What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
155 Comments
- FraudGuy, on 10/11/2007, -11/+35There are crimes, there are high crimes, and then there are commutable sentences. Luckily, the President cannot commute an impeachable offense, so I think it is time to start the impeachment proceedings against as many of the executive officials as possible.
- TheBlaz, on 10/11/2007, -8/+26The sad part is, I believe, that since his sentence was commuted--he wasn't pardoned--he can still invoke his 5th amendment rights and continue protecting an administration run amok.
Boy, that Constitution sure was nice while we had it. - yanked, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Hm. 1. Not quite the same thing, since Libby was a member of Bush's own administration. That's not a trivial difference. 2. I'm against almost all Presidential pardons. What difference does that, or what Clinton did, or what Taft or Hammurabi did, make here? 3. So were you not opposed to the Rich pardon? If you were, then you are a hypocrite too -- even more so, since you see the two cases as identical, while many see them as quite different (see #1).
Number 3, by the way, is the key point. Conservatives see the Clinton and Bush impeachments as basically the same, and accuse liberals of being hypocritical for opposing one and supporting the other. (They don't mention that this makes them hypocritical as well.) Liberals see the two cases as very different -- perjury over a blowjob versus perjury over national security plus about a million other flagrant offenses against the constitution -- and thus hypocrisy has nothing to do with it. Oddly, conservatives don't really seem to be able to enter into a reasonable discussion about the constitution and the rule of law as it pertains to the Executive branch, so they can't seem to understand they essential differences for these two presidents. - themastersb, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13You have US citizens reciting their rights and get put in jail and then people like Libby free.....
- Hillsfar, on 10/11/2007, -5/+14"The Plame investigation was urged by the Bush CIA and commenced by the Bush DOJ, Libby's conviction pursued by a Bush-appointed federal prosecutor, his jail sentence imposed by a Bush-appointed "tough-on-crime" federal judge, all pursuant to harsh and merciless criminal laws urged on by the "tough-on-crime/no-mercy" GOP. Lewis Libby was sent to prison by the system constructed and desired by the very Republican movement protesting his plight.
"But our political discourse and media institutions are so broken and corrupt that Bush followers (and their media enablers) feel free to make the completely-backwards and fact-free claim that the Libby prosecution was driven by "partisan" and "political" motives -- as though it was a mirror image of the Clinton persecution driven by Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and a purely partisan Republican prosecutor -- because they know that there is no such thing as a claim too false to be passed on without real objection by our vapid, drooling press corps."
- Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/03/libby/ - spucky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9If I remember correctly, Clinton was acquitted because although he did lie under oath it was immaterial to the case, so no obstruction.
- Wargalas, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Were you this outraged when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich or members of FALN? If so, you have every right to be pissed about Libby. If not, you're a hypocrite.
- kosmoX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Bush is Catholic?
- jpwilde, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Thing is, the response to this Libby thing from his defenders seems to be to attack Bill Clinton. Fine, you got me, I wasn't outraged about Clinton, mea culpa. It's not because I'm a Democrat (I'm not), it's just because I wasn't paying attention to what the president did back then. Funny how lying to start a war, sending thousands of soldiers to their deaths for no reason at all, screwing up a hurricane after billions on disaster preparedness, etc, can make a guy sit up and pay attention, isn't it?
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12don't you get sick of invoking the ;Clinton did it' boogieman over and over and over again? How do you live with yourself?
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Whoa whoa whoa, hold up. I think you are forgetting that Clinton did it. Just think about that for a second. Clinton.
- jpwilde, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11You say "his crimes are political crimes" as if it's an excuse. Last time I looked, poloitical crimes were still crimes.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8obviously they don't have the stones, or any valid arguments at all. CLINTON DID IT!
- grgt1994, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7by catholic u mean protestant?
- killcereal, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8It is sad that most of the comment writers I have read haven't figured things out beyond the false Left vs Right paradigm.
This behavior is wrong no matter who does it. - reed311, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13Obstruction of justice is now a partisan crime? Thanks for the lesson in law. I should tell my law professor about you, you may have a career in the legal profession.
- grr74, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6How are political crimes different from crimes in general? Come on! This is getting overboard. Don't you think political crimes are bad? These are the people we have entrusted to run our daily lives. Can there be a more serious crime (and I am not talking about violent crime here). Political crimes rot the system from within and ends up screwing people like you and me. I don't care if you are Republican or Democrat, socialist or communist, you commit perjury, you go to jail.
It is also rather odd that the hardball conservative movement are not screaming for blood considering it was a CIA operative who got screwed... - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8You should inform the judge that "Clinton did it." I'm sure that will convince him to show you leniency.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I cannot help but muse that if Clinton was never president, ***** apologists like yourself would have no leg to stand on. (Not to imply that you currently have a leg to stand on). I'd love to see you try to defend Bush/Libby without mentioning Clinton (i.e. actually defending their actions instead of desperately changing the subject)
- ChaosIncarnate, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Indeed a crime is a crime regardless of type.
- DesertBear, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I guess nearly impeaching the President is now considered being "chill".
I also missed the part about the context of the lies: answers involving a civil deposition in a sexual harassment lawsuit vs. a federal, criminal investigation into the divulging of national secrets. - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8PLEASE TELL ME MORE ABOUT HOW EVERYTHING WRONG WITH THE WORLD IS CLINTON'S FAULT.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5perjury and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Thats the key part that you seem to be omitting. I guess thats what you meant by "made life hard for the prosecutor?"
