absolutely right--since you folks do not hold them accountable for any of their crimes.

I guess you are too envious and would like to commit them yourselves.

Let's just remember that on this Independence Day, the only real patriotic thing to do is kill a Republican.

You should only kill Republicans if you're going to eat them afterwards, preferably barbequed.

Dave

Mmmmmm, barbecue...

Doc#62. Your comment was excellent. Sure I could comment back however you had me laughing so hard you made my day. Like I said Doc, your a funny guy. Please continue on sir.

Cooked up a rack of lib ribs today. They tasted and smelled like shit. Not that I would know what shit taste like but I sure the hell know what it smells like. The tater salad and beans were good. Best part of the day was the cherry bomb in the toilet with my drunk friend sitting/shiting on it.

Come on sr, we all know that you know what shit tastes like ... because we all know how much you love a good shit sandwich.

well, stopped by for the first time in months looking for just such an as this one, since yer humble Narrator had furiously typed one up moments after the Announcement of the pardon and was thinking of actually submitting it...

but after perusing both the Article and the following comments, then throwing up a little in my mouth, i realized one thing...

i was right in my decision to stop using BC as my home page

know that i DO miss talking with some of you, and others are still fucking idiots and shills, imo

Excelsior?

gonzo! missed ya!

Howdy, gm!

for you Maurice, i'll respond...

ya missed cuz i ducked and hid!!!

heh

sorry to you and others who might be a tad disappointed at my disappearance, but there ya are...

currently i don't find any reason to *return*, but since my recovery from surgery i find the urge to spew words returning...

just hafta find a good home for them, little bastards that they are...stuff piled up on the olde hard drive on many topics, some way outdated...

but i digress...

heyas to those that care, and a guy nod to the rest...

be Well, folks...and remember...

look up shit for yourselves, NEVER just believe anyone about anything , myself included...triple check yer Facts...then make up yer own Minds

the Tao of D'oh

nuff said?

Excelsior!

Dave - RE: [Can you provide a citation on this?]

Yes it is. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it rather than asking people to provide citations for facts which anyone even vaguely familiar with the case should know.

Sorry, Dave, you are getting circular here. YOU made a claim without proof or citation, not me.

RE: You aren't reading closely enough. I didn't minimize the leaking of Plame's name. I pointed out that Fitzgerald said that Libby's revealing of Plame (such as it was) seemed to be done entirely in ignorance. Armitage's leaking was presumably intentional, though his motives are somewhat obscure.

Sorry, Dave. You are attempting misdirection again. Libby's leaking of Plame's name is not at issue, nor was it the basis of Fitzgerald's case against him. Perjury. Obstruction of justice. Not leaking, whether intentional or not, whether in ignorance or not.

You talk about "close reading," and yet you continue to miscontrue the fairly simple facts of the case against Libby.


RE: And you trot out the same old jargon, accusing us of being Bush administration flunkies just because we don't agree with you. If that's the best you can do, why bother?

Just because it is "old jargon" does not mean that it is inaccurate. Others have asked, and I will ask as well: is there anything that the Bush administration could do that would cause you to disavow them? I also ask because you, John and others either deliberately mis-state the facts of the Libby case or attempt to minimize them.

It is not a matter of whether or not you agree with me. The sad thing is that both Democrats and Republicans are at fault here. I predict that if they regain the presidency, the Democrats may be tempted to abuse power in the same way that Bush is now doing, and Democratic Party lapdogs will do the rationalization dance that Bush defenders are now doing. My accusation is against anyone, of any party, who blindly puts ideology and "my side vs your side," against principle.



RE: [This is not only irrelevant, but it is also clear that lack of intent is not relevant to whether a crime has been committed.]

No, but it's entirely relevant to the severity of the crime and the type of punishment it deserves.

No, it's not. Not when a president interjects himself into it. The judge did not go for anything close the the maximum penalty. And Bush clearly violated previous DOJ guidelines regarding commutations.

RE: [For example, a person who causes the death of another without intent can be charged with and convicted of involuntary manslaughter.]

Yes, but he cannot be convicted of murder.

Wow. You almost had a point here. And this relates to Libby, how? By the way, there ain't no such thing as "convicted of murder" by itself. There is 1st degree murder, 2nd degree, etc.

