CLEMENCY FOR LIBBY

President Bush's action on Libby...
Clemency was the right thing to do
Libby should be pardoned
Libby should have served the time

Wow! Are the Democrats going to have a field day with this one. Stand by for the outrage.

President Bush has granted executive clemency to Scooter Libby. This is not a pardon. Bush stated that he respected the jury's verdict. He felt, however, that the 30-month sentence was too harsh, so that portion of Libby's sentence was commuted by Bush.

In the Democrat hell-raising that is sure to follow I'm sure the media is going to ignore some of the pardons handed out by Clinton at the end of his term. At least Bush didn't grant clemency as a reward to a community for votes.

The fact is that Libby was prosecuted following an investigation of an action that did not constitute a crime under our laws. The special prosecutor pretended to be looking for the person who had "leaked" Valerie Plame's name to the media ... I say he "pretended" because he knew the identity of that person from the beginning of his investigation. Patrick Fitzgerald packed the Beltway jury with people not exactly in love with George Bush, and then set Libby up as the symbol of the Bush Administration.

Bush has righted a wrong. What's more, he has figuratively flipped off his leftist critics. Gotta love it.


By: Boortz

Wow! Are the Democrats going to have a field day with this one. Stand by for the outrage.


And they shouldn't be outraged because?

President Bush has granted executive clemency to Scooter Libby. This is not a pardon. Bush stated that he respected the jury's verdict. He felt, however, that the 30-month sentence was too harsh, so that portion of Libby's sentence was commuted by Bush.

First of all he did NOT respect the jury's verdict or he would have let the sentence stand against a man the JURY found guilty.

In the Democrat hell-raising that is sure to follow I'm sure the media is going to ignore some of the pardons handed out by Clinton at the end of his term. At least Bush didn't grant clemency as a reward to a community for votes.

They should ignore them. That's the equivalent of saying "well he did it, so i can too". We are not children here. And he most certainly did grant clemency for votes. He did to NOT piss off the last of the conservative base he had left behind him, lest his ratings slip even further.

The fact is that Libby was prosecuted following an investigation of an action that did not constitute a crime under our laws. The special prosecutor pretended to be looking for the person who had "leaked" Valerie Plame's name to the media ... I say he "pretended" because he knew the identity of that person from the beginning of his investigation. Patrick Fitzgerald packed the Beltway jury with people not exactly in love with George Bush, and then set Libby up as the symbol of the Bush Administration.


Ok he was not the one who leaked the information, but he was still found guilty of purjory and obstruction of justice, those constitute crimes under our law don't they? Is your argument that if was never allowed to be asked the question he would have never had the opportunity to lie? I would still rather know that the man is a liar. He was not "set up" as a symbol of the bush administration. He accepted the appointment from bush to this post, that MAKES him a symbol of the administration, certainly not the only one but a symbol none the less.

Bush has righted a wrong. What's more, he has figuratively flipped off his leftist critics. Gotta love it.

In my opinion he did not right a wrong, he exercised his power, a power which seriously needs to be re-evaluated, for a friend and colleague. What's more he has not flipped off just his critics, he has flipped off the legal system, the American people, and America herself. Personally I'm surprised he has ANY approval rating left at all.

In my opinion he did not right a wrong, he exercised his power, a power which seriously needs to be re-evaluated, for a friend and colleague. What's more he has not flipped off just his critics, he has flipped off the legal system, the American people, and America herself. Personally I'm surprised he has ANY approval rating left at all.

Well stay tuned for the next set of polls, I think you shall be quite happy.

He doesn't care and why should he, no one is going to touch him. The vice, corruption, lies and errors run so deep and to so many, where do you even start? And at what cost?

Bush does not care about the polls. Actually I think he has a friendly wager with someone who said, "Hey George, I bet you can't get those poll numbers under 5% approval." It seems to be what he is trying to do. If one is going to be remembered for something, it might as well be being the most unpopular President ever.

Clinton gave many many pardons for things that were far far worse.



And they shouldn't be outraged because?



First of all he did NOT respect the jury's verdict or he would have let the sentence stand against a man the JURY found guilty.



They should ignore them. That's the equivalent of saying "well he did it, so i can too". We are not children here. And he most certainly did grant clemency for votes. He did to NOT piss off the last of the conservative base he had left behind him, lest his ratings slip even further.



