Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
8 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Bush Impeachment – Libby Commutation Makes it Imperative

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 6 pages)
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Become a Fan
  (9 fans)

opednews.com

When Richard Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox as part of the October 23, 1973 “Saturday Night Massacre”, he did it to prevent information being released that could directly implicate him in wrongdoing. Cox had issued Nixon a subpoena requesting the now infamous Nixon tapes and Nixon acted to protect himself and in doing so obstructed justice in the ongoing Watergate investigations. This is not entirely different from what we have with Bush and his commutation of Libby’s sentence. Patrick Fitzgerald filed obstruction of justice charges against Libby because he believed that Libby had information relevant to the investigation and lied or refused to divulge that information. A jury agreed, found him guilty and Libby received 30 months in prison. One of the things prosecutors hope happens in situations like this is when the person obstructing justice is faced with a lengthy prison term, in exchange for avoiding prison they start providing the information they were withholding. Bush’s commutation takes the threat of prison away from Libby and is thus an act of obstruction of justice.

 

Nixon’s actions in the Saturday Night Massacre lead directly to several articles of impeachment being filed against him in congress in the ensuing days. A President cannot be allowed to take such a brazen act to impede an investigation in which he is one of the potential suspects. Congress should ALWAYS respond to acts like these with impeachment hearings otherwise Presidents will feel like they can live above the law and take action to prevent any consequences.

 

I wonder if the public realize another important aspect of this. The commutation is a virtual admission of guilt by Bush that the outing of Plame was part of a generalized conspiracy in the White House that involved major players, i.e. either Bush or Cheney themselves. There is no other reason the President would intervene. It was not a matter of, as Bush tried to suggest, “the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive”. As of the morning of July 2, a few hours before Bush would commute the sentence, Libby had six to eight weeks before he had to report to prison and concurrently as of July 2, the appeals process would take a few months. If Libby was innocent and the administration had nothing to hide and Libby nothing to tell prosecutors, Libby would do a month or two in prison before the appeals process got into full swing and then he would have a strong shot at being set free. Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence shows that none of this was true and that Libby was close to breaking and telling Fitzgerald everything he knew.

 

Fred Thompson and other prominent Republicans eye-deep in the cover-up

 

As I write this, I note another article with similar themes by the esteemed Amy Goodman who directs us to another important point. Bush claimed in his statement about the commutation that Libby still faces a stiff fine and probation. You can kiss the fine goodbye. There is a fund to pay the fine that has been raised by many prominent Republicans including Fred Thompson. Thompson and other Republicans know what kind of a mess it would be for their party if the real facts regarding Plamegate came out so they are paying Libby’s fine for him. Now Libby has no repercussions and nothing to fear at all, the jail sentence is gone, the fine has been paid, and next I am sure will come a cushy job courtesy of the Republican good old boy network.

 

Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence is a knowing and intentional act of obstruction of justice designed to hide another obstruction of justice regarding an investigation of a serious criminal act by the White House that involved lying the country into war in Iraq. I realize that is confusing, so let’s lay it out in bullet points:

 1. President Bush and Vice President Cheney decide to go to war and remove Saddam from Iraq even before 9/11.

Bush and Cheney are convinced by their cronies (people like Paul Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld) in the conservative think tank Project for the New American Century who had been petitioning various Democrats and Republicans to remove Saddam since as early as 1996. The problem they was how to sell the war to the American People.

 2. 9/11 happens. The administration takes advantage to advance their Iraq plans

It had nothing to do with Saddam or Iraq, but it fit the bill of something that could be sold to the American People as a causus belli or “Reason for war”, or it almost does. Too many Americans know that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11 so the administration has to come up with something more for those people. They decide to go with Weapons of Mass Destruction and fantasy Iraqi weapons programs like the pilotless drone (remember that?) that Saddam could supposedly launch from Iraq and hit the United States. I know it seems laughable now. The problem is there was no direct evidence that Saddam and Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction.

 3. Bush and the Administration Sell the idea of Iraqi WMD

Bush and the administration go on a year plus long campaign to convince the American people that the Iraqis have a monstrous amount of Weapons of Mass Destruction and that those Weapons could be used to attack us.

 4. Plame and Wilson learn that Bush and the Administration are lying

Valerie Plame, a covert CIA agent, learns from contacts that at least one of the items the Bush administration is pushing as WMD justification is a lie. Plame’s current role in the CIA is “an agency operative assigned to investigate Weapons of Mass Destruction”. Bush said in a State of the Union address that Saddam was “seeking significant quantities of Uranium in Africa”. This claim had long been debunked in intelligence circles and rested on a piece of documentation that was such a poor forgery that anyone with even a modicum of savvy could recognize it as such. An official at the CIA senior to Plame made the request of her husband to go to Africa to investigate the claim without Plame’s involvement and in February of 2002, 13 months before the Iraq war, and 11 months before the State of the Union address where Bush would make the accusation, Wilson went to Niger to investigate the possibility that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium yellowcake. Wilson met with the current Ambassador, Owens-Kirkpatrick, at the embassy, and was informed that she had already debunked that story. Everyone who has seen the documents surrounding the allegation quickly came to the same conclusion. 

5. January 28, 2003 – President Bush delivers his State of the Union address where he makes the accusation that Saddam Hussein has sought significant quantities of Uranium from Africa. 

6. March 6, 2003 - In a report dated 2 weeks BEFORE THE START OF THE IRAQ WAR, The UN Weapons Inspectors indicate they have not found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq after 4 months of on the ground Inspections 

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6

 

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Bush obstructed justice by commuting Libby's sentence and should be impeached for it

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

http://www.ibtimes.com/blog/steven-leser_103/bio/

A political blogger for the International Business Times, Steve Leser is a hot national political pundit. He has appeared on MSNBC's Coundown with Keith Olbermann, Comedy Central's Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Russia Today's (RT) Crosstalk with (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

McCain Campaign Violated McCain-Feingold law with Palin Clothing Purchases

McCain attacked 18 year old Chelsea Clinton in 1998 now says Palin's family & kids are off limits

McCain says "Horseshit" on National TV During Debate

North Korea – Impending Missile Launch May Require US Military Action

Palin: Drill Baby Drill, but blame Obama for the Spill!

Palin to McCain - Oops I did it Again

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
6 people are discussing this page, with 8 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

  By taking Impeachment “off the t... by rabblerowzer on Wednesday, Jul 4, 2007 at 8:21:14 AM
You say "Plame’s current role in the CI... by Blue Pilgrim on Wednesday, Jul 4, 2007 at 8:53:15 AM
and also guilty of obstructing justice.There are 2... by Richard Mynick on Wednesday, Jul 4, 2007 at 11:53:41 AM
disagreements we have. Prosecutors who choose not ... by Steven Leser on Wednesday, Jul 4, 2007 at 12:04:12 PM
Information clearinghouse   from &n... by Blue Pilgrim on Wednesday, Jul 4, 2007 at 4:34:02 PM
You are right, but I have my doubts whether this w... by Diane_B on Thursday, Jul 5, 2007 at 2:39:45 AM
We not always agree but here and now it was  ... by Mark Sashine on Thursday, Jul 5, 2007 at 8:00:55 AM
Please check out the one I wrote today as a follow... by Steven Leser on Thursday, Jul 5, 2007 at 3:34:25 PM