Wow! What a shocker! Richard Armitage, you know, the former Colin Powell confidante who was OUT of government, and who actually leaked Valerie Plame's name to Robert Nowak, who then published her name in a column, which started all the lefty outrage over the "outing" of a "covert" CIA agent...well, he just got his sentence commuted... ...um... ...wait...you're telling me what? ...I'm sorry... ...it wasn't Richard Armitage whose sentence was commuted? ...you mean, he was never indicted, even though his leak was ACTUALLY published? Is that right? ...you're telling me it was Scooter Libby whose sentence was commuted...Scooter Libby, who wasn't the original source for this "leak" that outraged the left? Right? Oh, well, never mind. Of course, I am sure Sandy Berger is going to need a presidential pardon because he is clearly heading for jail because he destroyed classified documents...right? What? You mean?? You're telling me...that... Sandy Berger was NOT scheduled to go to prison? Excuse me? My goodness gracious. Well, as I my late sainted mother often told me, "It's crazy and mixed up, this world we live in!!" Amen, Mom. Amen.
Dude, despite all of those other significant issues you bring up Scooter should still be in jail. This Judge Dred - I am the law nonsense does nobody any favors.
Seconded!!! Check out the liberal outrage over this issue: http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/02/breaking-president-bush-to-commute-libbys-sentenced/ They are beside themselves over commuted sentence! Haven't seen them this angry since Dick Cheney swore at Leahy! Great!!!
No, he should actually be pardoned. But Bush won't do it until he has lost all his appeals. This whole affair should never have happened in the first place, Fitz should have shut down his investigation once he knew Armitage was the leak and, legally, he could do nothing to prosecute him. All of this was a grand fishing expedition, egged on by the left's rage and paranoia about the demon Karl Rove and Dick Cheyney. The foaming-mouth delusional visions of the The New York Times and the Daily Kos imagining Rove frogmarched out of the White House propelled this entire affair to its pathetic conclusion. What a waste.
Yes, that evil, Republican-appointed Fitzgerald forced poor Libby to lie to the grand jury and obstruct justice. That evil, Republican-appointed judge wouldn't let Libby squirm his way out of it. Those evil, Republican-appointed appeals court judges wouldn't overturn the sentence, which was smack in the mid-range of the sentencing guidelines for such crimes. Please. If you want to play the "no underlying crime" game, let's talk about Clinton.
I won't dispute Libby's guilt. As I don't dispute Clinton's guilt. But what I will dispute is any notion from anybody that all of this brouhaha was worth it. And, yes, as with Clinton's impeachment, it was a complete waste of time and money. What lefties/libs don't realize is that it cuts both ways. If you think that a lie that occurs before a grand jury -- in effect a secondary crime resulting from an investigation of what turns out to be a non-crime -- deserves jail time, then Clinton should have been drummed out of office. And don't give me any crap that one was a lie about a ************** and another was a lie about what one person told a reporter. Whatever qualitative difference there is -- and there ain't much, believe me -- is meaningless. The good news in all of this is that after Reid and Schumer engage in their mindless demagoguery, the hypocritical outrage on the part of the delusional "gee-I-wish-Karl-Rove-would-have-been-frog-marched-out-of-the-White-House" lefty nutjobs will all blow over. And the appeals process will continue.
Here's the problem Karl - you keep laying this a the door of "lefties/libs", but this entire case was prosecuted and judged, all the way to the appeals court, by GOP-appointed prosecutors and judges. It wasn't "Libs" who tried, convicted and sentenced Libby, it was the GOP-led DOJ and Courts. Stop making this out to be a liberal witch hunt.
