The President’s Decision was Wrong

With all this talk of hate mail, I was beginning to feel left out of the fun, so here’s my daily diatribe! 

I completely disagree with President Bush’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s jail sentence.  Mr. Libby obstructed justice and regardless that no one was charged with the underlying crime, Libby knowingly and purposely obstructed the investigation. 

Sometimes, politics has to take a back seat to common sense and this my friends is one of those things that sticks out to me like a soar thumb as being one of the most political decisions ever made by this President.  I believe that this may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for most Americans too. 

I can only gander to think that his logic was that the only people still with him are the neo-cons so why not keep them on his side by commuting Libby’s sentence. 

I know most neo-cons on this site will disagree with me, but I’m not a neo-con, I’m a mainstreet common sense conservative who can at least still remember what it means to be a Republican. 


  1. Ragnar Danneskjöld says:

    What investigation did he obstruct again?? Scooter Libby was mixed up in a witch hunt.

    I have disagreed with President Bush on90% of what he has done in his 2nd term, and I too am a common sense individual.

    But commuting this sentence is part of the 10% I agree with.

  2. I Am Jacks Post says:

    And the judged disregarded the sentencing recommendation, opting to hand out a far more punitive sentencing than is standard.

  3. Bull Moose says:

    Well, we can agree to disagree… I don’t believe it was a witch hunt though. Fitzgerald is not some partisan attorney, he was a respected US Attorney.

  4. Doug Deal says:

    How is one supposed to find out if an investigation is a witch hunt if the people being investigated do not tell the truth or simply say “I do not recall.”

    Why is it okay to impeach a sitting Democratic President in an eerily similar type of perjury case, but not convict a Republic functionary?

  5. GrandOleDawg says:

    Atta boy Bull Moose! Way to stand up for politically motivated prosecutorial overreach! A real maverick you are. Right up there with John Conyers and Harry Reid.

    “I’m a mainstreet common sense conservative who can at least still remember what it means to be a Republican.”

    Because, after all, Patty Fitzgerald’s hardon for nailing a Republican in a political show trial has everthing to do with both “common sense” and being Republican.

  6. Rogue109 says:

    “Why is it okay to impeach a sitting Democratic President in an eerily similar type of perjury case, but not convict a Republic functionary?”

    Which is easier to remember: having sex with an intern in the White House or a five minute conversation with a reporter from awhile back? I think the former would be hard to forget and the latter very forgettable.

    (Note: not saying I agree with Bush’s decision; just making a point)

  7. Bull Moose says:

    Here we go with the hate mail! Libby was convicted by a JURY of his peers.
    What you think those jury members were incapable of rendering a verdict?
    Let it work its way through the appeal process but until then there should have been no commute of the sentence or pardon.

  8. I Am Jacks Post says:

    Doug, it’s intellectually dishonest to compare Clinton’s and his cronies’ pattern of deceit with Libby’s actions.

  9. Doug Deal says:


    Good point, but I was pointing out that most of the screams of “Scooter Libby is a victim!” seem to be from people looking at the (R) next to his name, rather than anything else.

    Certainly it is easier to remember, but a jury found that Scooter knew the correct answer and chose to lie. As finders of fact, they correctly applied the law.

  10. Bull Moose says:

    I’ll give you this much – 30 months is a bit much, so perhaps reduce that to say, just 12 months. That would have been okay to do in my view.

  11. mondaymorningqb says:

    I’m not a neocon either, but Bush did the right thing. The whole incident was the latest round of the Inside the Beltway Gotcha Parlor Game and a pretty boring and stupid one at that.

    This doesn’t come anywhere close to the level of justifying jail time and I would say that regardless of the party membership involved.

  12. Bull Moose says:

    Jacks Post – why not compare? Because actually, Libby’s actions have had more negative consequences for our country. Hmm….

    Way to rally that last bit of the 26% or so that support the President.

    For the record, I am neither opposed or unopposed, I am indifferent.

  13. Rogue109 says:

    Doug: Understood. And he was fairly convicted…there are no two ways about it.

