...otherwise, Libby can be called to testify in other cases as he will no longer be part of "an ongoing investigation" - which would be his appeal.

Those creeps always know exactly how to play it. It's Iran-Contra all over again, only on a far more massive scale. And the aborted investigation for Iran-Contra was bad enough, given an ongoing investigation of that mess would have exposed GWB's father's crimes.

Apologies if my thoughts have been posted in other letters; I have read through only a few so far before posting.

And since HornetFlyer (or whatever his name is) has not responded to mikemc, I'd like to take this thought a little further.

I would buy this absurd Mark Rich argument, IF Mark Rich had been a member of Bill Clinton's White House staff. But he wasn't. And as far as I can recall, Bill Clinton never pardoned (or commuted the sentence of) any member of his staff.

Bush just did, and not just any member of the White House staff, but his Vice's Chief of Staff - a man who lied and - say it along with me - OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.

So comparing Bush's actions on behalf of Scooter with Clinton's pardoning of anyone is simply another false Right Wing Talking Point. Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere, trolls.

Again, thanks to emily.jayne for starting me down this path.

While there is a tenuous semantic link between the perjury President Clinton was impeached for and the obstruction I. Lewis Libby was convicted of (both men lied, were caught, and paid some sort of price), no reasonable comparison can be made that says the seriousness of the two matters is at all equivalent.

Clinton lied to conceal from public view an embarrassingly dumb and morally indefensible intimate dalliance with a star-struck aide. He covered himself and his administration in shame for his personal failings, and he made inert his most prized political gift, his amazingly persuasive appearance of sincerety in public. Interestingly, the American public reelected him to office, despite knowing all about it. His crime was personal, not official, they decided.

Libby lied to protect his superiors - who just happened to be the President and Vice-President of the United States, among others - for being caught red-handed trying to exact revenge on a diplomat who wrote an op-ed critical of the Bush administration's attempts to conjure up a basis for a war they wanted to wage. The revenge took the form of ruining the career of the the man's wife, who was a CIA expert who had developed information the administration preferred to disregard, but which was the basis for her husband's op-ed. Libby's crime arose not from some personal failing, but from extra-legal tasks carried out in the White House, which he and his superiors supposed were more important than the truth, the law or the welfare of the country.

Now, let's see.....

The first case resulted in an impeachment, which was high theater, but of no actual import other than to drive home to the American people that Democrats were slime, suitable for incessant ridicule. Clinton, after having been caught, did the profoundly American thing - he cut a deal that involved publicly admitting his malfeasance, and which cost him his law license, and nearly his family. In return, he got to pay all the legal costs he had incurred along the way. Luckily for him, speeches by ex-presidents are lucrative.

The second case brought about a criminal trial resulting in conviction for a Federal felony. The perpertrator, Mr. Libby, despite being merely the fall guy for his alleged friends, remains mute and in a state of suspended animation that serves the dual purposes of protecting the more egregiously guilty parties, and providing the remaining few administration apologists some plausible talking points to distract the public for a week or so from thinking about the geopolitical disasters at hand. The president commutes the prison sentence, but not the fine. Speeches by fall guys are also lucrative.

I believe the voting public has already decided which incident was more important to them. The coming elections will validate this point of view, I am confident.

So the story will read.

Bush on the witness stand. Tension in the air.

Prosecutor: I deserve the truth! The people deserve the truth!

Prosecutor: DID YOU OBSTRUCT JUSTICE?

Bush: I don't have time for this.

Prosecutor: DID YOU OBSTRUCT JUSTICE?

Bush: You don't want to know the truth?

Prosecutor: TELL ME THE TRUTH?

Bush: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!

Bush: I live in a world where you need me. Where you want me. Bush: You talk about freedom. But what is freedom without safety. Safe from the terrorist in your home, in your school, or in your car.

Bush: Without me you are nothing. This country is nothing.

Prosecutor: DID YOU OBSTRUCT JUSTICE?

Bush: YOU GODDAMN RIGHT I DID!!

I was getting really pissed at those morons Morannis

& Titus & Anonymous whatever with their incessant blathering, but by the end I calmed down, just a few idiots posting in seething sea of even more pissed off people. TIME TO IMPEACH!

In Mr. Bush's black and white world where only Mr. Cheney seems to have colored crayons, the utterance of lame, sound bite sentences that pass for explanations has finally become tiresum. For too long we took these excuses for action, complete with that halfassed snicker and dullwitted expression as the truth because, after all, the President isn't a liar.

Now we know differently and impeachment sounds like an option for a country grown irritated by the decider in chief.

It's the two-party system.

Either dem or rep, right or wrong; two options make you think there's nothing in between. It's like a gun pointed at you: you're with or against us.

Every US President makes serious mistakes, either dem or rep. Even cherished 'saints' like JFK or FDR. You can't expect people in those positions to be 100% clean.

But, on a more personal note, by the way things are looking from Europe now, I think Bush Jr. is one of the dirtiest you have ever had.