Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I'm going to be flying my flag(s) upside down this Fourth of July. In fact, I think I'll put them up now.
Donated how much money to a pet Bush cause before her husband was pardoned?
Compare this with the pardon of Marc Rich by Bill Clinton in the last days of his presidency: '"With respect to the pardon of Marc Rich and Pincus Green, none of the regular procedures were followed," Roger Adams, a department pardon attorney, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.'
Once more, Salon's moral compass slews wildly.
I think it would be interesting to see if one could get arrested for reading the Declaration of Independence out loud within a hundred yards of the White House or Capital.
This Wednesday, I hope everyone takes a time out from their barbeques and keg stands to read the document that we are celebrating. Many of its provisions are seen as quaint and disposable by those in power.
Familarize yourselves with it citizens, it may become necessary for us to write a new one in the near future.
Hang the flag upside down.
The country and the Constitution are in full distress. Sound the alarm. If the representatives will not protect and defend the Constitution and all enemies foreign and domestic and will not do the will of the people, then the people must take back the country and protect and defend the Constitution ourselves.
I live in the Washington DC area for many years. Although I no longer work on the Hill or for trade associations, I have many friends and contacts who do. The word out for the last several weeks was that Bush would pardon Libby (and make no mistake, it is a pardon - or will be soon enough) immediately if the the court refused to allow Libby to remain free pending his appeal.
The word is that Libby was going to go to the Feds and try to cut a deal. Now, that's not usually how the process works. Usually, the deal is cut before a trial (and if possible, avoid a trial altogether) but the Bushies were hoping to avoid a guilty verdict, and then avoid immediate jail time - running out the clock so that come January 2009, Bush could pardon a still free Libby. BUT, and here's the kicker, Libby's WIFE has been raising a far bigger stink than has Libby. Word is that she threatend to tell the Feds what she knew - and if that didn't inflict enough damange, she was going to go to the press herself - just to hurt Bush Inc.
I have a dear friend who used to be the chief of staff for a liberal Repub. (Yes, there used to be some of those.) She was so disgusted with Bush Cheney that she bailed out several years ago to work for a trade association. We spoke right after the immigration bill went down in flames, and she swore that Bush wouldn't pardon Libby because it would cause too much damage to the party in 2008. Well, we bet a very expensive dinner (at the Palm!!)- I bet that if the court refused to allow Libby to remain free pending appeal, that Bush would step in. HaHaHa!
By the way, I have not seen ONE WORD about Libby's wife in any of the infotain media's reporting. Makes you wonder what else they're not reporting.
But another wonderful piece from Sidney Blumenthal.
In "defense" of this action, I keep hearing about Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.
Are we going with "two wrongs make a right!" or "ah, who needs CIA agents and their associates to believe they won't be outed at the convenience of the US Government!"
Moral compass indeed.
the president who ignored federal standards for commutations, by which it is customary that the convicted person serve some time before being eligible.
Or, sorta like how your boss pardoned (not commuted the sentence of) Marc Rich who didn't serve an iota of time and instead was living as a fugitive overseas but happened conveniently to have given large quantities of cash to Clinton.
Will the hypocrisy never stop?
The country and the Constitution are in full distress. Sound the alarm. If the representatives will not protect and defend the Constitution ... --nequals1
Really?! The Constitution is in distress because the president exercises a power given to him explicitly in the Constitution?
What an idiotic thing to say.
Scooter Libby.
The Constitution also empowers Bush to order that we bomb Canada or Luxemborg etc, without any confirmably objective cause. Spare us the conflation of legal authority and moral probity.
Despite Bush figuratively flipping the Judicial branch and the American people (represented by the jury) the finger with this move, the neoconservative attack dogs and talking heads were out in full force yesterday bringing up Clinton and his pardons.
I think we need to remind them that Clinton and what the other 40+ presidents have done has nothing to do with this case. It's a red herring on the part of the Neocons who know they cannot defend what Bush has done, which is indirectly committing obstruction of justice.
We shouldn't be surprised. Bush has shown time and time again that he has no respect for the other branches of government, the rule of law or the opinion on the American people, who are against the commutation, according to the polls.
And the Dems will huff and puff but will refuse to blow Bush's house of cards down.
Bush's popularity numbers aren't going to be harmed by this; those who hate him will still hate him and those who continue to love him or even tolerate him will continue in their irrational behavior. It just feels like the last nail, though -- any chance he might have had to redeem himself, if such a chance even existed, is gone.
So, this is what Mr. Bush meant when he said he was going to bring honor and dignity back to the office of the president. Is the Republican Party ever going to be able to claim to be the party of law-and-order again? They've lost all credibility on this issue.
The Republican's attitude toward the criminal justice system is analogous to their attitude toward war - they're chicken hawks in regard to both. They are enthusiastically pro war, provided they don't actually have to experience active duty. Being a soldier in a war zone is not for the likes of Libby, Cheney, or Bush. Similarly, they are enthusiastically tough on crime, firm in their belief that tough sentences serve a valid purpose. First, a prison sentence punishes the offender, cruel and harsh as it may be. Second, prison sentences serve as a deterrent. The harsher the sentence, the greater the deterrent. Except, now that one of their own is faced with a prison sentence, they contend it's overly harsh! You see, apparently, prison sentences are for the lower classes only.
You know, I would actually have some respect for Libby were he to say, "Yes, I committed perjury and obstructed justice, but I did it for a cause I firmly believe in. The cause I serve matters more then my suffering the indignities of a prison sentence."
But that's not what happened here. Libby committed the crime, went to trial, and was convicted. However, it was all a sham. It was done with a knowing wink and nod. Bush was going to fix it so Libby never had to spend so much as a day in jail. Mr. Libby, an honorable man you are not. In fact, sir, you are a punk a$$ b*tch.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