    I suppose I’m rather indifferent to the whole thing. He was legally convicted but then legally had his jail sentence set aside according to Article II of the Constitution. Pretty much the only person that makes me mad is Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. who is now calling for Bush’s impeachment for the pardon and, thus, demonstrating that he has never read the Constitution.

  14. Doug Deal says:


    I am not opposed to the commute, as it is the President’s power to do so, but I am against the people who think Libby was a hapless victim. He made his own bed. Perhaps not try to mislead a federal investigation. Just because you think it is a witch hunt, doesn’t mean everyone does.

  15. Icarus says:

    How is one supposed to find out if an investigation is a witch hunt if the people being investigated do not tell the truth or simply say “I do not recall.”

    The problem here is that Patrick Fitzgerald knew that a crime had not been committed before Mr. Libby committed his “crime”. So if Mr. Fitzgerald knew who leaked the Plame info, and knew it wasn’t a criminal act, what justice did Mr. Libby obstruct, exactly?

  16. CobbGOPer says:

    You’re an idiot. No, seriously.

    Would you like to see the VERY long list of pardons our previous president (you know, that guy that’s married to Hillary) handed out? Larceny, drug trafficking, embezzlement, tax fraud, counterfeiting, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, bank robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, bribery of public officials, mutiny in a time of war, wire fraud, mail fraud, perjury…

    Shall I go on? It is the perogative and right of any president to excersize his power to pardon someone convicted of crimes under federal law. It doesn’t matter what his motives are. It’s his right under the Constitution.

  17. Doug Deal says:


    That last sentence was supposed to be “you” in the general sence, but it sounds like I am accusing you of holding that belief.


    I am generally indifferent as well. It’s a power the president has, and one I wish more Presidents would use more often, so I don’t really have a complaint against it.

  18. Doug Deal says:


    Just because it turn’s out in the end to be something that would not result in a crime, the intent was to mislead investigators to save his own skin. If he didn’t think he was in jeopardy with his actions, he would have had no reason to knowingly lie (as the jury found).

  19. Doug Deal says:


    Did you complain when Bill Clinton handed out these pardons?

    If so, you are just being a hypocrit, if you now challenge Bull’s complaint.

  20. Bull Moose says:

    Oh dear, CobbGOPer, really, get off the RNC talking points and start thinking rational!

    The President has a lot of powers but he has the responsibility to discharge them in a fair and accurate manner.

    I guess we’ll just let him go ahead and do whatever he likes whenever he likes because he’s the President and the Constitution says he can do it!

    I didn’t agree with President Clinton’s pardons and I don’t agree with this commutation.

    I would have understood had Bush reduced the sentence but I think that Mr. Libby should have done SOME time.

    Keep in mind that our men and women in the armed service are off fighting and dying for a war that came out of the indirect actions related to what Scooter Libby was obstructing.

    I support our troops in this war, but can’t help but to wonder just why Scooter Libby felt it necessary to mislead the prosecutor.

    Sunshine and transparency makes for good government and if this White House has operated with a little more transparency we may not be having this dicussion today.

  21. Icarus says:


    My point isn’t that it didn’t result in a crime “in the end”, but that Fitzgerald knew a crime had not been committed before he interviewed Mr. Libby. If Mr. Fitzgerald knew a crime had not been committed, what was he investigating?

    This is the kind of abuse of government power that both liberals and strict conservatives (Bob Barr) both abhor. Upon learning that no crime had been committed, Mr. Fitzgerald should have ended his case. Instead, he continued until he found something he could prosecute. In most cases, this is considered entrapment.

    And as for the argument that this was a jury of Mr. Libby’s peers, Finding a D.C. jury that will convict a Republican is about as easy as finding a L.A. jury that will acquit O.J.

  22. Nicki says:

    I’m sorry, could someone please tell me what was so crucial to our national well-being about the Lewinsky incident? (and not regarding the character if our president — regarding the president’s ability to govern or lack thereof, which is all i care about.) I find Libby’s actions more troubling because they are tied to a very clear pattern of intimidation — and whatever time he gets should be served.

  23. CobbGOPer says:

    Uh, no, I didn’t. Know why? Because the Constitution (say it with me) grants this right to the president to excersize as he sees fit.

    You got a problem, draft an amendment.

