The news came down this evening that Scooter Libby will not serve any jail time. It is quite clear that the many of the conservative Republicans have a double standard when it comes to the rule of law. Scooter Libby was taking the fall for the Vice President and had to have his sentence commuted so that he would not feel pressured to spill the beans on the Vice President or perhaps spill the beans on the President. Libby’s commutation basically means that these people are above the law. So now you can pull out all the comparisons you want to the wrongdoing of the previous administration. It would be well to remember that the lies and deceptions of this administration have lead to the deaths of more than 3500 of our finest young soldiers. It is also even more important to note that the incompetence and arrogance of this president and vice president have caused the deaths of probably at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians.
Their actions will surely be the reason that many young Muslims will grow up and decide to become anti-western terrorists. It is ridiculous to argue that the American invasion of Iraq has made the rest of the world safer or made America safer. It is now also clear that parts of Iraq are becoming training and breeding ground for Jihadists. They are also taking their IED techniques which they have perfected in Iraq and are exporting them to Afghanistan. So this would be clear evidence that the Iraq invasion is of course making the rest of the world and the Arab world and much worse place. I think that it is way past time for Americans to rise up and ask for the change in policy that they voted for in 2006. It is clearly to late in the game to truly hold this vice-president and the president accountable. It would take too long to have both of them impeached.
If the most recent impeachment is an example of grounds for impeachment the actions of this administration go way beyond the threshold level. I for one do not care about Scooter Libby escaping jail time. It is really the president and vice president who deserve punishment. Scooter Libby is simply the scapegoat for the administration.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 57
Article 2, Section 2 "he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons"
nuff said..:o)
Over the course of 96 months (the course of Clinton's presidency) he granted 396 Pardons. 396... that's it. That's 3 more than Regan. For comparison:
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/actions_administration.htm
Truman: 1,913 (over the course of 93 mos)
Eisenhower: 1,110 (over the course of 96 mos)
Kennedy: 472 (over the course of 34 mos)
Johnson: 960 (over the course of 62 mos)
Nixon: 863 (over the course of 29 mos)
Ford: 382 (over the course of 67 mos)
Carter: 534 (over the course of 48 mos)
Regan: 393 (over the course of 96 months)
George HW Bush: 74 (over the course of 48 mos)
Clinton: 396 (over the course of 96 months)
Sure, Clinton pardoned his brother and a bunch of white-collar criminals... but that's not the most embarrasing use of a Presidential Pardon: how about when Ford pardoned Nixon?
The Presidential pardoning of corrupt officials isn't new, and the sooner people drop the holier-than-thou, shock and awe attitude, the faster we can put our focus on the future and dealing with things that actually matter; like electing someone we can "trust", ending a war that is a lost cause and trying to pay it forward in our own little worlds.
Bush 'commuted the jail portion of Libby's sentence'. He did not 'pardon' him stating that he respected the decision of the court and Libby will still serve his parole time and pay his fine. The people Clinton 'pardoned' had their sentences washed away.
Had Mr. Libby gone to prison I feel he would have traded his knowledge of what actually went on, named names, and would have used that leverage to get out of prison. I'm not sure that isn't what the prosecutor was hoping would happen.
I am also totally convinced that the original plan was to drag this matter out until the end of the Bush term when Libby would have been granted a full pardon as Mr. Bush was walking out the door. The judge and the appeals court messed that plan up by refusing to allow Mr. Libby to remain free pending his appeal. So now he will get his full pardon in increments. This payment now because it had to come now, and the second part only if he loses his appeal. After all that makes sense. Why grant a full pardon now and take all the flack, when there is still a chance the whole thing will go away by itself if they just wait?
Alison: There is a huge difference between what is done as you point out, and what is right. No matter what president and no matter which party, granting pardons and amnesty other than in cases of clear miscarriages of justice is just plain wrong and sends a very bad message.
*chuckle*
If he were pardoned, then he couldn't "take the 5th" and could be compelled to testify against Cheney et al.
Carolyn: The Idealist in me agrees with you 100%... but the Realist thinks your statement represents a convenient naïveté.
