Watching the conversation on Libby unfold, here are some responses to the arguments right wingers seem to be putting forward:
A jury found him guilty of OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and did not believe Libby just forgot.
Libby was prosecuted by a republican appointed prosecutor and sentenced by a republican appointed judge.
Bill Clinton was found innocent by the senate.
This was about national security-- the intentional outing of a CIA agent.
Libby was protecting Cheney and probably Rove, Bush's agent. Bush pardoned a man complicit in a crime he himself was implicated and suspected of being involved in.
Sandy Berger was found guilty of taking a few reports. Libby outed an active CIA agent. Berger didn't receive jail time.
Some online polls on whether it was right or wrong to commute Libby's sentence:
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
Bush sends a message that he does not betray his servants, his minions and his goons even if they are in trouble. He does betray the country but not his friends. Dems send a message that they betray both the country and their friends and supporters. Whaat conclusion would an average person come to?
Listen to the messages.
by
Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3456 comments)
on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 6:56:49 AM
I don't disagree with the thrust - certainly Bush is exercising a Pardon for a person who worked for him and whose lack of memory and obstruction possibly served to protect Bush as well as Cheney - but on the Plame outing thing I do not think it was him that did it. Talking points should be accurate right? Please correct me if I'm wrong on this someone.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 10:15:17 AM
Not too long ago, a President of the U.S. was fined $90,000 for lying under oath.
And though the falsehoods were blatant - and in no way the (claimed) result of a faulty memory - he didn't get any jail time either. Nor was he removed from office.
As President Clinton has pointed out :
Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and unreviewable power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons" for all offenses against the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "[t]o the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit" (United States v. Klein).
"Without limit".
Looks to me like your complaint is with the Constitution .
by
tim bristol (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments)
on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 4:08:34 PM
Lying under oath / covering up lies and forgiving TREASON
Article 2 of the Constitution says, "and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." This little omission in this thread has been making the Air America Radio airwaves. A case could and should be made that this commutation of Libby is payback and part of covering up items that could lead to impeachment.
If you haven't called your congressmember and Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office, please call and demand impeachment and accountability of the son of a Bush and/or at the very least Cheney. Support Dennis Kucinich's H.Res. 333, now up to 9 co-sponsors. US Congress Switchboard: 202- 224-3121. Thanks!!
by
Kate Anne (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 4:43:48 PM
Let's see. Lying about a personal matter, highly embarrassing, but not related to anything involving government that netted a stain on a blue dress.
vs.
Lying about a matter of national security and the disclosure of highly classified information that led to outing of an active CIA NOC agent and the exposure of an entire front company engaged in tracking down the proliferation of the most dangerous weapons on the planet.
Yeah, those are roughly equal so they are the same thing, right?
by
Maturin42 (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 1:58:06 PM
Comparing the gravity of one situation with another is a task for the particular judge or jury. I mentioned the earlier instance to point out that a hefty fine and no jail time is not an uncommon penalty for the crime we're talking about. Whether or not it was appropriate in either instance is a question one would have to take up with the judges involved.
The President, as president, can pardon just about anybody for just about any crime for any reason or for no reason - except in cases of impeachment, which this isn't. I was quoting President Clinton. He didn't mention impeachment - perhaps because it didn't apply to his situation. It doesn't apply to this one either. Libby wasn't impeached.
by
tim bristol (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments)
on Thursday, July 5, 2007 at 9:53:39 AM
Didn't the reports Sandy Berger got beat up on consist of what he had written himself or contributed to?
And it didn't matter that Richard Armitage disclosed the top-secret status of Valerie Plame first, if her status remained top-secret it was still a crime to disclose it regardless of where one stood in line.
by
tabonsell (29 articles, 0 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 249 comments)
on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 5:16:33 PM
also has the authority to issue directives and executive orders, conduct foreign policy and do many other things, but with authority comes responsibility. Having the authority does not mean everythnig done must be right, or even legal, or that he can't be impeached for abusing his power.
A policeman has the authority to arrrest a person, but if he does so without cause he will suffer the consequences of that.
A judge has the authority to exclude evidence in a case, but if he does it imprpperly he can be overuled, and impeached for it.
Executive orders allowing a dictatorship have been issued, but he can still be impeached for abuse of power. Authority alone does not mean an action is right or absolve a president, or anyone else, from responsibility for improper use of authority.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 8:35:47 PM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