RE: Because your argument that an unintentional act and an intentional act are treated the same under the law is just dead wrong.

Huh? There is no case law, none, nada, nowhere, that distinguishes between "intentional perjury" and "unintentional perjury," between "unintentional obstruction of justice" and "intentional obstruction of justice." You are just making stuff up here, although I do not know who your intended audience might be.

You keep trying to pretend that Libby's prosecution was based on his leaking Plame's name, and that this leaking may have been unintentional. But since this is not the facts of the case, why do you insist on offering it as something real and material?


RE: He's not a lawyer or a judge, he's the president. He has the power to commute sentences and actually doesn't really need a reason. That's the way it works. It's external to the normal system of justice.

Did you write the same thing about Clinton's pardons?


By the way, some are questioning whether Bush has the power to commute sentences when the convicted person has not served a second of jail time.

There is a larger principle at work here as well, which applies to all presidents, not just Bush. Just as Bush has the right to appoint US attorneys, his actions have caused upset among the ranks of present US attorneys, including some who are Republicans, for unnecessarily politicizing the office.

Integrity matters as much as the right to exercise power.

RE: [There is, however, clear evidence that Bush and Cheney hold themselves above the law.]

Citation? Any evidence that they believe this? I'd be amused to see it.

The evidence is clearly in front of you. The question is, are you getting what you want from this Administration? Is this why you so readily seek to minimize their actions?

RE: See my current article on the Reagan administration. Bush Sr. pardonned or commuted the sentences of dozens of Reagan era officials convicted of a variety of crimes.

Saw it. Didn't have time to respond because of the holidays. It was, however, another masterpiece of misdirection.

Neither Bush nor Reagan commuted the sentence of a loyalist who had not served jail time. Pardons are another matter.

Reagan had principles. Dubya has none except loyalty to his cronies. Dubya promised to be better than the perceived tawdriness and corruption of the Clinton era. But now you proudly declare that these guys are fine with you because they are a little less corrupt.

Dave - A little bit more--
RE: He has the power to commute sentences and actually doesn't really need a reason. That's the way it works. It's external to the normal system of justice.

From 1982, an assistant attorney general for Ronald Reagan:

"According to Associate Attorney General Rudolph W. Giuliani, executive clemency involves a great number of people and a complex, yearlong procedure. Every request is subject to a detailed inquiry by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which conducts as many as 50 interviews to flesh out each application. That background investigation is as comprehensive as any the bureau conducts on a prospective United States Attorney, Mr. Giuliani said.

The case is next studied by the pardon attorney, who makes a judgment that Mr. Giuliani reviews. His judgment, in turn, goes to Fred Fielding, the White House counsel who re-examines the files and makes his own judgment. Then, according to Mr. Fielding, every request is presented to the President for his concurrence."

But with Bush we have an administration that makes a big noise about rule of law and "original intent" with respect to the Constitution, but in practice behaves as though arbitrary exercise of executive power is all that matters, ignoring established and traditional procedures, making up new and ridiculous interpretations of law to suit their ends, and creating justifications as an afterthought.

And yet Bush defenders ignore the extent to which Bush ignores precendent. It is odd that a group which claims to be all about liberty and the rule of law positively swoon in the face of arbirtary authoritarianism.

By the way, Bush's hamfisted commutation, within his power, but ill-conceived, has created some new wrinkles. He is here worse than an activist judge supposedly creating new laws:

From the Washington Monthly and elsewhere:

Bush said Tuesday that in reaching the decision on Libby, "I considered his background, his service to the country, as well as the jury verdict." While vacating the prison sentence, he did not disturb other portions of the sentence, including a $250,000 fine and two years of a form of probation known as supervised release.

"But I felt like the 30-month sentencing was severe; made a judgment, a considered judgment that I believe is the right decision to make in this case, and I stand by it," the president said.

Whether Libby would have to serve probation was in some doubt Tuesday. The sentencing judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, said in court papers that it was unclear whether a defendant who had not done jail time could still be subject to supervisory release. He asked the lawyers to advise him on the issue.

You can even see the judge's order to confirm this.

Alec. Do you argue just for the sake of arguing? You don't seem to have any substantive arguments here, just babbling about misdirection and unsupportrd assertions. Repeating yourself is not actually an effective form of argument.