Ok he was not the one who leaked the information, but he was still found guilty of purjory and obstruction of justice, those constitute crimes under our law don't they? Is your argument that if was never allowed to be asked the question he would have never had the opportunity to lie? I would still rather know that the man is a liar. He was not "set up" as a symbol of the bush administration. He accepted the appointment from bush to this post, that MAKES him a symbol of the administration, certainly not the only one but a symbol none the less.



In my opinion he did not right a wrong, he exercised his power, a power which seriously needs to be re-evaluated, for a friend and colleague. What's more he has not flipped off just his critics, he has flipped off the legal system, the American people, and America herself. Personally I'm surprised he has ANY approval rating left at all.

Bush does not care about the polls. Actually I think he has a friendly wager with someone who said, "Hey George, I bet you can't get those poll numbers under 5% approval." It seems to be what he is trying to do. If one is going to be remembered for something, it might as well be being the most unpopular President ever.

LOL - exactly - bush OBVIOUSLY does not care about the polls. What a complete and utter idiot:banana:

When liars reign, truth is treason.

Bush does not care about the polls. Actually I think he has a friendly wager with someone who said, "Hey George, I bet you can't get those poll numbers under 5% approval." It seems to be what he is trying to do. If one is going to be remembered for something, it might as well be being the most unpopular President ever.
Right now the Pelosi / Reid Congress stands at 14% approval rating.
It is the lowest approval since Gallup started polling about governmental institutions.
Betcha you, Sal and Sassyrunner didn't read that in the mainstream media.

Media bias? Naaaahhhh.

Gee,

Could it be because the media in general is bias to the left?



Right now the Pelosi / Reid Congress stands at 14% approval rating.
It is the lowest approval since Gallup started polling about governmental institutions.
Betcha you, Sal and Sassyrunner didn't read that in the mainstream media.

Media bias? Naaaahhhh.

after all the damage they have to fix after years of republican control, 14% is a good thing!

after all the damage they have to fix after years of republican control, 14% is a good thing!

Democrats have not "fixed" (repaired) anything, in the last 47 years. They just corrupt different things, in the same manner. I'm just waiting to see which party will destroy the country first.

what do you mean? it is already detroyed. Did you not read Dhrama's post? this is most likely our last 4th of July. Thanks Bush!

He (B*sh) doesn't care ...

100% correct.

He has no reason to care or worry about it.

...and why should he, no one is going to touch him. The vice, corruption, lies and errors run so deep and to so many, where do you even start?

Exactly.

Why should he care?

He has 57 million little Eichmanns to defend him and make goddamned excuses for him.

When your cronies own all the major outlets for the dissemination of information (iow, the mainstream Media) and control it, you are, in effect, absolutely untouchable.

He is perfectly safe to pursue any criminal or traitorous activity he pleases.

He doesn't care and why should he....
A president who cares more about what he feels is right than he does about the polls?
At least Clinton doled out pardons for money. What the hell's the matter with Bush?

Wow! Now all of us who support the president on the commutation issue are little Eichmanns according to Freethinker. Support of Bush = support of sending Jews to the gas chambers. Talk about hyperbole. What's next in Freethinker's lexicon of hate................those who are anti-immigration are little Pol Pots?

A president who cares more about what he feels is right than he does about the polls?
At least Clinton doled out pardons for money. What the hell's the matter with Bush?

On the other hand it seems a bit disingenuous to keep excusing someone's mistakes by saying "he was just doing what he felt was right". Bush may feel it was an excessive sentence, but that doesn't mean he should be excused for doing a special favor for a friend. I'm sure you're familiar with the expression "the appearance of impropriety". If Bush has done no wrong in this case, he certainly knows how to make it look like he's corrupt.

Wow! Now all of us who support the president on the commutation issue are little Eichmanns according to Freethinker.

I did not say that.

It was more toward saying that those who undyingly support the President --no matter his wrongful and criminal actions-- are little Eichmans.

I was thinking of those on the Right who endlessly side with B*sh and his band of crooks on the subject of war; specifically, the oil war that B*sh --thru his lying and conniving-- duped the gullible populace into supporting.

Support of B*sh = support of sending Jews to the gas chambers. Talk about hyperbole.

Close to a million people are dead in Iraq because of the despicable machinations of B*sh and his RightWing cohorts....all so they could massively enrich themselves and their cronies and take control of the oil reserves over there.

