Enough is Enough!
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m fed up!! Bush commuting Libby’s sentence is one more example, of the FACT that this presidential administration believes it is above the law. Well, I have a news flash for them, they are not! The people in that, “we the people” clause need to stand up and tell Bush, Cheney and Congress that we have had enough. I believe Joe Biden had the right idea when he encouraged us to flood the White House phone lines with our protests. I went him one step better and not only e-mailed and called the White House, but also e-mailed my representatives in Congress and let them know just how disgusted I am. Bush would be surprised to hear it, but the truth is, this is not his country nor the country of the elite and powerful, this is OUR country, all of ours and if we really love it then it’s time to show it by banding together and taking a stand for what is right and true and legal. Please take the five minutes to call or write or both the White House and your representatives and tell them, enough is enough!!
White House Contact Info: comments@whitehouse.gov
Phone Numbers Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
Link to page where you can easily find your Congressional Reps. and their contact info:
www.visi.com/juan/congress/
White House Contact Info: comments@whitehouse.gov
Phone Numbers Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
Link to page where you can easily find your Congressional Reps. and their contact info:
www.visi.com/juan/congress/
posted by Leo at 3:16 PM
17 Comments:
Leo I understand your frustration. The act of Pardons goes back to the Caesar's in fact even further back. Its a PR move practiced by the wisest of kings. It has a good effect on society. As you know Barnabas was pardoned over Jesus. Proof that well, pardons will never be well received, lol except by the recipient.
Happy 4th!
Tell me, how do you feel about Bill Clinton's pardons? Marc Rich was only the most glamorous.
Lewis Libby did nothing violent or criminal, yet he was about to serve more prison time than many a violent felon. If that's your notion of justice, you can keep it.
Wally, yes I know the act of pardons go back way into history, but I disagree with you that they are all done for pr reasons. If they are then the current president and many former presidents such as Clinton, and Ford must really enjoy bad pr. Thanks for the comment.
Francis, I will be happy to tell you how I feel about Bill Clinton's long list of pardons, I feel they were WRONG! The same way I feel that Bush using his power to commute Libby's sentence and there by undo our justice systems legal decision was WRONG! The point is wrong is wrong, no matter who does it and all Bush's decision did was further enforce the idea that justice and the law in this country do not apply to the rich, powerful elite. To me this is not a partisan issue. If someone breaks the law and is convicted then they should face the same punishment that any average citizen in this country would face. Frankly, if you believe in the rule of law then it shouldn't matter if it's a republican or a democrat breaking the law, you should want them punished. Those partisans among us who side with pardons, or commutations of sentences based on political loyalty are at the very least hypocrites and at the most, not very good citizens. Thanks for your comment.
Clinton has nothing to do with this... Stop being stuck on stupid.
Hi Leo but that had to be said to the other comment you have by porretto.
Our government sure is ambivalent about crime and punishment. Smoke marijuana and get 10 years in jail. Commit perjury (in relation to outing a CIA agent) and get your wrist slapped. Go figure.
Who Hijacked Our Country
Let's Talk, Hi. Thanks for swinging by, good to see you.
Tom, yeah that's true. But hell Bush could smoke crack in the oval office on national television and nothing would happen to him. It's all about who you are and/or who you know, which is sickening to say the least. Thanks for your thoughts.
You can also go to MoveOn.org and sign a petition. It's really easy and takes about two minutes.
Jane, cool thanks for that info.
It is hard to imagine that any fair minded person who actually knows the specifics of the Libby case could in good conscience support his questioning before a grand jury, his indictment, his being tried, his conviction, the ultimate sentence handed down, and the circumstances under which the sentence was handled.
So, if you are fair-minded and think Libby got what he deserved, I strongly urge you to objectively look into what really took place (or didn't take place), put yourself in Libby's place, consider the sentences of many people who did worse things than Libby was accused of, and see if you still feel the same way.
James, he lied to federal investigators and obstructed them from getting any further in their investigation. I find it hard to believe that any fair minded person, would not have a problem with that. When Clinton lied, the Repubs. impeached him, and thought that was perfectly fair, so how is it that when it's a Repub. it becomes unfair?? As for his sentence, a Republican judge sentenced him, and his sentence was well within the norm. for crimes of that nature. It is damn obvious to anyone with half a brain and one eye open in this country, that Libby choose to lie to cover for his boss, Cheney. No one put a gun to Scooter's head and forced him to make that choice. He was a lawyer and knew what he was doing was illegal. I have no sympathy for him. If I lie to the police in order to protect my friends, that's a crime. If I lied to federal investigators and obstructed their investigation I have no doubt I would go to prison and I sure wouldn't get a pardon or a commution of my sentence. Repubs. love to be tough on criminals, unless it's one of their own. I say, if you're going to do the crime, then you need to do the time. Thanks for the comment.
