....and aren't you the same person who gave Al Gore a total pass on his video about Iraq and Terrorism ties? You said it was ok because he's a career politician and everybody made that smae claim.....yet now, when Bush does one commute ( not pardon)......you want absolutes again....that makes sense...Bush does what every president has done. By the way...you spelled BRAINWASH wrong.....LOL you have to use your BRAIN sometimes before you insult people.
if that were true, then why was he re-elected ? Are you still upset about the 2000 election results and re-count ?
Just apply the same level of scrutiny that's all. Clinton pardoned terrorists for god sakes and a good portion of Clinton's pardons followed a large donation to his library. "On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations."
I have a better idea....take away the presidential pardon or at the very least....if 60% of senate disapproves....its not granted...It was not set up for this purpose.....it was a way that the president could free patriots...not Libby, McDougal, Rich and Nixon!!!
zzz...please call 911 and order this book NOW!! Logic and Critical Thinking -- Salmon It will change your life, and maybe even your posts.
George Bush, Feb 2004: "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. . . . If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of. I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job. I want to know the truth. . . . Leaks of classified information are bad things." At the time I thought "taken care of" meant the person would be severely punished.
It is sure nice that the US military and the US taxpayers are helping Israel with their Palestinian pogrom.
I'll explain this once more. Bush called for a special counsel to investigate the apparent leaking of a CIA employees name to the media. The very first day of his tenure, the Special Counsel learned who leaked her name. The Justice Department already knew, as he had turned himself in. At that point, the investigation should have ended. How could the prosecutor have been obstructed when he already had the answer? The prosecution is even less justifiable than one like the Martha Stewart case where there was no underlying crime to obstruct. Here there was not only no underlying crime, but there was no obstruction. It was purely a made-up crime so that the ambitious prosecutor would not look like a failure. I don't respect the jury's verdict. The trial was purely a swearing match between a committed democrat journalist, Tim russert, and Libby. Absent some sort of recording, there is no reason to accept one's version over the other. Russert had at least as great a motivation to lie as Libby. Even if you accept Russert's version, that doesn't mean that Libby was lying. He could have just been mistaken. Libby wouldn't have been in this situation without the intense partisan attacks on the White House over this. Sending a guy to jail for three years because he got caught in a political crossfire doesn't seem fair to me. To others, everyone connected to this administration is fair game and should be sent to prison on any pretext.
Even if we take it as a given that: 1) the leak began and ended with Armitage (which does not appear to be the case)... 2) Fitzgerald could have known without further investigation that the leak began and ended with Armitage (which is implausible), and... 3) nobody else in the administration mentioned Plame to journalists (which is obviously false)... ...that still would not excuse Libby of lying to a grand jury. He was not coerced, he was not entrapped; he lied under oath. The grand jury's job is to determine whether a case should go to trial. Sometimes they determine that there is sufficient evidence for trial; sometimes there isn't. Either way, however, witnesses to the grand jury are compelled to uphold their oath. Just because the grand jury fails to indict does not mean that anyone should get a free pass on perjury or obstruction. Here's a simple analogy. If you see a traffic accident, and you decide based on what you saw that no crime was committed, that doesn't mean that you can lie to the cops (or the jury) about what you saw. Whether or not there is an underlying crime, your lies are every bit as serious and subversive of justice. Martin