Hitler commited his atrocities for power and money and for the purpose of eliminating what he thought was an "inferior" race; B*sh is commiting his atrocities for power and money and for the purpose of controlling the oil in the Middle East.

I don't know that an innocent Iraqi being bombed to death or shot in the head is any less dead than the Jews who were sent to the ovens. Murdering hundreds of thousands of people out of the lust for power and control is murdering people out of the lust for power and control, no matter the era, no matter which color flag the aggressors are marching under.

I think it is a good analogy, and I do not regard it as being hyperbolic.

1. I'm sure you're familiar with the expression "the appearance of impropriety".
2. If Bush has done no wrong in this case, he certainly knows how to make it look like he's corrupt.1. "The appearance of impropriety" is a phrase used by the opposition when they cannot show that something was done inappropriately.
Suppose Scooter Libby's sentence was excessive*(see below). Is the opposition's frustration with clemency motivation to allow the excessive sentence to continue?

2. If the president's actions "make it look like he's corrupt", is that a reason to let an excessive sentence stand? To someone who is poll driven, like President Clinton, is certainly would have been.
Was there a way to extend clemency without looking corrupt, in your opinion. Probably not.
So the President's concern about how others can spin this should have been reason enough to let an excessive sentence continue.

In both of the above examples, neither of your statements says that the President did the wrong thing. Both of these phrases, when you really look at them, are meaningless.
They are only used in an attempt to paralyze the weak-minded or force the insecure into inaction.



*"Most citizens are shocked to find out that violent criminals serve only 5.5 years for murder or 3 years for rape. But those are the sobering statistics wrought from lenient early-release practices.

Government statistics (for 36 states and the District of Columbia) show that although violent offenders received an average sentence of seven years and eleven months imprisonment, they actually served an average of only two years and eleven months in prison--or only 37 percent of their imposed sentences."
Scooter Libby was sentenced to 2.5 years.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/crime.html

1. "The appearance of impropriety" is a phrase used by the opposition when they cannot show that something was done inappropriately.

Nice jab. :)

I'm curious to know how you feel about Mr. Bush's decision to overrule the judge in his sentencing. Do you think 2.5 years is an excessive sentence in this case, and why?


Suppose Scooter Libby's sentence was excessive*(see below). Is the opposition's frustration with clemency motivation to allow the excessive sentence to continue?

Not at all, I just don't think a convincing case can be made that 2.5 years in jail is an excessive sentence for the Chief of Staff of the Vice-President to receive for committing two felonies, both of which were related to obstructing the proper administration of justice.


2. If the president's actions "make it look like he's corrupt", is that a reason to let an excessive sentence stand?

No, but if his actions make him look corrupt, it's possible, and maybe even likely, that's because the actions were corrupt. This possibility alone makes it worthy of closer inspection.


To someone who is poll driven, like President Clinton, is certainly would have been.

I'll put this as diplomatically as I can at the moment...who gives a rat's ass what Clinton may have done in this situation?


Was there a way to extend clemency without looking corrupt, in your opinion. Probably not.

No, but it might help if he were to explain why he believed the man was guilty (he expressed respect for the jury's verdict) yet felt the man didn't deserve to go to jail.


So the President's concern about how others can spin this should have been reason enough to let an excessive sentence continue.

No.


In both of the above examples, neither of your statements says that the President did the wrong thing.

I'm sorry if I was unclear. The President did the wrong thing. :)


Both of these phrases, when you really look at them, are meaningless.
They are only used in an attempt to paralyze the weak-minded or force the insecure into inaction.

That's because the Force is with me. :)


*"Most citizens are shocked to find out that violent criminals serve only 5.5 years for murder or 3 years for rape. But those are the sobering statistics wrought from lenient early-release practices.

Government statistics (for 36 states and the District of Columbia) show that although violent offenders received an average sentence of seven years and eleven months imprisonment, they actually served an average of only two years and eleven months in prison--or only 37 percent of their imposed sentences."
Scooter Libby was sentenced to 2.5 years.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/crime.html

You seem to be suggesting that because overly lenient sentences are handed out in some cases, the sentence in this case is "excessive" by comparison. If that is your suggestion, I'm not buying it. :)

The President does not merely "appear" corrupt. This makes it painfully obvious to everyone who is paying attention that he is most assuredly as corrupt as the year is long.