Lumpy - re: Do you argue just for the sake of arguing? You don't seem to have any substantive arguments here, just babbling about misdirection and unsupportrd assertions. Repeating yourself is not actually an effective form of argument.

Hey, Lump. I think your nickname is very apt. Some may think I am wrong about an issue, but when I generously provide links and quotations, one could not honestly say that my assertions are unsupported. Unless, of course, one was lumpy.

"That said, it does appear from all available evidence that there never should have been an investigation and that Fitzgerald engaged in a witch hunt even though he knew the facts from day one that there was no real crime."

That's really a slander of Fitzgerald. How in the world could Fitzgerald know there was no crime from day 1?

He didn't initiate a witch hunt or initiate anything. Bush's attorney general appointed him to conduct an investigation because there was serious suspicion of a crime. How would Fitzgerald know, from day 1, that there was no crime when Bush's own AG suspected a crime? That's why Fitzgerald was appointed.

Even President Bush discussed the possibility that there had been a crime committed and he expressed full support for the investigation saying: "And if this helps stop leaks, this investigation in finding the truth, it'll not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked -- and this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action. But also hopefully we'll help send a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop as well.

To recap: President Bush described the leak as a serious matter and a crime. The Republican, AG appointed by Bush, thought a special prosecutor was needed. He selected a Republican Bush appointee(Fitgerald)to conduct the investigation. The case was tried before a Republican judge appointed by the Bush administration. A jury of 12 Americans unanimously believed that Libby was guilty. No one could have had the deck stacked better in their favor more than it was stacked favorably for Libby. There was no witch hunt. It was all the work of Republicans.

STM#75. As long as the shit sandwich has peanut butter, mustard and sardines on it. With a side of tater salad it's heaven. Try it on toasted rye bread.

Dr X makes some good points.

seems like his punishment is still harsher than sandy berger's or clinton's. Would you like a side of double standard with that sandwich?

Here's an interesting, on-topic excerpt from an LA Times editorial:

"With the sand running out on his administration, President Clinton hustled through pardons for 141 people and commutations for 36 more. Among those who received pardons were 27 men and women convicted of drug crimes, deserters from the military, a former member of the Clinton Cabinet who pleaded guilty to making false statements to authorities, and various perjurers and obstructionists. Clinton's half-brother walked away that day with a clean record, as did Patty Hearst and financier Marc Rich -- at the time a fugitive from justice on charges of violating the embargo against trade with Iran, tax evasion and other unsavory deeds. Clinton's pardons were particularly offensive because they were issued just as his presidency ended, so there was no way for him to be held accountable for his misuse of power." (emphasis added)

Res ipsa loquitur.

more and more bullshit...

this has nothing to do with Clinton, and anyone trying to say differently is just pure spin and attempted distraction...just because someone else was an asshole and did some fucked up shit, does NOT excuse another person from doing it...

when did the GOP become so soft on crime?

try and keep this Issue on topic...

a member of the Administration lied to the FBI and a grand jury during an investigation being held by an appointee of the Administration

found guilty by a jury of his peers for lying to the FBI, perjury to a grand jury, obstruction of justice

now, when it appears that some pressure could be put on the convicted felon to cut a deal and talk rather than going to prison, the President...without consulting the Justice department, commutes the sentence, going against his own Justice department guidelines, to remove any possibility of said pressure being utilized...

many a lawyer is going to be quoting the President on this one, trying to get their clients off of jail time due to "past service".."hardship to their family" all all the rest of the shit W spewed as *reasoning*

oh yeah..side note..as for Marc Rich, the bastard should have done his time, but it looks like his lawyer did well to con Clinton into a pardon...

his lawyer was Scooter Libby

plenty more, but no one is going to convince anyone, no matter the facts that are laid out before them

more and more as time goes on, one thing is shown clearly...W and his administration makes Nixon look ethical

after all, Nixon didn't pardon Liddy, Haldeman, Erlichman and the rest, and resigned for the good of the nation...

anyone want to bet that on W's last days, good olde Scooter gets a full pardon?

the Tao of D'oh

nuff said...

Excelsior!

"You see, here's the difference between the two parties. The Republicans biggest threat when in power is their scandals and occasional bit of corruption. When the Democrats are in power it's their actual openly-advocated programs which threaten the nation and the citizens."