  24. CobbGOPer says:

    “And as for the argument that this was a jury of Mr. Libby’s peers, Finding a D.C. jury that will convict a Republican is about as easy as finding a L.A. jury that will acquit O.J.”


  25. Bull Moose says:

    Icarus, I don’t doubt your sincerity, but I’m a little hesitant to go off and just write Fitzgerald off as an out of control prosecutor. His profile up to date, just doesn’t fit that mold.
    We (the general public) don’t know all the facts. I still think it is somewhat odd that Libby just wasn’t honest and upfront.
    I just wish and hope that one day Republicans will get back to being the party of common sense smaller government!
    This Libby thing will only be another smudge on the Republican party.
    CAN WE PLEASE get back to the OTHER important issues where Republicans win and do well? Is that an impossible task?

  26. Icarus says:

    “We (the general public) don’t know all the facts.”

    What facts do we not know. Any fact that was used to convict Mr. Libby was used in open court, and every national and D.C. media outlet was there to cover it.

    And because it’s late and laziness rules at this time of day, I won’t research exact quotes, but I do remember jurors saying things like “they felt sorry for Mr. Libby, and believed it was his superiors who deserved the blame, but someone had to pay, and he was it.”

    Political vendetta, accomplished.

  27. Bull Moose says:

    COBBGOPer – Learn to spell… It’s exercise!

    And now, you want to attack the underlying foundation of our judicial system – the jury!

    What’s next? Reinstate the poll tax and reading tests for voters?

    Get real.

  28. Icarus says:

    As for getting on to more important things, I agree. But scapegoating Mr. Libby isn’t the right thing to do in order to move on.

  29. Icarus says:

    I think I attacked the jury system, and I never want to trust my fate to 12 people who aren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty.

  30. CobbGOPer says:

    And by the way, Bull, seriously, no one outside the Beltway even really cares about this “scandal.” Except political junkies like us, obviously. But we don’t make up the majority of the voting public.

    This was a partisan witch-hunt the same way the Lewinsky affair was a partisan witch-hunt. Looking for crimes where none exist. What Libby did was stupid, no doubt. But the special prosecutor, as has been established by fact, knew that no crime had been commited in the first place with the “outing” of a no-longer-covert CIA agent. He kept going under pressure from the Dems to find something, anything, they could use against the President.

  31. Icarus says:

    I am rabid, but the shots are helping.

    I’m not a neo-con, nor do I believe that Bush can spell or pronounce “moon”, but I bet he enjoyed hanging a few during his college days.

  32. CobbGOPer says:

    I guess we should expect moronic posts like this from a die hard McCain supporter. That’s an obvious sign of brain damage.

  33. Nicki says:

    This was a partisan witch-hunt the same way the Lewinsky affair was a partisan witch-hunt.

    Arguably. See below.

    But the special prosecutor, as has been established by fact, knew that no crime had been commited in the first place with the “outing” of a no-longer-covert CIA agent.

    I’m tired of hearing this because it simply isn’t accurate. Libby and co. wouldn’t have bothered leaking Plame’s identity if they didn’t see an advantage in it — and that advantage was intimidation. Her status is arguable, but the fact that they felt they were damaging Wilson by helping craft the “his wife sent him to Niger” story is undeniable.

    He kept going under pressure from the Dems to find something, anything, they could use against the President.

    His record doesn’t suggest it. And again, I’m a lot more concerned about someone who acts to retaliate against someone who is interacting with them in their official capacity than I would be regarding the same in an unofficial capacity. Along the same lines, I’m very concerned about the purported coercion of scientists working on reports that ultimately inform policy.

  34. Bull Moose says:

    Ugh, seeing as this is tied to the war in Iraq, the case that was made against Saddam, etc… I’d say the American people probably are pretty damn interested in this, but enough already!

    Now I know who the neo-cons on here are.