Bush does not care about the polls. Actually I think he has a friendly wager with someone who said, "Hey George, I bet you can't get those poll numbers under 5% approval." It seems to be what he is trying to do. If one is going to be remembered for something, it might as well be being the most unpopular President ever.

I know it's not new an idea'r that Politics is more a
Pissing Populatiry Contest,than anything else.
But,it needn't be.
I truly believe in my Heart that Great Men,don't exist in the
real world to Be Great.It's just a fact of their persona and
Fate upon Earth.
Great Men,cannot be Born.
They have to have an innate,congenital sensibility towards
being a Mover & a Shaker,by motivating not only themself,but those
in their sphere,towards the better.
Like a Great Football Coach.
So too with thise Liberal infatuation with Polling #'s and ones
Popularity.Yes,Clinton was a Populist.
But he Literally stood for NOTHING.Like Hillary.
They stand for their own Egocentric pursuit of Power.
That makes them not only Non-Great.but more in the vain
of Shallow...Non-Greats.
Special Prosecutor Fitxgerald,knew before he even undertook his
first day of Investigation who the Real leaker was.
To this day,Armitage is not even talked about by The Fitz.
So,what we have is an Investigation into the misapplied
configuration of a Non-active Covert Agent,who wasn't Outed
as much as had her Hubby Trump-up a false allegation and
pressured for an Investigation that resulted in a Process Crime,
thru willfull trapping of a Good American { Libby }.
Libby could and should say he didn't lie but was rather confused about
dates and times and what he said to who first.
Who's On First.?
Shoulda Been Little Lyin Joe Wilson.

If the president's actions "make it look like he's corrupt", is that a reason to let an excessive sentence stand? To someone who is poll driven, like President Clinton, is certainly would have been.

Yes....a president who is "poll driven" being simply another way of saying *A President who does what the People would prefer to have done*.

The fiend. :rolleyes:

The diametric opposite of that would be a President --like B*sh-- who could not care less what the People want, and who cares nothing about the "rule of law".

Back when the Clinton/Lewinsky fiasco was underway, virtually every Rightwing fucktard in the country was heard spewing the "rule of law, rule of law, rule of law" mantra daily.

Now that Bush has given the finger to the *rule of law*, the hypocritical Righties that were formerly fanatical about the "rule of law" do a 180 degree turn and decide that B*ush is to be lauded because he is "following his convictions".

How utterly loathsome and dishonest they are.

[QUOTE=Freethinker]Yes....a president who is "poll driven" being simply another way of saying *A President who does what the People would prefer to have done*.

I don't know if yer aware of this,but that's exactly what Our
Founders Feared.That The People might { masses } might take it
upon themself and elect a Leader or start a Movement to
Revolunize The Country.
The Founders believed strongly in a United and Elected Republic.
Not Government by ALL the People.
The Founders were well aware of the limited scope of understanding of
the average Citizen,and in the wrongs hands how Mob Rule could
unravel the safeguards they put in place.
The Founders knew the dire necessity of a Free and open press,
but also the dangers when a common man,may take things they read
or hear,and fly off into a rage,like a mob.

" If men were angels,no government would be needed "
-- James Madison

How utterly loathsome and dishonest they are.[/QUOTE]

Not only did " Scooter " NOT have a chicky pooh in The
Peoples Oval Office.But Scooter dint have said chickie pooh give
him a BJ.
Nor did Libby go on national TV and utter somethin about
--- " I never had sexual relations with THAT Woman." ---.
But Rather,Scooter was hauled before a Grand Jury and
could have pled the 5th but decided to cooperate and let
himself become ENTRAPPED by any and all questions that a
Special Lughead Irishman saw fit.
Whose to say,Tim Russert wasn't Lyin thru his teeth.?
The Investigation boiled down to Libby's veracity vs. Russert's.

Bush does not care about the polls. Actually I think he has a friendly wager with someone who said, "Hey George, I bet you can't get those poll numbers under 5% approval." It seems to be what he is trying to do. If one is going to be remembered for something, it might as well be being the most unpopular President ever.

Correct he doesn't care about the polls but the 30+ republicans who have their seats up for grabs in '08 sure care.

