What is Digg?101 Comments
- osirisothedead, on 10/11/2007, -3/+25quote
Three-fourths of the 198 defendants sentenced in federal court last year for obstruction of justice — one of four crimes Libby was found guilty of in March — got some prison time. According to federal data, the average sentence defendants received for that charge alone was 70 months.
/quote
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-libby4jul04,0,6295306,full.story?coll=la-home-nation - otep, on 10/11/2007, -5/+27-
Clearly, the President hates America.
- - MeMongo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17Of course it isn't' new, it's just that the Bush administration made such a big deal out of it in the 2004 election
- tucsonsun13, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19Why is the Pres flip-flopping? Um...because he can, and NO one will ever hold him accountable.
- tehgoatman, on 10/11/2007, -11/+23The article acts like politicians flip-flopping is something new
- Battleloser, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14"Why is the President flip-flopping?"
We know why already, what needs focusing on is what is to be done about it. - AzDraon, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11This is already on the front page. But what the hell, the more people that read this the better. Digg.
- asaccin, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Come on America - you're the laughing stock of the democratic world!!
Libby, Iraq, vulture funds, your health care system, caging voters, OPEC...is there anything that this administration can do right?? Join Greg Palast and get these crooks out of their corrupt palaces - Arcleo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+51. Clinton was never convicted of perjury. He was asked if he had ever had sexual relations with Monica, and the prosecutor defined sexual relations as being penile/vaginal penetration; both parties agree only oral sex was involved. He did lie in his civil case against Paula Jones, however, that is a civil case not a federal case.
2. Bush did not pardon Libby. The charge of perjury and obstruction of justice are both still on his record and he still has to pay $250,000 in fines. Its the 30 month jail sentence that was removed. Because he was not pardoned he can still plead the 5th when asked questions that could get Bush into hot water. How convenient.
Nothing to see here folks, just Bush making sure his ass is covered. - sleepinghidalgo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Bush is almost out, and '08 can't be coming any faster...all we can do is pray to all those deities out there that they might be able to send a competent leader our way...or maybe America will finally vote one into office...
- Phearce, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5No, he loves the America that he lives in. Unfortunately, it's not the same America we live in: he's not participating in our reality. Check this post where High School Presidential Scholar students confront Bush regarding US torture and he resorts to repeating "America doesn't torture" again and again after he read it.
http://digg.com/politics/High_Schoolers_who_confronted_Bush_on_torture_tell_their_story_2 - DisposableRob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Not sure what that has to do with the 2004 election (Bush vs Kerry). Also, Bush (the second one at least) never ran against Clinton so he really didn't have a reason to talk about Clinton's perjury or infidelity.
- parax, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4It's easy, the president is infinitely loyal to his friends and associates. If a person works their way into Bush's good graces, they can do anything they want and he'll bail them out. Gonzales, Libby, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ridge... he'll protect them to the grave, no matter how serious their crimes. He's not exactly flip-flopping, the rule he applies to these situations is perfectly consistent. If you're his associate, he'll bail you out, if he doesn't know you, he doesn't care, if you're his opponent, he'll spare no expense to punish you. Actually, he will spare expenses, but only his own. He wouldn't do anything to jeopardize the size of his own bank account. But he'll spend the rest of the country's money like it's his own.
- mrrealtime, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Mike Gravel is the only competant candidate. He is the most intelligent and honest of the bunch and isnt in anyone's pocket. He has a .05% approval rating. Hillary will do/say anything to anyone to get elected, Obama is in bed with the oil and coal guys, and Edwards is a greasy lawyer. America doesnt have a hope, there are just no "statesmen" anymore. The days of people like Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin are far behind us. Statesmen exist, its just that America doesnt have any interest. Now they like flashy smiles, jokesters, and shiny objects. Bush is simply the embodiment of the American voter. He represents what television has turned us all into.
- christor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Now that's just ridiculous. The Bush Administration has been a failure in every imaginable way. Our foreign relations are in the toilet (and Bush himself has even asked White House invitees - is it me, is it my personality), the Constitutional order is threatened (from separation of powers to individual rights), administrative agencies are headed by corrupt and incompetent hacks (read up on the head of the GSA, e.g., if FEMA didn't have you convinced), our government is simply not competent to respond to minor challenges much less major disasters, our fiscal house is wrecked, the courts are increasingly stacked with movement-style religious conservatives rather than pragmatists, and all that without even mentioning the greatest foreign policy *****-up in recent history. Bush is a child. He simply is not up to the task of running the country.