    If Republicans want to win in 2008 this needs to be their message:

    1. Flat Tax within 3 years (before incumbent Pres. runs again)
    2. Path to 25% increase in alternative energy exploration within 10 years and be 25% energy independent within same period
    3. Association health plans with health screenings left intact implemented within 2 years
    4. Reign in out of control government spending with a top to bottom audit – reduce duplicity (it exists)
    5. Reconstitute empowerment zones, enterprise communities through tax incentives
    6. Guranteed veto of any pork barrel spending – from either party
    7. ZERO tolerance on special interest influence in government – ensure all cases are prosecuted to the fullest
    8. Secure the border first before any other immigration steps are taken
    9. Reduce size of federal government through attrition
    10. We’re on our way out of Iraq and will be gone within 2 years on a time table of benchmarks (not dates)

  35. Bill Simon says:


    Your comment about jurors who are “too stupid to get out of jury duty” smacks of rabid stupidity and ignorance…neither of which can be cured by any number of medical shots.

  36. CobbGOPer says:

    Um, but Nicki, Libby nor Rove nor the Vice President nor the President leaked Plame’s name.

    It was Richard Armitage at the State Department, someone the libs and Dems do not care about bringing down because he’s not part of the “evil axis” entourage of Rove/Cheney/Bush.

    So tell me, if it wasn’t a concerted effort to get at people close to the White House, why wasn’t Richard Armitage prosecuted?

  37. CobbGOPer says:

    And if you look at the testimony Armitage gave, it seems pretty clear he was not instructed to do so by anyone. And no one was prosecuted for issuing any order to that effect.

  38. jkga says:

    I suspect that Fitzgerald zealously pursued the Plame investigation not out of partisanship, rather out of a concern that the administration has shown a pattern of abusing and overstepping its powers. Along with manipulation of intelligence, the pattern includes widely expanded use of signing statements to subvert the intent of laws passed by the legislature, widely expanded claim of executive privilege (not to mention Cheney’s novel theory of quasi-legislative privilege), abrogating habeus corpus and sanctioning torture, and wiretapping without warrants.

    The commutation of Libby’s sentence fits nicely into this pattern. The message of the “get out of jail free” card is that members of the administration are not accountable to the other branches of government. That our leaders behave as though they are above the law should be unacceptable to anyone of any political persuasion.

    (I know that Bush was within his constitutional rights to commute this sentence. It still stinks of cronyism and flies in the face of the principle of equal justice under the law for all Americans.)

  39. GrandOleDawg says:

    I love how everyone uses the term “neo-con” like it’s some kind of insult. You people do realize that it only means “New Conservative” don’t you? Ya know, a conservative like Ronald Reagan as opposed to Eisenhower or Rockefeller.

    Fitzgerald was commissioned to 1. find who “leaked” and 2. prosecute them. As soon as Richard Armitage came forward, that’s it. Done. Over. Kaput. Scooter Libby “obstructed justice” in a trial that should have ended before it ever really began.

    Bull Moose, is creating ‘Sista Soulja moments’ with fellow Republicans on PP really that empowering? I don’t know who is sadder: you, Bill Simon, or Jeff.

  40. shep1975 says:

    Remember, unless Bush pardons Libby fully, Scooter STILL has to pay $250,000 for his 5 minute conversation he couldn’t recall and/or choose to lie about. Punishment=crime. + 30 months is excessive. Partisan witch hunt or not, the jury (truly, try finding a DC jury who WOULD NOT convict any member of the Bush Adminstration of anything) did find him guilty.

    By the way, I don’t remember Bill Clinton ever serving one day or paying $1 in fines for his “eerily similar” obstruction of justice.

  41. Bill Simon says:

    No, Grand, you’re wrong.

    The term “neocon,” while being an abbreviation of “neoconservative” ACTUALLY defines someone who is a Socialist at heart and uses the principles of the Republican Party as their own tools to enact their agenda.

    People like Bush, for instance, who claimed he was a Republican turned-out to be nothing other than a Big-Government Socialist who cut your taxes while increasing spending on programs like No Child Left Behind, Medicare, Part D, and invading countries out of his own personal whim.

  42. blazer says:

    What the hell does bull moose know anyway…. he thinks John McCain is a common sense conservative…

  43. GrandOleDawg says:

    Nice, Bill. I’m as pissed as the next guy about Bush’s spending habits, but Socialist?…wow.

    And for the record, I’m right on the definition of neo-con. Look it up.

    G’day gentleman. Golf course for me.

  44. Bill Simon says:

    Jeff, I’m going to disagree with Grand…and you.