1. No, but if his actions make him look corrupt, it's possible, and maybe even likely, that's because the actions were corrupt. This possibility alone makes it worthy of closer inspection.
2. You seem to be suggesting that because overly lenient sentences are handed out in some cases, the sentence in this case is "excessive" by comparison.
3. I'll put this as diplomatically as I can at the moment...who gives a rat's ass what Clinton may have done in this situation?
4. I'm sorry if I was unclear. The President did the wrong thing.

1. Yes, it's possible his actions make him look corrupt. Some people will perceive his actions that way, and some won't.
But if the sentence is excessive, should the president not commute because of how some people might interpret his actions? That all depends on how weak or insecure he feels about himself or his actions.

2. No, not just overly lenient sentences but sentences in general.
In 2001, the mean average sentence length for murder was 135 months.
In that same year, the mean average sentence for the following crimes got you less jail time than Scooter Libby: Manslaughter, Sexual Abuse, Assault, Burglary and Prison Offenses.

3. What Clinton did is relevant here because people have come to believe that the normal course of business for the Chief Executive is to reverse himself if people don't agree with your decision. Well it's not.
Remember when one of his contributors died and got a cemetary plot at Arlington that he didn't earn? Even he knew it was wrong because when people complained they actually dug the guy up.
So whether that behavior stems from insecurity or knowing you did the wrong thing, it's not how someone in charge runs his life.

4. I respect that opinion. But I can't respect "the appearance of impropriety?.

...could not care less what the People want,..... cares nothing about the "rule of law".....every Rightwing fucktard in .... given the finger to the *rule of law*, .... utterly loathsome and dishonest .....You're starting to sound like the fat drunk playing checkers in front of the general store.

Correct he doesn't care about the polls but the 30+ republicans who have their seats up for grabs in '08 sure care.Congress' approval rating is twelve points lower than the president's, so maybe worrying about those numbers isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I'm curious to know how you feel about Mr. Bush's decision to overrule the judge in his sentencing. Do you think 2.5 years is an excessive sentence in this case, and why?
I thought of this after the other post.

Scooter Libby's lawyer filed an appeal. Normally someone who is convicted of a non-violent crime and is not a flight risk does not serve his sentence while awaiting appeal. This judge refused to do that claiming something to the effect of the appeal is pointless.
That's not his call to make, and as I said it's unusual.
And I think it shows something about this judge and helps to make the point that he may have been harsh with the sentence.

Close to a million people are dead in Iraq because of the despicable machinations of B*sh and his RightWing cohorts....all so they could massively enrich themselves and their cronies and take control of the oil reserves over there.

Just how much oil are we getting out of Iraq? How much have we extracted in the last few years?

If it was all about oil Bush would have been far better served by making a deal with Hussein. Hussein stays in power and in return the U.S. gets cheap oil. That deal wasn't made.

I think the war in Iraq should not have been started and also that it has been run badly but to say it is a war for oil is simply a left wing canard far from the truth.

I thought of this after the other post.

Scooter Libby's lawyer filed an appeal. Normally someone who is convicted of a non-violent crime and is not a flight risk does not serve his sentence while awaiting appeal. This judge refused to do that claiming something to the effect of the appeal is pointless.
That's not his call to make, and as I said it's unusual.
And I think it shows something about this judge and helps to make the point that he may have been harsh with the sentence.

And according to the reccomendation of a Parole Board,
the sentence should have been 16 months,not 30 months.
Like Hilton,it seems Justice is Bigoted.Agin Wealthy Whites.
Judges are purposedly sending out warning signals,like a Rogue
Frontier Indian,that White Collar crime won't be tolerated.
I hope we see a Judgy/wudgy or Special Prosecutor get arrested
soon.

Is the opposition's frustration with clemency motivation to allow the excessive sentence to continue?

There was no "excessive sentence." Bush is just determined to protect his fellow gang members, and "excessive sentence" was apparently the best excuse he could come up with.

:rolleyes:

Lame, but consider the source.

Anyway....


'L.A.Times': Libby Sentence Was Far From 'Excessive'

July 04, 2007 10:15 AM ET

NEW YORK A Los Angeles Times report on Wednesday challenges President Bush's claim that the 30-month prison sentence for "Scooter" Libby, now commuted, in the CIA leak case was "excessive."

Records cited by the paper "show that the Justice Department under the Bush administration frequently has sought sentences that are as long, or longer, in cases similar to Libby's. 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.