I'm not sure that Kerry would have been a great president. He had flaws as a candidate - mostly flaws in character traits irrelevant to the job of competently managing the government and therefore the very flaws that were focused on by right-wing media outlets. But come on! Clinton, Bush the elder, Gore, Dole, Kerry - any one of these would have been far, far better than Bush the younger. Your comment is like saying - "What's wrong with the four-year old driving the bus? That other bus driver you wanted has had three speeding tickets in the past two years." - dilpil1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The idea that this was anything other than a favor for a friend is pretty far fetched.
- JCM0165, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Simple- Scooter sends word to Bush that if he does time, he's singing
- fotbr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2double standard, yes. Illegal, no. The President has the power to pardon and commute sentences. This is nothing new, and nothing illegal about it.
That said, only a year and a half more of this clown being in office. If only I could just sleep for about 18 months and wake up when its all over. - 4t0mik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It will be overturned because the of the judge. The idoit actually stated that the punishment was "normal" for a leak and stated Libby didn't really mislead the investigation with statements into the leak. It is already over and the judge might have a censure coming up if he don't watch his mouth.
- keithMars, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I am going to say something that may shock some people. Mike Gavel is a crazy idiot!!! Why people insist on singing his praises I will never know. I may be tainted as I am a big fan of Joe Biden. To whom this article sites as its source. Mike Gravel is fun and crazy but his theory's don't add up. Biden Is the senate Foreign relations committee chair and the only person in this race who is really qualified. And the only guy to speak the truth on why he voted against the defunding bill Being that it was usless and they did not have the votes. I am tired of elected officials that play to the vast American stupidity we need one that talks about the logistics of governing and not in broad generalizations and stands on principles they can sell but not explain.
- spurtle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2004/john-kerry-flip-flops/ to refresh your memory.
- LenBaird, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I agree with those who have said he is being perfectly consistent. He is a disgrace.
- Acewrap, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3**Dems, I am confused.
Yes, you are.
**Is perjury bad or is it not?
It's bad.
**Was it bad when Clinton did it or just when Libby did it (assuming he did)?
It's bad when both did it. However, one was lying about his social life, and the other was lying to cover up treason.
**Is pardoning someone OK when Clinton does it or just when Bush does it?
Pardoning someone where there is a question that you were involved in the crime, so it looks like you are are covering up and obstructing justice == bad.
**On the flip-flopping thing...It is one thing to change positions on the identical event ("I voted against the war before I voted for it")...and quite another to take different positions on a similar issue, but different facts.
How about this?
Two months into the war, on May 29, 2003, Mr. Bush said weapons of mass destruction had been found.
“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,” Mr. Bush told Polish television. “For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
On Sept. 9, 2004, in Pennsylvania, Mr. Bush said: “I recognize we didn't find the stockpiles [of weapons] we all thought were there.”
During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"
The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.
During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must "stay the course."
In a press conference in September 2002, six months before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said, “you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror... they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.”
In September of 2004, Mr. Bush said: “We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th." Though he added that “there's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties,” the statement seemingly belied earlier assertions that Saddam and al Qaeda were “equally bad.”
The Sept. 11 commission found there was no evidence Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.
Should I go on? - jjesusfreak01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Of course it isnt new to politicians, but everyone acts like this is the same situation, perjury vs perjury. In fact, one was lying to cover a nonexistent crime (who knows why), and the other to cover his own butt. Oh, and could people please post links that contain more information than the article summary above. That website is utterly useless.
- rjn17960, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Ah, the good old "But Clinton!" defense. Almost as good as "If you don't support the war you don't support the troops!" argument.
- conceptkid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The constitution DOES work if the president will actually stand by it. Im pretty sure the Constitution is the basis of what this country was formed on, so why in the ***** would it suddenly not work now? get a clue
- 4t0mik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Your time (along with everyone elses) would better spent doing something "else" political than this story. It's really a waste of time and will lead only to mud being on both the faces of the political parties.
As of recent...the mud is a little thicker on the Democrat side....or....wait...that doesn't smell like mud! Get the boots! Mrs Clinton fell into the trap. - Jerrellw, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"treasonous officer" really? what was the treasonous act?
- stopthepc, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I don't get it. With the power he has to pardon, why doesn't he pardon those two boarder patrol officers who got shanghied by PC politics into jail? They were only trying to stop a known drug smnuggler from entering our country, who happened to be armed, as well.
And, if any of you support the sentencing of Ramos and Campean, you suck the Mexican peso, savvy? Don't waist your time replying- the case clearly shows that 12 years in prison is rediculous- they should be given a reward! It's alll about kissing the brown behind of Mr. Chevez. - QPGMR, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3When people realize that the republicans in charge are only interested in looting the treasury. Things will improve (2009). People forget how bad it is when repubs get in charge, this nasty cycle repeats about every 40 years.