    Reagan was a conservative, not a neo-conservative. Though he may have had neocons in his administration, he managed this country like a Goldwater conservative…and Goldwater was NOT a “neocon.”

  45. blazer says:

    Neo- Conservative means someone who is a new conservative, generally someone who was once a Leftist but is now a conservative…

    Irving Kristol remarked that a neoconservative is a “liberal mugged by reality,” one who became more conservative after seeing the results of liberal policies.

  46. What is so surprising and controversial about Bush and the neocon chicken hawks making yet another wrong decision, after all he’s on a mission from God?

    “Failures of Generalship in Iraq”
    By Lt. Col. Paul Yingling

    “You officers amuse yourselves with God knows what buffooneries and never dream in the least of serious service. This is a source of stupidity which would become most dangerous in case of a serious conflict.”
    – Frederick the Great

    “America’s generals have repeated the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq. First, throughout the 1990s our generals failed to envision the conditions of future combat and prepare their forces accordingly. Second, America’s generals failed to estimate correctly both the means and the ways necessary to achieve the aims of policy prior to beginning the war in Iraq. Finally, America’s generals did not provide Congress and the public with an accurate assessment of the conflict in Iraq.”

  47. Bill Simon says:


    They still possess their Leftist tendencies to increase the size of government. The literal meaning of “neo” means “new,” but just like the Neo-Nazis are not actually Nazis (because they have no country or government), “neocons” are not conservatives either. They are Lefties who wear the masks of “conservative right-wingers” only to show their true intents once they get elected.

    REAL conservatives are concerned with fiscal responsible government…show me 3 instances of Bush being responsible with government resources.

  48. Bull Moose says:

    Okay, I found this quote on, I thought it was relevant to this discussion. It is from Bush’s book:

    “I don’t believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own, unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair.”

    — George W. Bush, writing in his autobiography, A Charge to Keep.

  49. Bull Moose says:

    Also, from Wikipedia:
    Most people currently described as “neoconservatives” are members of the Republican Party, but while neoconservatives have generally been in electoral alignment with other conservatives, have served in the same Presidential Administrations, and have often ignored intra-conservative ideological differences in alliance against those to their left, there are notable differences between neoconservative and traditional or “paleoconservative” views. In particular, neoconservatives disagree with the nativist, protectionist, and non-interventionist strain of American conservatism once exemplified by the ex-Republican “paleoconservative” Pat Buchanan. As compared with traditional conservatism and libertarianism, which also sometimes exhibits a non-interventionist strain, neoconservatism is characterized by an increased emphasis on defense capability, a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile to the values and interests of the United States, pressing for free-market policies abroad, and promoting democracy and freedom at the barrel of a gun. Neoconservatives are strong believers in democratic peace theory.

    Critics take issue with neoconservatives’ support for aggressive foreign policy; critics from the left especially take issue with what they characterize as unilateralism and lack of concern with international consensus through organizations such as the United Nations.[22][23][24] Neoconservatives respond by describing their shared view as a belief that national security is best attained by promoting freedom and democracy abroad through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention. This is a departure from the traditional conservative tendency to support friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems. Author Paul Berman in his book Terror and Liberalism describes it as, “Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for freedom for others.” Michael Lind stated in the documentary film The Power of Nightmares that for “the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a ‘noble lie.'”[25]

    The “traditional” conservative Claes G. Ryn has argued that neoconservatives are “a variety of neo-Jacobins.” Ryn maintains that true conservatives deny the existence of a universal political and economic philosophy and model that is suitable for all societies and cultures, and believe that a society’s institutions should be adjusted to suit its culture, while Neo-Jacobins

    are attached in the end to ahistorical, supranational principles that they believe should supplant the traditions of particular societies. The new Jacobins see themselves as on the side of right and fighting evil and are not prone to respecting or looking for common ground with countries that do not share their democratic preferences. (Ryn 2003: 387)

    Further examining the relationship between Neoconservatism and moral rhetoric, Ryn argues that Neo-Jacobinism regards America as founded on universal principles and assigns to the United States the role of supervising the remaking of the world. Its adherents have the intense dogmatic commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic rhetoric. They demand, among other things, “moral clarity” in dealing with regimes that stand in the way of America’s universal purpose. They see themselves as champions of “virtue.” (p. 384).