Dave........

That one paragraph is the truest, most worthwhile, topical, pertinent bit of writing I have EVER seen on Blogcritics.

Thank you.

Oh and I really don't get what all of the fuss the left is making over this Libby deal considering how they didn't utter a peep when Clinton was busy pardoning his own brother for cocaine trafficking and auctioning off pardons to countless criminals who happened to be either friends or family members of those who could gave the Clintons very sizeable political donations.

The icing on the cake is Slick Willie actually going on national TV and critisizing Bush over the libby commutation. I guess billy-boy can't help himself. The need to drop in every now and then and remind us all of what a world class scumbag he is is to powerful and compulsive for him to control.

For everyone who thinks I'm whitewashing here, I'd wish they'd actually read the *whole* article...

This is the funniest notion I've seen on BC:

"You see, here's the difference between the two parties. The Republicans biggest threat when in power is their scandals and occasional bit of corruption. When the Democrats are in power it's their actual openly-advocated programs which threaten the nation and the citizens.

Dave"

And there you have the mainspring of Daves political effort: he's just another democrat-hater. He's not a contrarian, he's not a "liberal", he's not a conservative, he's not a libertarian. Just another democrat-hater. How banal.

Clavos #88

This was dealt with thoroughly about six months back on this very blog sight. I think you participated in the discussion.

Feeling a little senior today or doth though also like the many amongst us bathe frequently the sweet bosom of the spirits thus echoing, with predictability (in true form, like the creature you've been since your weenin), In Jameson Veritas?

Sorry I'm still in Pirates of the Caribbean mode hence the long overly stated sample of free verse :o)

I have no idea what you were attempting, rather unsuccessfully, to say, Zedd.

However, I did decipher enough to respond to you that I am a teetotaler; i don't drink Jameson or any other alcoholI

and i Quote - ""You see, here's the difference between the two parties. The Republicans biggest threat when in power is their scandals and occasional bit of corruption. When the Democrats are in power it's their actual openly-advocated programs which threaten the nation and the citizens."
"

which appears, upon Examination, to be hyperbole and a pretty baseless generalization to many people

let's see, shall we talk about some Actualized *threats* for examples?

warrantless wiretapping, in defiance of the $th Amendment to the Constitution? - even the FBI admits to over 200 cases where it was done purely domestically...NOT involving ANY overseas people or calls...each and every one of those , done without warrant are violations of many federal laws, as well as said portion of the Constitution

Jose Padilla - probably a scumbag who deserves to be locked up for a while...but a U.S. citizen, held by this Administration and the Justice department for over 3 years, without being charged with ANY crime, without the recourse of habeus corpus and without ANY of the protections provided to EVERY U.S. citizen

i think most would say those are clearly defined threats

how about lesser "evils"...big government, wasteful spending..these are the kinds of things many would say are the Democrats domain...but let's take a look at the track record that 6 years of GOP control have wrought

between the "department of homeland security" and the Administration's Prescription drug program, government has grown dramatically since 2000...yet our borders are no more secure than they were and due to the problem of the drug program's legislation not even allowing negotiation of prices, as well as the complexity of the program itself...many folks are in just as bad a position as they were previously...some worse...but those pharma corps profits have gone up, eh?

so..i have to ask, what "openly advocated programs" exactly ARE such huge threats? and how so?

because right now, i just don't see it

and don't get me wrong..the Dems are almost as fucked up as the GOP, and have been at least as bad at times in the past...

but toss a pre-emptive war sold to the public under false pretenses (in some respects like what JFK and LBJ did with Nam), and scandals/corruption that makes Nixon look ethical in retrospect...

what argument could there possibly be that the Dems are not currently a much lesser threat to have in office than the GOP?

Excelsior?

Actually, gonzo, I think you just made a pretty persuasive argument for throwing ALL those "mainstream" fuckers (D & R) out and voting in a radical like Kucinich, Gravel or Paul.

At least the next four wouldn't likely be more of the same.

i would be all for Paul versus Gravel

a MUCH better debate of Issues for our Nation to converse about, and i would wager more solutions would be found for our problems than we are ever going to see from your stated "mainstream"

not a single one of those greedhead pigfuckers have an ounce of authenticity between the lot of them

like i've said before, rarely is there anyone i would like to vote for, but there's ALWAYS someone to vote against

your mileage may vary

Excelsior?