I reiterate my suggestion that you familiarize yourself with the actual facts of the case, as opposed to the imaginary ones you know.
Basically, it is this: Plame's name made public, not by Libby, not by Chaney; no crime committed, as Plame not covered by the law, and not covert; Fitzgerald knew that early; no need to investigate a crime that wasn't committed; no need to question Libby; no reason to indict Libby; no reason to try Libby; no reason to sentence Libby, since whatever he did or didn't do had no bearing on any criminal act.
It's pretty simple, really, even if you don't have half a brain and one eye open.
James, you're a funny guy. First off ACCORDING to the CIA Valerie Plame was covert and so therefore was covered by the law. Check that fact, before you come back! Secondly, your argument is based on the premise that Fitzgerald should not have been investigating, which since she was covert makes that argument null and void, but even if we let your argument stand that he shouldn't have investigated or had no reason to question Libby, the fact of the matter is, he did and Libby commited perjury. As far as I know Fitzgerald broke no laws, nor rules by investigating so I suggest if you don't like that he investigated you take it up with him.
You're argument is completely superfluous. Basically you're taking the stand that it doesn't matter that Libby broke the law and commited perjury, because there shouldn't have been an investigation. You obviously could care less that it is a FACT that Scooter Libby lied and broke the law. Do you believe in the rule of law or not? Whether you choose to believe there was an underlying crime to investigate initially or not, Libby did commit a crime, period!!! Lying under oath is a crime in this country, do you dispute that? Oh, and one last thing, if Libby wasn't covering for someone,and there was no consciousness of guilt, then why did he lie? In other words what would be the point or reason to lie if you believed that neither you nor your boss had done anything wrong? If you're going to comment back please answer that one for me, as well as whether or not you are disputing that lying under oath is a crime.
I see, Leo, that unfortunately you did not take my advice and bone up on the facts of this case.
Valerie Plame was not a covert agent under the parameters of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the law under which Patrick Fitzgerald was trying desperately, and unsuccessfully to find someone in breach of. You will never see Fitzgerald state that Plame was covert under that law, and that is all that matters in this case. If that's not good enough for you, Leo, consider that Fitzgerald didn't--couldn't--charge anyone under the law, because no one broke the law.
I realize that this truth doesn't fit into your world, but it is the truth.
So if you can muster the courage to face this issue honestly, I once again urge you to look at it objectively. Take the Bush-hatred out of it, and put yourself in Libby's place.
James, well the CIA has said she was covert so you get your facts straight. I'm done arguing with you, because you've yet to address any of the issues or questions I've brought up evidently because you have no good answers for them. Frankly, I think you just like to here yourself, or in this case see yourself talk since you keep reiterating the same thoughts. As for me putting myself in Libby's place, I would never be in his place because one, I'm not a liar, two, I have a conscience and three, I would sooner have someone shoot me in the head then work for an immoral, power crazed, piece of crap like Cheney. Thanks for the comment.
James, since you refuse to do your own research I copied this for you, it was one of about a hundred articles stating the same thing, that according to CIA records Plame was covert.
Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment
By Joel Seidman
Producer
NBC News
Updated: 4:24 p.m. ET May 29, 2007
WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.
The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.
The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trial.
Think about it, Leo: If Plame was really covert under the terms of the IIPA, Fitzgerald would have indicted somebody for breaking that law. The IIPA is an important law that provides protection to American intelligence operatives whose identity must be protected. Valerie Plame, as badly as she and her husband and a lot of liberals wish otherwise, was not important enough to be covered by the law. That she worked at the CIA was common knowledge among Washington folk.
Just because the CIA considered her covert doesn't mean that she was covered by the law, and that is the only thing that matters in this case. If you read Fitzgerald's statements, he never said she was covert under the IIPA law.
That should be the end of the story, but Fitzgerald, not content with discovering there was no crime to investigate, continued spending tax money until he found someone he could charge with something, and that someone was Libby, who did nothing more wrong than be confused about, and disagree with other people about, some unimportant details.
That is what passed for justice in the Libby case.
James, I told you I'm done arguing with you over this. I will not publish anymore of your comments on this particular post, so please don't waste either one of our time.
Post a Comment
<< Home