Never in the history of the world has a government granted tax cuts during war time (85% to the top 2%, wtf?). Clinton made the world wealthier, then greed turned a lot of people into repubs. Hence the decline.
Here's hoping the next 40 year cycle won't suck as badly. - 4t0mik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Do you really want to have a government constantly being under oath like in the 90s with the Republicans? Because if you do, let's not forget over the 100 or so people that were invesigated and convicted democrat aids to Clinton.
- EdRiZzLe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Damn, doesn't Bush bashing get old at all??? That's almost all I see on Digg now. He will be out of office in 2008, now quit your bitching.
This is not a liberal or conservative point of view, just a "tired of hearing it" point of view. - dgendreau, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Apparently Jerrellw below lives in Bush's America too. :)
- 4t0mik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This is ironic in the way they make fun of people linking Iraq to Sept 11, these people don't get Libby wasn't the leak. Never was or even could be. He didn't even know she was CIA.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1 Outing a CIA officer? V. Plame? Remember the trials?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1So much crying about Scooter Libby and absolutely no crying about Sandy Berger who was shoving secret documents into his pants and out of the office.
- 4t0mik, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Also, the Constitution isn't broken folks....You need to actually read it before commenting and looking like a total jackass. Ron Paul himself would state this is with in the power of Bush....like it was Clinton...
Article 2, Section 2
"The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment" - 4t0mik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Still would like to know how he is a "treasonous officer". Unless you started to redefine the law and rules or trial hearings.....I don't think he was even close to being charged with this. Those types of terms shouldn't be thrown around lightly. Most people are human and if you dare repeat that to a man that wasn't even at trial for that...no matter what man...in his presence you are likely to get popped one. Just saying...it may not be right...but saying things like that...might get a human response...But hey..it's the internet...continue on!
- 4t0mik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Again you are wrong. Do yourself some justice and actually look into the case. Libby at the time didn't know she was a CIA op UNTIL Cheney told him AFTER the leak WAS ALREADY out. The reporter made her public and NOTHING can change that....because HE ADMITED TO IT. Why don't you have the guts to go after the real leaker? Because you REALLY don't care about that...you would rather some how tie this to BUSH in which he had nothing to do with. This was a witch hunt and Libby was stupid enough to fall down and look back...and say...hey...lookie ..ahhhh WTF.
- 4t0mik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1One of the benefits of knowing the President. Clinton knew almost 400 people he liked during his last 9 weeks. Are you up in arms because of that Constiutional Power? Or just the ones about Bush?
It's a granted power to the President. Has been since DAY ONE of our country. Sorry if you think some how this is different, the fact is Bush has given the least amount of Pardons to date than any President in history...and this wasn't even a pardon. I think he will though. - Habemus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This is a strawman. Libby has never pleaded the fifth. Never will. It's not relevant to a perjury charge. Nor is it relevant to an obstruction of justice charge.
- xister, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hey, that's quite a literate repertoire you've got there, homeslice....
- bobbknight, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This is lame without the context of the case, what is the context?
- sharpfork, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2One count of obstruction but three other serious counts as well- wikipedia: "It convicted Libby on four of the five counts against him: two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice in a grand jury investigation, and one of the two counts of making false statements to federal investigators––and acquitted him on one count of making false statements"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby#Indictment.2C_trial.2C_conviction.2C_and_sentencing - vabech311, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Not when I say it!
- Acewrap, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I didn't say it wasn't a serious matter. However, there are degrees of serious. When you lie about where you stick your dick, while wrong, is not AS wrong as lying to cover up treason.
I'm not sure what is ambiguous about "We found WMDs" "We have not found WMDs" Please explain. - knobtwiddler, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3stop using the term "flip-flopping" please. it causes flashbacks to the awful 04 election where all the right-wingers were calling kerry a 'flip flopper'. you're repeating a fox news sound bite.
this is what you call a "double standard" or "illegal" not "flip flopping." he's not just casually changing his mind, he's being deliberately deceitful and defying the law for political purposes.
a flip flop is a type of logic circuit that toggles on a clock pulse when an input is flipped. often used as a single bit in ram. - ZeroG52, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4It would have been a flip flop had there actually been a crime committed here. Digg users need to dig deeper into the story instead of believing what they have been spoon fed by their televisions and propaganda papers.
- Leviathan777, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Oh, sure, a ploy by all the left-wingers in the CIA and a secret cabal of Republican judges and prosecutors.
Can you really be that stupid?
Bush needs no help embarrassing not only his administration, but the entire nation. - Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1And what did Victor Rita lie about that earned him that 33 months in jail?
He lied about have a machine gun that he wasn't legally supposed to have!
Oh yeah, these cases are EXACTLY the same... :-P -
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is