Clavos,

Not only were you in senior mode but you are obviously in jerk mode too.

gonzo raises many of the same relatively valid but tediously repeated issues, but does not actually address the point which i made earlier.

the gop does not include warrantless wiretaps, torture or changes to habeas corpus in their party platform. they do not run candidates who openly advocate violating peoples rights and destroying the constitution. the policies which they advocate as good for the country are mostly actually positive.

the democrats on the other hand, have a history of advocating a philosophy of government which is inherently incompatible with the constitution and which would violate rights included there and in some cases even more fundamental than much of what is included in the bill of rights. starting from a point of philosophically opposing liberty how can they possibly produce an end result which is better than the gop?

remember, failing something good, we're still picking the lesser of two evils.

and as for bliffle's comment:

And there you have the mainspring of Daves political effort: he's just another democrat-hater. He's not a contrarian, he's not a "liberal", he's not a conservative, he's not a libertarian. Just another democrat-hater. How banal.

i certainly don't hate democrats. some of my favorite people and some of my favorite politicians are democrats. but the good individuals who are in the party do not define the party and because i DO believe in the basic principles of liberalism, i cannot support the party and its adherence to a package of beliefs which are inherently oppressive. and i've never claimed to be a conservative.

dave

i quote #99 "the gop does not include warrantless wiretaps, torture or changes to habeas corpus in their party platform. they do not run candidates who openly advocate violating peoples rights and destroying the constitution. the policies which they advocate as good for the country are mostly actually positive."

more bullshit and spin here

while i can agree the GoP party platform does nto include these things, the elected representatives from said political gang have implemented them in the last 6 years...thus making liars of them as well as their other transgressions agains tour Republic....

those that are their Apologists and supporters thus make themselves guilty as enablers

i don't give a fuck what someone "advocates"..it's what they actually DO that matters...all else is spin

this paragraph - "the democrats on the other hand, have a history of advocating a philosophy of government which is inherently incompatible with the constitution and which would violate rights included there and in some cases even more fundamental than much of what is included in the bill of rights. starting from a point of philosophically opposing liberty how can they possibly produce an end result which is better than the gop?"

is nothing but speculation, unsubstantiated claims and pure partisan bullshit attempting to fear monger with NO basis in objective Reality, for the most part

true enough, the Dems are fucked up in many ways, but no where near the dangerous pigfuckers the GoP have shown themselves to be in the last 6 years of rule

Excelsior?

gonzo, despite your long-term memory problem, the democrats have in fact held office within our mutual lifetime, and they did just as much evil as the gop, but they did much of it openly and were proud of it. i find that more repugnant.

dave

despite your insults about my memory...

why don't you cite your examples, and we will discuss whether your "evils" come close to trashing sections of the Constitution, violating several federal laws and the like

i still contend that the Padilla case alone, much less added to the warrantless wiretaps, far outstrips these "evils"...

but i'm willing to listen, if/when you deign to show your specific examples, and point out what exactly in the Dem platform you find so egregious

Excelsior?

gonzo, where do you want me to start or stop? the fairness doctrine, the brady bill, the defense of marriage act, socialized medicine, the assault weapons ban, don't ask don't tell. do you not see the theme which unites these issues?

dave

and which of these are in the Dem party platform?

some of these are bullshit because they have bi-partisan support, like "the defense of marriage act"

how one can equate the brady bill and the assault weapons ban as being any kind of equivalent to tossing aside habeus corpus and the 4th Amendment (warrantless wiretaps) is beyond my at the moment...do explain...is it that you think they somehow violate the Second Amendment, which i will Quote -
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

one can easily argue that both of those legally passed laws fall under the "well regulated Militia" portion...they have stood up to legal scrutiny so far, and either way, do explain why you think of them as a "threat"

please do show where in the Dem platform (quote and cite) that "socialized medicine" (i'm guessing you mean the position some have towards "Universal Healthcare"..which appear to be different animals, on the surface)

"don't ask, don't tell" also had bi-partisan support..and while i'll readily concede it's stupid..and i fail to see this huge "threat"

again...you raise some points, but fail to follow the simple Question or even stick to the guidelines of what is being asked..instead giving some things that were bi-partisan, or at best minor bits of stupidity as opposed to the quoted and cited very real damage done by the GoP in the last 6 years