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12FYI BILL CLINTON HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH I. LEWIS "SCOOTER" LIBBY BEING CONVICTED OF PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
- Hillsfar, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Clinton didn't pardon someone convicted of helping cover up White House felonies.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5To the fact that his crime wasn't serious enough to warrant jailtime?
- TwistedSheep, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I think it's the whole treason part. Libby might not have been charged with it, but that's what this entire case boils down to. A god damn CIA agent was outed, as well as the CIA front company, and Libby blocks the investigation as to who actually did the leaking. I'm not going to defend Clinton, if the republicans wanted to throw a fit, they had their chance. Now it’s our turn to be outraged.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6There is no comparison. Cite an example of Clinton pardoning someone in his own administration, who was convicted of covering up crimes committed by his administration, and then you might have half of an argument.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5You are right, he committed the crime(s) he was CONVICTED of.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4It's the 21st century, in todays world two wrongs DO make a right. ;)
(At least in a lot of the right wingers minds) - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5So how outraged are you?
- neckfire, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Clinton was a ***** president as well- He lied, spied(on Americans) and recklessly pardoned in his own self interests. Clinton is not in power anymore, if it were possible to convict and punish Clinton for his crimes and unethical behavior I would be all for it. But, as far as I can tell it:
A) is not possible.
B) would not affect anything (I would support putting a sizable dent in Hillary's campaign though...)
C) is stupid to cry a blue eye for a red eye if both parties are ***** you over.
Time to demand some goddamn accountability in ALL of our politicians. Who ***** cares if they are republican or democrat or whatever. Politicians wield so much power that if they are crooked bastards they should be held more accountable than the crooked CEO. I personally think that Bush and Cheney need to be impeached, tried for treason and hung.
BTW: The jingoist scum on both sides need to check your blind devotion and realize that if there is power there is bound to be corruption- and there should be no tolerance for liars, crooks and thieves- red or blue. - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4HAHAHA No Clinton defense is NEEDED???? Is that why EVERY apologist in this thread so far has brought up Clinton?
I'd love to see where anyone demanded to know the precedent. I'd also love to see you or anyone else defend the Libby clemency without bringing up Clinton (i.e. actually defending Bush's actions without desperately changing the subject). Sadly neither of those things will ever happen. - yanked, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Glenn Greenwald's name ought to appear somewhere on this page.
If you have a Salon subscription, you should check out his past stuff if you haven't before -- and you can always read the latest one for free (no ad), at least. You can also still find his old blog posts at http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/ from before he moved to Salon. He's a damn awesome arguer. - neckfire, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I like how you down played lying by wording it as "fibbing"- what a naughty naughty rascal Libby is. Good work you shill.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7But Clinton isn't in office! How can you possibly assign the same importance to the two?
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Clinton was ACQUITTED of perjury (that means not guilty). Libby was CONVICTED of perjury AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE - why did you leave that out? - and he got off scott free ($250,000? His "defense fund" raised at least $4 million). There's a need to "scream" because you ***** don't seem to understand these very simple facts.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5So how is Clinton lying under oath about a blowjob the same as outing a CIA agent?
- ShnowDoggie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I was pissed then. Now I think things are really out of hand .....
- tehbishop, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4soooooo what's your point? Just because one guy steals a car doesn't mean the next guy to stear a car isn't just as guilty of grand theft auto. Are you a moron? You arrest them both.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8Bu-bu-but Clinton!
- tehbishop, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5The whole 2 party smokescreen is to get chuckleheads like you to point back at the other party and say it's ok if "my" party does it because "your" party did it. How about we xnay BOTH parties, they're both a part of the same ***** sandwich. Two wrongs don't make a right. Damn. T H I N K and use your damned head. It's a shell game right now of two suck ass parties.
- Wargalas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It doesn't matter if he's in office or not. If you can't distinguish actions that happened while he was President to what Bush did now, your opinion is worthless.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Yeah because intelligence services never read the news.
- Squarsh, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6I think I speak for 75% of Americans and 90% of the rest of the world when I ask you to kindly shut the ***** up with your idiot 'logic'.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Cisneros was convicted of his own crimes, not crimes comitted by anyone else in the administration. He lied to "cover up" his own crimes, not to protect his boss. Every example you give is entirely irrelevant. Care to discuss Libby's case, or do you want to keep bringing up random nonsense about Clinton?
- tucsonwc, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Yeah who cares? It was only about outing a CIA agent for political reasons to justify an immoral war in Iraq. It was more important for Cheney and libby and Novak to try and destroy a career CIA agent to promote their corrupt agenda. The result? The takeover of a country-- the inept mismanagement of it's reconstruction and the descent into Civil War. But hey, it is more important to toe the republican line right?
What happened to George Mr Moral Bush stating that he would FIRE and procescute those responsible for the leak?
Is that what THIS pardon was?
What happened to being honest and moral and forthright? Oh but "clinton did it!".
*****.
Gee. Did Clinton INVADE Iraq too?
Did Clinton claim that the VP was not part of the Executive Branch?
Did Clinton PLAN to INVADE Iraq prior to taking office, like Bush and Cheney did?
I think not. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9Oh God, who gives a ***** about Bill ***** Clinton? Why are you guys so fixated? Don't you have the stones to say "Well gee, I guess what Bush did was wrong."?
- archiesteel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4So you don't think obstruction of justice in the case of an outed CIA agent, an act which puts national security at risk, is a serious offense?
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4What are these "poloitical crimes" you speak of?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 155 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is