I miss the 5th grade civics class idealism I had when I was young, but seriously, if one were to throughly examine the actions of our executive branch when doling out pardons- no one can claim innocence. I mean, that's a serious perk of being 'The Man'.
Unfortunately, this brings us to a cross-roads when looking for the right messages and standards to emulate as a society: historically we strip away the less savory aspects of our elected leaders and choose only to praise the ideas we like... not the reality. God forbid we should ever elect a leader based on their actual humanity and not some focus-group pleasing uber-marketable concoction that can do no wrong.
We need to start electing our leaders based on reality instead of some Utopian measure... perhaps then we could avoid such arrogant corruption in the future.
"Miscarriage of Justice" or not... bottom line? This is a welcome respite from the riveting coverage of Paris/Lohan/Spears that's been dominating our news as of late.
I have long thought Bush controls nothing but is the figurehead of Cheney and others that are the shadow government.
Please be fair about double standards.
As a post-script to the original piece, I'd like to briefly comment on the 3,500 soldiers and 100,000 civilians killed as a result of this administration. Again I believe your attitude may be bias in part for your dissatisfaction of the current administration. As well I don't see the relevance to the Libby case except to get the peanut gallary fired up against the administration. Regardless, if you have previous war time military experience I am willing to engage in argument on these details. However, being an Iraqi Freedom Vet myself I'd like to state that majority of the 3500 died as a result of their convictions and beliefs of service in our all volunteer military. Each may have had different reasons that have nothing to do with the cause itself, but these reasons were justified to them. My own reason was to provide an example for my children as to what I deemed as right. Trust me kissing my pregnant wife of 5mo and leaving my 2 daughters was the hardest thing I've ever done. But the character and integrity I would have shown my family had I not gone is far less than I can accept. I've lost many a friend as a result of this war, yet because of my beliefs in true character I feel it would greatly dishonor the memory their families hold on to if we walked away without the ability to say we won.
Finally, to say 100,000 iraqi civilians have died is not entirely accurate. A civilian who picks up arms against a military force is no longer a civilian. To suggest the 100,000 killed are the equivalent of my wife and children walking the dog at the park is insane. The bulk of this 100,000 are insurgents (militia) with guns, bombs, and are willing to kill. I believe these individuals have every right to bare arms, just as we do in opposition to tyranny. But we are not an occupying force aimed at turning Iraq into the 51st state of the Union. We are simply trying to regain control over the region allowing democracy to take hold in order to provide the people of Iraq despite their convictions an equal voice in government. I do believe this is an appropriate goal for the administration to protect the soverienty of our nation, and for this I support the war effort. Those who are the militia oppose the establishment of an equal voice in government. So please don't use this number as some arbitrary explanation as to what is taking place in Iraq. Not only is it offer an unrealistic view but it makes our servicemen look like random killers. And when measuring the character of those sacrificing against those posing arguments without a clear view, I support the former.
President Bush said Libby's wife and young children had suffered "immensely," and his reputation "is forever damaged." Former Senator and actor Fred Thompson said of waving off the incarceration, "This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life."
These two don't seem to relate to the real immensity of family suffering from having our troops killed and maimed forever in the over 50 months of the Iraq War and Occupation. If they did, maybe they would do something to promptly end their incarceration there and allow each of the troops to "resume (his/her) life."
Isn't it way past time to commute those soldiers' sentences? They did no crime but have been doing the time - truly doing "a lot" for their country.
"There was no underlying crime." The underlying crime was a serious violation of national security in the interest of intimidating, by example, anyone who spoke out against the lies leading us into war. Not only was an undercover agent outed, the organization she represented, a CIA front involved in tracking WMDs, was destroyed. We don't know how many other agents had their careers destroyed, and how many foreign contacts lost their lives. Haven't heard this on FOX, have you?
"Libby didn't 'out' Valerie, Armitage did." As if any Republican wants Armitage brought to justice. And as if it was just a coincidence that Libby, Armitage, Rove, etc. were "accidentally" talking about Plame at the same time. Is there anything they can tell you that you won't believe?