C'mon. It was The New York Times that called for a special prosecutor, and it was the rest of the liberal media that was is a positive frenzy over the "outing" of a "covert" CIA agent, fueled as they were by the nutjobs over at KOS, DU, and moveon.org. That special prosecutor was a Democrat. True, he was appointed to the post by the then acting Bush AG (an appointment that was arguably unconstitutional) but imagine if Bush appointed....say...Ken Starr? Your heads would have exploded for the umpteenth time (maybe that explains why your brain is made of clay). Meanwhile, that SC bought into the whole "outing" notion, hook line and singer. Gee, wonder why? As for the judge, just because he was appointed by a Republican doesn't make him conservative or even reasonable. David Souter is your poster boy in that regard. Couple that with a jury pool that is going to be largely Democratic and largely liberal and...guess what? In the end, like so may liberals and leftists, you can't even face your own contradictions. If you feel that Clinton was dragged through the mud for lying under oath about a non-crime, you HAVE to feel the same way about Libby. It is as simple as that. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a complete and total hypocrite. But something tells me that won't stop you from continuing your completely baseless and hollow arguments which I have soundly and thoroughly demolished, once again.
sorry but the Supreme Court disagrees with you, you ignorant neocon. seriously, one of the dumbest things I've read on bigsoccer. edit: ok I looked it up, it turns out the Supreme Court agreed with you 9-0. Sorry. My bad.
I am conflicted about this whole thing. Plame's story was sketchy and her own testimony conflicted previous testimony. However if Libby was sentenced in court, we should probably respect that. I'll assume the Judge knows more than I about what really happened. So Claymore I assume you were outraged when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich too, right? And you think Sandy Berger should be in prison too?
I am on the DSCC's mailing list, and here's the latest missive from that paragon of intelligent argument, Chuck Schumer. Wow, what a set of expectations. Tell me, Chuckie, how the did the honor, integrity, and moral leadership work out with Bill and his intern? Any word on that? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E. That's what he is...pure and simple. Oh, by the way, Claybrain, over on the poltiics forum you advocated the fairness doctrine because it would somehow ameliorate the hyper-partisanship in today's environment. To demolish ANOTHER of your specious and vacuous arguments, I present you with this letter, designed solely to increase the hyper-partisanship that you decry from a leader of a party you support, without the benefit of the talk radio that you would like to regulate. Yes, you are an idiot.
Indeed. She was a covert agent, and she was outed. Those facts are not in dispute. Bush himself said he wanted it investigated, and promised those responsible would be "dealt with". The folks you list simply insisted that Bush follow through on his promise. Patrick Fitzgerald a Dem? Someone forgot to tell him. See above - Bush promised an investigation, people simply held him to his word. Well shit. Sorry you couldn't stack the jury as well. I think you've got that backwards. You really need to look up the term "projection".
I think the issue is whether Libby was really guilty and it depends on who you believe. If people who hate Cheney can insist he too was guilty after the investigation then I think it's fair for people to think Libby wasn't so guilty. So either you think the investigation was fair and complete or else it's fair to assume guilt/innocence with regard to Cheney and Libby.
Where were you when all this was going on? She lied about how Wilson was sent to Niger. Plame’s three versions: -She told the CIA's inspector general in 2003 or 2004 that she had suggested Wilson. -Plame told Senate Intelligence Committee staffers in 2004 that she couldn't remember whether she had suggested Wilson. -She told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March that an unidentified person in Vice President Cheney's office asked a CIA colleague about the African uranium report in February 2002. A third officer, overhearing Plame and the colleague discussing this, suggested, "Well, why don't we send Joe?" Plame told the committee.
Well those people on either side are idiots. This went to a court of law and a jury found him guilty of obstruction. It doesn't matter how fair and how complete it was at this time. If it turns out that things were unfair, the appeals process will determine that. These are the rules that we all agree to abide by as citizens of the United States of America. So again, are we a better society now because of this decision to commute this sentence?
Probably, yeah. I think that this guy was made a scapegoat for the 'outing' and correcting that is probably a plus. However, if you want a scapegoat, a guy named "Scooter" is a good choice. Nobody wants to defend a guy named "Scooter"
If his parents had named him 'Sandy', he would've gotten no jail time at all, and only a $50k fine. So he can blame his parents.