"I believe it was Bush's "Eff You" to Cheney for his terrible ideas throughout their tenure that cost Dubya his precious "legacy" and his popularity. It was spite. YMMV."

I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's why the Buffalo rebuttal to Cheney doesn't make sense because during that period Bush was in lockstep with Cheney.

they weighed the advantages and disadvantages and decided against the plan.

I am remarkably ingenuous and even I can't accept that explanation. I don't think they had a "cool head" in the administration.

What's your take on why Bush wouldn't pardon Libby despite all of Cheney's exhortations?

The explanation that makes sense to me is Retzilian's; that Bush was telling him to go screw himself because he misused Bush during their rule. But I keep saying to myself that that is too simplistic.

then Libby would not have been eligible to take the 5th in subsequent testimony,

What your saying is that Cheney lost his influence over Bush and the new guys on the block were the cronies from Bush Sr.'s administration who anticipated the Obama administration would prosecute and Libby would be a key witness.

Wow! It seems Libby really got screwed. He took the hit for Cheney and then he couldn't be protected because he knew too much and had to be prevented from talking.

Just another day at the office!

That's interesting and thanks for the response.

Thanks for the information. It was very informative. I hope that that's the true story.

But I find it hard to believe that Bush's final decision was based on whether Libby lied or not.

I am going to read the article. I assume the writer wasn't Judy Miller. :-)

Over time, with the continued failure of all of Cheney's policies, I can see an ebbing of his influence in favor of others who have proven track records in taking care of, shall we say, uncomfortable situations.

That's what makes sense to me also. I try to put myself in Bush's shoes and near the end of his administration, thinking about his legacy, and then looking back in retrospect, he had to say to himself, "I have been had!" I am not paying anymore attention to this Cheney guy!

That was in his "gut," and the consiglieres of Bush Sr. didn't have to make much of a case to have him deny Libby's pardon.

It's all solved for me.

Till the next bit of information that comes along.

And just consider, too, how many of his "decisions" relied upon input from others... like that lawyer.

It seems to me very few of Bush's decisions came from intellectual reasoning. Which, Obama possesses, to a high degree. IMHO

He was told what to do by Cheney, or he was told to; by his "gut." Quite the "decider."

Oh, I almost forgot. I lived in a Latin American country in 2001-2006. There were a substantial amount of young missionaries there from the southern states who were extremely pro Bush. I would argue that the Bush administration was torturing detainees. They would respond that that was clearly impossible because Bush talks personally to god and god would never allow him to do anything like that.

I really hadn't factored in god though, in Bush's decision not to pardon Liddy.

Amity

rrheard is exactly correct and you aren't listening. You never have though. Your bullshit is really tiresome.

-- adnoto

I guess it is that I just don't understand how this comment protocol thing works on blogs. Also I am very ingenuous. Clearly, attacking another commenter is the norm and the proper way to communicate.

And I am possibly out-of-touch with reality. Why is it that the two commenters I most value, you for your excellent writing capability, and ondelette for his remarkable ability to research, analyze complex situations and to then report on them, are the most criticized. IMHO

I did a little research on the posts criticizing Ondelette during the last two weeks that he posted and he never responded to blatant attacks except to try to quell the criticisms. To his most vocal critic he never responded. I thought he kept his composure well under intense criticism and tried to explain his consternation before he left.

I appeal to you, Amity, do not to let the attackers get to you as they did to Ondelette.

You are right. I am just overreacting to what I thought were very mean attacks on Ondelette and am sort of fed up with the culture of attacking, rather than reasonable critiquing.

My apologies to rrheard if I offended him. It appears his critiques are reasonable.

Saying that we should get rid of Obama and pick someone else and then not deliver them a focused message is silly. But so is saying that we should just wait.

I just don't see anyone or any organized group having the capability to deliver a focused message relative to the hypocritical actions of this administration. There isn't any outrage or perhaps, better put, any abnormal outrage. There is always outrage. But I don't think the posts written on this blog reflect the feelings of the people I interact with daily. The regular joes walking the streets appear to be happy, functioning beings doing what people do, and not complaining. They appear to be content with the way things are. I am sure there are people suffering as there alway is, but that is the way of life.

On the other hand, I think the administration, the M$M, the pundits, the lobbyists, the spinmeisters for the status quo are acting cohesively for their cause and are extremely successful.

I recall the Vietnam War protests. The feeling of discontent was pervasive, like a pungent aroma in the air, and the throngs were unhappy. Everybody was involved, either for the war or against it! I don't feel any such vibes today.

Barak Obama is a massive disappointment to me. Yet, where I live he is still held in high esteem.