    Thus, according to Ryn, neoconservatism is analogous to Bolshevism: in the same way that the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy established ways of life throughout the world to replace them with communism, the neoconservatives want to do the same, only imposing free-market capitalism and American-style liberal democracy instead of socialism.

    Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, had the following to say in a December, 2005 interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel: “They are not new conservatives. They’re Jacobins. Their predecessor is French Revolution leader Maximilien Robespierre.”[26]

  50. Rick Day says:

    As I sit here and absorb this thread, I can’t help but, yet again, think of my most common comment on this, the bestest of righty writer’s forums….

    So much fun it is, to watch Republicans eat their young. ™

    BM : If not Big Mc, perhaps RP instead? I sense are beginning to understand what is going on. You ‘get it’. It is time we fixed all the problems that have piled up since Ray Gun.

    Even a politically savvy left-leaning indie like me can see RP is the best we have in the race. If not POTUS, then perhaps President of the Senate?

    I’d imagine there would be no Scooters on his watch.

  51. Holly says:

    Why oh why are we all ganging up on the neo-cons.

    Neo-cons did not cause the problems, and I argue that the party needs them. Ronald Reagan had the foresight to recognize that. The problem, I maintain, is complacency and disregard on the part of our elected officials. Now, let’s all think, how many of our elected officials are really neo-cons?

    Aside from Sonny. I know that’s going to be the first one people point to, and yes, I’m aware he is.

    But if you look at our Congressmen and Senators I think you’ll see most of them have been life-long Republicans. Perhaps Nathan Deal is the exception? I remember him being a Democrat at one point. What about our neighboring states? I believe you’ll find the same thing with them – they’ve been long-term Republicans. Anyway, my point is that there is a collective problem among elected Republicans and it is definitely not constricted to the “neo-cons” or “Reagan Democrats” or whatever we’re calling them today. I feel like too many of us use them unfairly as a scapegoat.

    I say often on these threads that I think nationally, Republicans are out of touch with their base. They downright ignore them. Remember back in the 1990s when Republicans would do things like vote against COLA? Good thing they’ve finally gotten back to that. . . now that they’re in the minority and COLA passed anyway. Good to see them standing up against the earmark issue. . . again, once in the minority. Better late than never, maybe, but I think I see some hope for some of our boys and girls in Washington. I think perhaps some have realized they needs to get back to the principles of the party. Baby steps, but in the right direction, and I’m glad to see it.

    At this point, I do not think Bush represents the Republican Party’s ideals, certainly not the conservative base. I think we should’ve known that in 2000 – he ran as a moderate. “Compassionate conservative” meant “I like spending your tax money,” and boy howdy, has he. I don’t think, however, the social conservatives ever expected him to abandon them, but at this point, he has. He should’ve alienated fiscal conservatives like our Indy Injun from the get go. (I’m pretty sure Indy agrees.)

    I think we the electorate bear a responsibility here. As we saw with our senators, they will listen if we involve ourselves in the process, but we have to continue to do it. People came out of the woodwork over the immigration reform, and I was glad to see it. Will those people go back into their holes now? Gosh, I hope not.

    I believe we have good men from Georgia in Congress. Sometimes they don’t vote the right way, but we can help them by keeping in contact with them. And when these good men leave office, it’s our responsibility to find new good men who will represent us well to replace them. If we ever dislike a vote they make, the responsibility is on us to let them know.

    I am going to have someone tell me that this is wishful thinking. I can already see that comment coming, and it will be from someone who has likely 1) been burned out from trying to change things or from someone who 2) is too lazy to participate. But if some of you will take me seriously, then I think we can make a difference for the better.

    Erick encourages this kind of involvement all of the time. Why? Because he knows voters need to voice their opinions to ensure they are represented well by their elected officials.

    Also, lastly, we have to vote. Vote, vote, vote. I try not to miss an election. We should be encouraging our friends and neighbors to do the same. We need an active, involved electorate, now more than ever.