"Just last week, the Supreme Court upheld a 33-month prison sentence for a decorated Army veteran who was convicted of lying to a federal agent about buying a machine gun. The veteran had a record of public service — fighting in Vietnam and the Gulf War — and no criminal record. But Justice Department lawyers argued his prison term should stand because it fit within the federal sentencing guidelines."

1. There was no "excessive sentence." Bush is just determined to protect his fellow gang members, and "excessive sentence" was apparently the best excuse he could come up with.
2. Lame, but consider the source.1. Isn't excessive a word used for comparisons? Compare it to the sentences for other crimes?

2. What was that for?

Isn't excessive a word used for comparisons?

Yes.

Compare it to the sentences for other crimes?

Please go back to my previous post and read the bolded part with really big letters. See it up there?


*



The bone of contention here is this:

How is it possible that a 30-month sentence for obstruction of justice is excessive and dozens of 70-month sentences for obstruction of justice are NOT excessive?

Mr. Bush's answer is:

"It's excessive because I say it is."

What was that for?

Only a dolt would use that reasoning without first checking his own past record on the matter. Especially when his past record doesn't remotely support his current argument.




* The comparison is between:

(a) the obstruction of justice sentence given to Libby (30 months) which was commuted because Mr. Bush thought it was "excessive," and

(b) the obstruction of justice (note: THE SAME CRIME) sentences given to other people (70 months) in the past year that Mr. Bush apparently does not think are "excessive," or he would have commuted their sentences, too.

Only a dolt would use that reasoning without first checking his own past record on the matter. Especially when his past record doesn't remotely support his current argument.


What are you talking about, please be specific.
And now you've called me "lame" and a "dolt". I haven't even said hello to you on this thread yet. What's your problem today?

As far as the comparisons go I looked up a table of mean average sentencing in this country. Libby's sentence is excessive. It is greater than manslaughter, assault, etc.
If other people got similar sentences for similar crimes then theirs too were excessive.

What are you talking about, please be specific.
And now you've called me "lame" and a "dolt". I haven't even said hello to you on this thread yet. What's your problem today?

I think she was referring to Bush with the "lame" and "dolt" comments. :)


As far as the comparisons go I looked up a table of mean average sentencing in this country. Libby's sentence is excessive. It is greater than manslaughter, assault, etc.

Would you consider Libby's offense to be low, medium, or high on the scale of such offenses? I mean, was his a serious act of perjury and obstruction in your opinion?


If other people got similar sentences for similar crimes then theirs too were excessive.

That leaves the question of why Mr. Bush didn't see fit to commute their sentences. Do you think Mr. Bush's relationship with Mr. Libby was at all involved in his decision?

What are you talking about, please be specific.

What are YOU talking about? :confused:

And now you've called me "lame" and a "dolt". I haven't even said hello to you on this thread yet. What's your problem today?

Brooks, I know we've discussed your reading comprehension issues in the past....

Do I really have to spell this out for you?


I was commenting on Mr. Bush's claim that Libby's sentence was "excessive."

I provided documentation showing that Mr. Bush has a record of letting sentences of more than 30 months for the exact same crime stand.

I pointed out that Libby's sentence was not "excessive," because it is less than half the average sentence for obstruction of justice handed down in the past year.

I also stated that only a dolt would use "excessive" as a rationale for commuting the sentence, when said dolt's own record doesn't back that rationale up in even the most remote manner.


As far as the comparisons go I looked up a table of mean average sentencing in this country. Libby's sentence is excessive. It is greater than manslaughter, assault, etc.

It's greater than jaywalking too, but that doesn't mean anything here, Brooks. You're comparing apples and oranges.

You're supposed to be comparing sentences for the SAME CRIME. Comparing sentences for different crimes is pointless because different crimes automatically come with different sentencing requirements.

Duh.

If other people got similar sentences for similar crimes then theirs too were excessive.

Um. Yeah. That's the whole point, Brooks. Other people have received FAR LONGER sentences for the same crime. If Mr. Bush truly stands behind his statement that Libby's 30-month sentence for obstruction of justice was "excessive," then he must also feel this way about the dozens of people who were convicted of the same crime and who are currently serving sentences of 70 months and more. If he truly stands behind his reasoning for commuting Libby's sentence, then he must apply the same reasoning to others who committed the same crime but who received sentences of 30 months or more.

Has he done that? No.

Will he? Maybe when hell freezes over....






I'm starting to think Mr. Bush isn't the only dolt around here.