I am not sure that I would have voted for an article of impeachment against Clinton, much less his conviction.

You're not sure, eh? Well, you certainly are sure that Libby deserves a pardon, but you're not sure you would have voted for Clinton to be impeached for the same crime? How consistent is that?

And besides, Elephantman, we all know that you supported the impeachment of Clinton to the hilt and still do, but that very recently it occurred to you that stating this support while clamoring for an appeal of Libby made you look like a pathetic hypocrite. As a result, you've now wheeled out this modified equivocation that you hope will suffice as a figleaf covering your abject lack of integrity.

I don't think Libby ever lied.

Why do you think that? Have you been shown some evidence that a jury of his peers was not shown? Please, fill us in. Because otherwise, it appears that your respect for the rule of law and the decision of juries stops when it's a republican facing the consequences.

You failed at making yourself appear as a non-hypocrite. Do you want a do-over? Be my guest.

Elephantman, it's clear that you will only respect the law if your man is allowed to get off. Convicted felon by a jury of his peers? You don't respect that verdict. Appeal? You'll only respect it if he gets off. Pardon? That is clearly necessary for someone who is guilty but is politically connected enough not to have to pay the consequences of his crimes, unlike you and me.

And that makes you feel good? You enjoy having a section of society that is bound by no laws? Please explain your philosophy about this. And explain for us all exactly who should have to obey the law, and who shouldn't.

I know I've never stopped quesitoning the OJ criminal trial jury.

Why haven't you stopped questioning it? Could it be that it bothered you to see someone who was obviously guilty go free, simply because they were rich and could afford a legal team headed by Johnny Cochran? Did it disturb you to see our justice system fail? I know it bothered me.

It still bothers me. Regardless of one's politics, there is absolutely no doubt that Libby committed perjury. He's been found guilty. Sure, because of his political connections, he's got a legal defense fund which enables him to waste time with an appeal. But it's not likely to change anything. The single purpose of the appeal is to prevent Libby from experiencing some pretty exciting showers in prison, until Jan 20, 2009 when Bush will pardon him. It has nothing to do with innocence.

So, tell me, why did it bother you to see OJ go free, while you'd be elated to see Libby pardoned? Can you please explain for us, once and for all, which laws you think should be enforced, which shouldn't, and who should be accountable to law enforcement and who shouldn't. C'mon, Elephant, it's full disclosure time.

Elephant, your continued focus on "where's the conspiracy" illuminates the outline of your very flimsy point. See, at the moment, a conspiracy is only strongly suggested but not proven. Therefore, you'd like to focus on what is not proven, so that a convicted felon can go free.

Fact is, it doesn't matter if Libby's actions were the result of a conspiracy between his left and right nut. Regarding Libby's conviction (and whether he deserves a pardon), there is only one single issue: did he or did he not commit perjury. (He did.)

WHY he committed perjury is the subject of speculation. And, in your ongoing pursuit to shield republicans and their disastrous policies from any scrutiny whatsoever, focusing on this speculation is ill advised for you. Because, end of the day, there is surely some reason why Libby lied, and chances are it is indicative of some larger shenanigans inside the White House. Really, you don't want to go there.

All you should do for now, Elephant, is simply explain why a convicted felon should go free. In so explaining, please include your list of which laws should be enforced, which shouldn't, and who should or should not be held accountable. Enough evasion.

Sorry, but while it was merely indicated before, now it's quite obvious that Edwards voted for the Iraq war against his convictions due to his own political needs, just like pretty much all the other dems. In the next election, we need real change, and Edwards clearly won't bring it.

What a bunch of scumbags! Dems and Republicans both! Selling out our country to another in such a blatant, obsequious way.

Nobody mentioned Edwards. Was he at this thing?

Obama, although he was there touting his "pro-Israel credintials," sounds like a much more sensible pro-American candidate than Hillary, though.