Excelsior?

dave, if you have examples, just write them down for us. we are very curious... this is going on in two different threads.

what is this mysterious democratic "philosophy" that is so dangerous anyway? i think you vote much like my dad votes: for whatever will line his pockets with a little more cash.

on most of the "hot button" issues of the day, you seem to follow the dems: abortion, gay rights, immigration... you probably agree that this war is costing us too much money (and you probably know that it's going to come out of your taxes eventually), you know the dems simply aren't going to ban your precious hand guns and you know that the death penalty is seriously flawed.

but something keeps you with the gop. what is it? what's so bad about the dems?

GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES!

ya gotta be specific, zing...he had raised the point that a lot of the problems with the GoP are not in their Party platform, but stuff the Party has done

so i asked what , specifically, in the Dem platform is such a huge threat to our Nation

just trying to keep the Record straight

Excelsior?

what the party members actually do is what the platform really is. other than that, it's just words that get you to vote.

that's like saying "judge me for what i say, not what i do!"

as i point out on another thread there are really three levels here. there's what the party members believe, what they write in the platform (which is largely meaningless) and what they actually pass into law. attempting to focus on the platform as an expression of anything other than the desire to get people elected is pure misdirection.

on to more specifics.

gonzo, if you can't read the 2nd amendment which you just quoted and see how it totally is at odds with the brady bill and the assault weapons ban then there's no rational basis on which to discuss that subject with you.

what is this mysterious democratic "philosophy" that is so dangerous anyway?

it is the belief in the greatest good for the greatest number regardless of the needs or the universal rights of the individual.

i think you vote much like my dad votes: for whatever will line his pockets with a little more cash.

i wouldn't object to that characterization, except that there is more to it than that. there are the right way and the wrong way to line your pockets with cash. i support anyone who will give me the opportunity to earn and keep more money. i would not support those who wish to increase my wealth through a government handout or through the government managing my financial affairs for me.

on most of the "hot button" issues of the day, you seem to follow the dems: abortion, gay rights, immigration...

on the social issues i do agree with the dems, but if you look into their stance on immigration you'll find they probably don't really believe the way you think. their allegiance to unions has made them very protectionist and nativist - more so than many republicans.

you probably agree that this war is costing us too much money (and you probably know that it's going to come out of your taxes eventually),

of course. that's obvious to anyone. there's still some question of the cost/benefit ratio, but it's certainly excessive spending until there are proven benefits.

you know the dems simply aren't going to ban your precious hand guns and you know that the death penalty is seriously flawed.

something i certainly have to give howard dean credit for. he aggressively stamped out the anti-gun rhetoric once and for all.

but something keeps you with the gop. what is it? what's so bad about the dems?

again, as i said before, it's philosophy of government. the dems still believe that government should solve our problems for us, and the gop still mostly believes that government should leave us the hell alone.

dave

on the Second Amendment bit..nice try, but i will stand by exactly what i typed, not your veiled implications..which part of "well regulated Militia" do you not comprehend? and how do you think a ban on civilians having assault weapons violated the concept of "well regulated"?

and i Quote "the dems still believe that government should solve our problems for us, and the gop still mostly believes that government should leave us the hell alone."

and STILL think you need to show your proof

how the fuck do you reconcile "leaving us the hell alone" with the PATRIOT Act? or warrantless wiretapping and violating habeus corpus?

until you can give a straight answer to this very fundamental dichotomy, i STILL call bullshit

Excelsior?

all this being said (my comments, especially 107), i did miss comment #101.

"it is the belief in the greatest good for the greatest number regardless of the needs or the universal rights of the individual."

i think you oversimplify.

"the dems still believe that government should solve our problems for us, and the gop still mostly believes that government should leave us the hell alone."

and again, you oversimplify. what about torture and suspending habeous corpus is "leav[ing] us the hell alone?"

the dems may WISH gov't could solve all our problems, but they also KNOW that it can't. they do what they can do support the people, while the gop likes to support itself (in a selfish way, not a self-sufficient way). which may be where you get confused. the dems want to see the government working for everybody, while the gop is content to see the government manipulated by those who can afford to do so.