What is Digg?79 Comments
- Bigboomer223, on 10/11/2007, -1/+50Hypocrites!
- AzDraon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+46Would it be wrong of me to ask god to give everyone in the Bush Administration simultaneous heart attacks?
- NerdyNinja, on 10/11/2007, -4/+38Don't worry guys, rational thought and logical consistency isn't really an issue for our leadership these days. It's kind of the will o' the winds kinda thing.
Or a bratty bipolar three year old's moodswings. - Sottilde, on 10/11/2007, -1/+33There really are two distinct classes in America:
The rich, who can afford to be above the law,
and
the rest of us. - noctum17, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19Good job all fellow citizens that voted for Bush. I guess the first term wasn't enough for you.
- Coven, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23B-b-b-b-b-but CLINTON!
Just because Clinton did it does NOT make it ok for his successors to do it. We should expect more integrity from each successive administration. Instead we go from a giggalo in the white house to a group of intellectual second graders playing with the world's largest sandbox. - Winters, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17Who was it? Aristotle(??) that said we have three classes. Wealthy, Middle, Poor. Only the middle tend to be law abiding while the wealthy and poor tend towards criminalistic behaviour - but for different reasons. It's true our middle class is shrinking, but don't leave out the poor.
- FlaG8r, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17It doesn't really matter. Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes by themselves regardless of what is being investigated.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14gwbush is a real piece of shet.....
warren g. harding has nothing on this man, i vote gwbush as worst president ever! - BobOki, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15AT least he is consistent in his corruption.
- Nougat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15Flag8r is correct, doesn't matter, but somehow I expect it was something of less weight than outing an active CIA agent in an attempt to punish her husband for daring to suggest that the administration might be wrong about something.
- hmmmok, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Victor Rita, a retired Marine and former government investigator, was sentenced to 33 months on the same charges. He had lied to a grand jury investigating illegal gun sales. Like Libby, he wasn't charged with a crime that led to the perjury. Rita appealed, and far from commuting the sentence, the administration argued all the way to the Supreme Court that it was reasonable. Rita lost.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/post-1.html - popothebright, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Clinton's pardons ARE irrelevant.
Here's why: Bush didn't just "pardon" a man. Bush pardoned a man whose crime was lying to protect the President. This is tantamount to Bush pardoning himself.
Here's how Bush can now break any law on the books:
Step One: Commit crime
Step Two: Get underling to deny a crime was committed, and if necessary lie under oath.
Step Three: If underling gets busted for lying to protect you, pardon him.
This isn't at all like Clinton. This is about the President SAVING HIMSELF. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12no the point really is bill clinton is not in office now gwbush is.
clinton is old news bush is current news.
bush is lying and getting thousands of people killed, clinton got his dick sucked and stained a dress there are huge differences. - Eivo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10And to that I will politely respond, "DUH!"
- nshah, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9So "24 years in the Marine Corps" does not mean "years of exceptional public service” ?
Utter bull *****. - Clay3521, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8I guess Victor wasn't part of the "Good 'Ol Boys" network up on Capitol Hill. Now he's part of the "Sweet 'Ol Boys" network. Thanks W.
- cecilgol, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Wrong. Clinton's pardons were heavily scrutinized and widely reported on in the media. This is more an example of how extremely short term american thinking regarding political gaming is.
::Another famous pardon, of course, was the first President Bush's decision, on Christmas Eve, 1992, to pardon former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal. But Bush was already a month away from leaving the White House, having lost his re-election bid to Bill Clinton.
::Similarly, Clinton, at the end of his presidency, pardoned Marc Rich, a financier who fled the U.S. following his indictment for tax fraud (and whose ex-wife was a Clinton contributor). Both pardons were extremely unpopular, but ultimately, Bush and Clinton were the lamest of lame ducks, and the practical political fallout was nil.
*http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11755865 - vap0r, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9It wouldn't be wrong, but it would be futile.
- Kbennett, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Bill Clinton is the bellwether for all Republicans. You might even call him their hero. If he did it, they want to as well.
- Cerialthriller, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I don't know how you expected "everyone here" to get outraged at clinton when there wasn't a Digg during the Clinton administration.
- momsshizzle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Maybe Libby gives a better BJ than Victor?
- bashu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6This is relevant because Bush's justification for the commutation was that the prison term was too harsh for the crime. Yet this man was convicted of the SAME crime and had to serve his sentence - a sentence which the Bush administration actively pushed for. See the discrepancy?
Any comparison to the Clinton administration is irrelevant because it has no bearing on what Bush does. Clinton could have been a murderer; that wouldn't justify Bush's actions. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5What was being investigated when Rita lied?
- byronm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Bush wants to Pardon LIbby but in doing so would open themselves up to further self incrimination. By only commuting Libby's sentence libby can continue his appeals as well as plead the 5th (right against self incrimination) and not speakd and never tell the truth.
For if Libby were fully pardoned it would be illegal for him to lie again and he would loose an incentive to plead the fifth or else the pardon would look more like a cover up.
All of this is purely because the commutal happned before appeals. If the dude had served anytime and finished the court procedure i don't think any of this would matter. - byronm, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Its obviously working.
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Can you cite a source? I hadn't heard that.