  52. dorian says:

    I don’t know what the big deal is. It isn’t like he drove drunk, crashed his car, and walked away letting the passenger drown in a few feet of water. It wasn’t like a bunch of memos being passed back and forth to block a certain someone’s judicial nominees. Where are those durn things, by the way? It wasn’t like he kept a bunch of bribe money in the freezer.

    Has anyone else in recent memory lied under oath and is getting away with it? I guess that depends on what your definition of “is” is. The problem here is, republican get trials. Democrats don’t. I could stomach his punishment alot better if the dems at least pretended some parity.

  53. IndyInjun says:


    I voted for Bush in 2000 and MY epiphany came in October 2002. In a short time span he fired loyal REPUBLICANS O’Neill and Summers for TELLING THE TRUTH while announcing plans for war on Iraq.

    The first I heard convincingly that the Iraq war was planned, I literally stopped in my tracks and shouted “Do WHAT?” It was clear from the word ‘go’ that the criteria for war fit ‘ally’ Pakistan better.

    The list of good conservative Republicans and patriots scapegoated, fired, and railroaded by the Bush/Cheney gang is now longer than my arm.

    For 3 years after I broke ranks and started blasting Bush, the flames emanating back at me from the Bush loyalists were tough to take and have actually made me fearful for this country.

    We HAVE TO TAKE BACK THE GOP from charlatans and apologists like Saxby Chambliss, who acted as lapdogs while the greatest wave of corruption ever seen in the USA swept government, the neocons launched an unwinnable war, and the debt/money supply/inflation-to-come exploded.

    The pain of overcoming the damage will be excruciating and it won’t be assignable to Bill Clinton (I NEVER voted for him.)

    As for Bush, I am in favor of surrendering him to the Hague for trial as a war criminal. I realize that sounds like something a liberal radical might say, but the harsh reality of the damage done to us all by Bush has not yet manifested itself.

    In 2002 I KNEW that the vast majority would come around to my thinking and I am pretty sure it will on the fact that Bush is the WORST POTUS in US history.

    Bull Moose is right, good conservatives should throw Bush and his gang overboard in the wake of his monarchical behavior, trashing of the Constitution, ruinous print and spend financial methods, and especially lying us into a war that could not be ‘won.’

    There is not much we can do at this point to set things right, but dumping all of the enabling GOP incumbents is a pretty good start.

    The litmus test was Medicare D and they ALL flunked it, save our dear late Charlie.

    We need to unite behind RON PAUL and send both parties of Wall Street a message.

    Let freedom ring!

  54. Clint Austin says:

    Bull Mooose,

    Did you really just posting something saying neocons are Jacobins? Comparing them to Robespierre?

    I’ve got issues with big elements of neocon thinking, but that is breathless hyperbole and out of order.

    And to think Powell’s Chief of Staff said this to a German newspaper.

    No wonder Rumsfeld hated Powell’s operation at State so much…

  55. Bull Moose says:

    I posted it from wikipedia – decide for yourself if the comment is out of order. I just know that I generally disagree with neoconservatives philosophy.

  56. buzzbrockway says:

    Ben Stein defends Bush and Libby:

    The case against “Scooter” Libby was a total fraud. Completely bogus. The publicity-mad demoness Valerie Plame was not a covert overseas agent at the time the whole megillah about her erupted. So there was no, none, nada, law breaking by reporting that she was a CIA employee.

    Second, there was no reason for the special prosecutor, the full on publicity hound Mr. Fitzgerald, to have even gone on with the investigation for a week or even a day. He knew in the first 24 hours who had told Bob Novak that Ms. Wilson was the one who sent her husband, the Democrat operative, de facto if not de jure, Joe Wilson, to search for facts about uranium in a little known African nation called Niger. And Mr. Fitzgerald knew it was not Karl Rove or Scooter Libby. Why then did he continue the investigation and torment the many totally innocent people he tortured? Why did he drive honest civil servants to despair and impoverishment when he basically had no mission?

    I’m with Stein and I applaud Bush.

  57. buzzbrockway says:


    I was talking about this one issue. 😉

    There are a few other things I applaud Bush for – like Supreme Court appointments – but sadly not many others.