- brianbennett, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4You're kidding, right? At the time of the leak, Plame was not undercover... hell she was driving to CIA headquarters every day.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The number is zero. NO ONE DIED. No one lost their cover. No one was threatened. There was absolutely no loss of security. There was no security to be lost. For crying out loud, Plame was so far from being under cover, she apparently saw no potential security risk in sending her own untrained and unqualified husband to Niger to walk around asking questions about uranium. Not exactly cloak and danger stuff.
Think things through for yourself for a change. Plame sent Wilson to snoop around after which he come home and talked to every reporter and book publisher that would listen to him. What exactly was undercover about this? - itanshi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Kami? Sorry, the Death Note isn't real
- dodus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The point is that Bush commuted Libby's and fought for Rita's. When I heard Bush had commuted Libby's and what he said about it, I found myself agreeing. Poor Libby, everyone's screaming for his blood, and he was virtually insignificant in the whole thing. So I thought "I'm not going to get on Bush about this one." But the case of Victor Rita makes it apparent that it's not a Punishment v. Crime issue, it's just Bush handing out favors.
So show me an example of Clinton pardoning someone for something, making a big show about how he felt it was an unjust situation, and then turning around and fighting tooth and nail to have a worse sentence upheld for someone else that did the same thing. If you can do that, cool. If not, I've got to ask you--what's your point? - tsotha, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Give me a break. She was a paper-pusher at Langley. A mid level bureaucrat who apparently took suggestions from nameless guys walking by her office.
Contrast that to the NYT blowing an ongoing CIA transport operation, which put real (as opposed to theoretical) people in danger. What kind of punishment did Pinch and his gang get from that? - fdiskit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I call ***** on the "non-crime" of the CIA leak. If you're going to argue "well, technically it's not a crime", then you need to be willing to say "well, technically it wasn't sex".
And it's not "purported" - Ms. Plame is now burned, and I hope that she and hubby make a LOT of money on the speaker/book circuit to make up for it. Everybody knows Scooter sure will.
The only reason that no other charges were brought, BTW, was because no prosecutor wanted to get let go for "underperformance" for having the temerity to indict Rove or Cheney. ITMFA! - tsotha, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This is the his latest conviction: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-5754.pdf
The relevant passage:
Rita was convicted in May 1986, and sentenced to five years’ probation for making false statements in connection with the purchase of firearms. Because this conviction took place more than 10 years before the present offense, it did not count against Rita [for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines]. And because Rita had no other relevant convictions, the Guidelines considered him as having no criminal history points. Ibid. The report consequently places Rita in criminal history category I, the lowest category for purposes of calculating a Guidelines sentence.
Even though sentencing guidelines consider it a mulligan, courts are free to take it into consideration, so these cases are not a good comparison. - TyphoidTimmy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2BAH! You got to have hearts to have them attack. Maybe if you said 'hollow, soul sucking, ruthless voids' attacks then I would be all for it.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2These things are vastly more complicated than a 1 page article can describe. However bringing it up for review is a great power Digg offers. However if this is reviewed by informed people and found to be true it will be another 10 pennies of citizen trust spent. These days there are precious few of those pennies left. When they are gone the re-constitionalizing of America can begin.
- tsotha, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Eh, one thing I haven't seen pointed out is this is Victor Rita's second conviction for purjury.
- scb0825, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Worst. President. Ever.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'm just curious to know if you have any idea what you're even talking about. What lie do you think Libby told? Do you even know the substance of the conviction you're defending?
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to cite it for me. I did a google search and came up blank.
- reed311, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You must first be convicted of said crime. Clinton was never convicted. Secondly, what does Clinton have to do with what Bush is currently doing? I know you'll never respond to this as this is probably a "but Clinton" spam bot, but I thought I'd give it a shot. Can you defend Bush's actions without invoking Clinton or a Democrat?
- WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's not a matter of a technicality. THERE HAVE BEEN NO INDICTMENTS. Therefore it is a matter of public record that there was no crime. Period, case closed. In the Rita case on the other hand, there is someone serving time for the underlying crime.
I have a question for you. How common is it for someone to be charged with obstruction of justice in a case where the original, underlying case was closed without indictment? Do you have any idea of the answer to that question? And do you understand that the fact that there was no such indigtment in the case of the CIA leak while there WAS an indictment and a conviction in the Rita case means that there is an enormous difference between these two cases. - Ndiggnation, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If it wasn't a crime, they why did Libby have to lie about it? What did he have to be afraid of?
- LastVisibleDog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That would be Jimmy Carter
- LastVisibleDog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Facts just confuse the Moonbats
- bbqsalad, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2BUSH IS A BITCH. AND HIS WIFE IS A PIDGEON.
- LastVisibleDog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1He did lie about the non-crime (the target of the investigation) - Libby had a faulty memory during the investigation of a non-crime. His "lie" was completely peripheral to the investigation of the non-crime.
- LastVisibleDog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Bill Clinton committed the same crime as Libby and he got to pardon 140 people including terrorists and drug kingpins and his own drug user/dealer brother and people related to other investigations directed at him and he got MoveOn.org to support his right to break the law.
- Serphyas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1God, I LOVE the attentiveness of the Digg community! There's so much hypocritical ***** performed by this administration that would go unnoticed if it weren't for y'all..
- ErrorS, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This reduction in sentence is an admission, by Bush, that he believes Libby is guilty. Bush believed that Libby was lying, he didn't say Libby wasn't guilty.. so Bush honestly believes he lied about SOMETHING.
When Bush himself admits to this man's ***** guilt, that's enough for me. -
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is