  58. IndyInjun says:

    No, it is Stein and Buzz who miss the point. A REPUBLICAN prosecutor conducted the case and a REPUBLICAN judge passed the ‘egregious’ sentencing.

    It was about PERJURY, the same offense I and so many other Republican voters were irate with Clinton about.

    This case proves my point over the last 5 years – Bush is demonstrably no better than Clinton on ethics and far, far worse on every account, save the justices. (I still have some reservations about Alito.)

    This is hardly what we expected after being promised the most ethical administration ever.

    Instead we got the WORST POTUS IN US HISTORY.

  59. Clint Austin says:


    Republican judges and lawyers make mistakes all the time. Screwing up is a bi-partisan phenomenon.

    For Fitzgerald to continue the investigation after it was clear there was no crime committed (and that is unquestionably the case – Fitzgerald knew very early on there was no crime) is an abuse of prosecutorial power.

    It violates the concept of “probable cause,” reeks of entrapment, and is generally just a fishing expedition conducted on the taxpayer dime that resulted in a guy getting his career ruined, fined heavily and sent to jail – because he “obstructed” absolutely nothing.

    No crime, no foul. Not sure why this is hard to understand unless one has just a general “bad feeling” about the Bush Administration and just think somebody needs to “pay.”

  60. IndyInjun says:

    No one put a gun to Libby’s head and made him lie under oath, nor did anyone do same to Clinton.

    Apologists for this administration have lost sight of Republican principles and are left gasping that “the Dems/Clinton administration did the same thing.”

    I did not consider pursuit of Clinton for lying under oath about sex to be a “screw up” nor did I consider the prosecution of Libby to be one.

    Since the prosecutor and judge were both Republicans it is hard to pull out the partisanship claim, hence the retrieval of the “screw up” excuse.

    The failures and excesses of this administration are raining hammer blows against the GOPers who were lapdogs watching the looting.

    Dems=GOP=Bad for you and me.

  61. Bill Simon says:


    “No crime, no foul?” Interesting statement. I don’t recall there being a law against getting blowjobs in the White House, so, since Clinton “perjured” himself about an act that in itself wasn’t a crime, Bill Clinton should be pardoned, right?

  62. Doug Deal says:


    I am with you. If I was the judge, I would sentence every perjury to the maximum punishment allowed by law.

    The justice system, the very foundation of everything good in our nation breaks when perjury is condoned, particularly when the perjurer is a member of the government.

    I have no quarrel with the President exercising his check on the judiciary, but I do take great issue with these Bushbots who defend Libby and the culture of this administration.

  63. GrandOleDawg says:

    The comparisons to Clinton are not only nauseating, but pointless and most of all immature. I feel like every sentence about Clinton on this thread should begin with “MOM!” (Try it; Bill Simon: “MOM! Since Clinton “perjured” himself about an act that in itself wasn’t EVEN a crime, Bill Clinton should be pardoned TOO, right?!?”)

    Each case should be looked at in a vacuum. Scooter doesn’t get judged based on what happened to Slicky Willy, and, if Vernon Jordan were to get the means of time travel, Slick Willy doesn’t get judged on Scooter terms. Two separate cases, two sets of facts, etc.

    Why do I keep getting the impression that Bill Simon blogs in his para-millitary fatigues from his “compound” in the Idaho wilderness? “Bush is a socialist…..” what a hoot!

  64. IndyInjun says:

    A socialist could hardly have done as much damage to the GOP and to the country.

    The stains on Monica’s dress would wash out. Bush’s stains are permanent.

  65. liberator says:

    Why doesn’t Bush pardon all non violent drug offenders or those in jail for other victimless crimes like gambling and prostitution?

  66. Clint Austin says:


    No crime against oral sex, but there are laws against sexual harassment of a junior by a senior employer. That was the issue in the Paula Jones case, and having sexual relations with an intern is certainly relevant to that.

    But I think you know that, because you’re no dummy… 🙂


  67. Bill Simon says:


    As an unpaid intern, I don’t know if Monica Lewinsky qualifies as a Junior in the “employ” of the White House.

    That is a distinct difference between Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. Jones was forced due to her job, Lewinsky willingly engaged in it.

    Now that I’ve demolished your argument, perhaps you will re-address my point. 🙂

Comments are closed.