"Clinton issued more pardons and commutations." How many pardons did he issue for treason?
I can see the great passion of the conservatives who say that this was only fair and from their point of view--it is. What is more important and what Robert H. is alluding to in his second paragraph is the future consequences of this administrations policies. When people accuse you of cutting and running when it is the furthest from your intention, it would do you well to consider where this idea is generated. I think it comes from there own minds and what there intentions are when this administration leaves office; they will cut and run. Despite all the perceived good intentions the consequences of this administration is going to be catastrophic; as Robert H. points out. The question we need to be focusing on is what can be done to blunt the harm of eight years of cowboy politics and self indulgent politicians.
In two years there will be the great awakening to the harm that the neo-cons have perpetrated upon us and we will have to be looking toward solutions now.
Visionaerie B., Jul 3, 2007, 12:27am EDT
I AGREE 100% Ron Paul is the best candidate (regardless of party affiliation)
I am sorry I have not read or heard anything about President Bush or Vice President Chaney being CONVICTED of anything.
I did read an article on MSN that actually BEGGED people to become disturrbed about Libby's sentence being commuted. It went something like, Doesn't anybody care? I don't. The court decided he had to be in jail while he appealed. No one else would have had that imposed on him for a non-violelnt crime. Bush saw the total unfairness of it and commuted the sentence. I say cudos to Bush. Throwing Libby in jail while his appeal was pending was nothing more than political
BS
People keep complaining about 3500+ of our men/women that have died in Iraq. Not all of those 3500+ were COMBAT deaths. Some were accidents etc. The actual number of COMBAT casulities is less than 3000. In 50 months or so? That is less than 60 a month on average. We are in a WAR folks. Casulities of 3500 is a phenomonally low. We kill about 1200 a month on our highways right here in the good old USofA. How we got into the war makes no difference now. We are in it.
It's time people quit believing everything the "News" reports. Most of it leans toward a politic viewpoint. Anything to "get Bush". WAKE UP! The economy is good, inflation as almost non existant, unemployment is down. The National debt is decreasing rapidly and ahead of schedule. Do you read any of that in the "News"? No you don't.
Happens, I'm convinced we should pull out of Iraq. We got rid of Sadam, We established a government, they have a police force, they have an army. Out job is done. The US Army is not an occupation army. I don't think we have the right to impose any form of government on other nations, including "democracy". We don't even have a democracy, we have a Representitive form of government. We do not vote on everything, we elect people to represent us in the government. I vote for Ron Paul to represent me. He is the best qualified.
Article 2, Section 2 "he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons"
Don H., Jul 2, 2007, 11:20pm EDT
Which says nothing about the fact that everyone involved with the Libby crime, the Libby prosecution, the Libby conviction, the Libby sentencing, and the Libby commutation -- except for the non-partisan jury which convicted him of 4 felonies -- is a Republican/appointee. Politics? There were no Democracts involved in any of that.
Next?
As for the idea that this unelected criminal enterprise built upon the last elected administration is pseudo-sophisticated fashionable cynicism by the uninformed.
Ron Paul is not the "real deal""; he is a "Libertarian," but because he couldn't get elected as that, he lied that he's a Repbulican. Worse, he's to the right of Bushit, et al. Want social security? Then Ron paul is your pro-welathy enemy.
Samrten up and stop swallowing simply because that which is fed to you is that which you want to hear. Getting what you want to hear doesn't make what you hear true -- or not a lie.
Last but not least: no third party candidate has ever been elected nationally. All they ever are is spoilers -- which is how Bushit "won" in Florida. Get nan education, grow up -- before you spout nonsense that was discredited for the umpteenth time with Reagan. (Because of whom we know the cause of Altzheimers: being a Republican with criminality to hide.)
Visionaerie B., Jul 3, 2007, 12:27am EDT
Ron Paul is more of an extremist than Bushit, et al.
"I am sorry I have not read or heard anything about President Bush or Vice President Chaney being CONVICTED of anything."
You have yet to pay attention to country before party. The "Niger" documents were known to be a forgery before Bushit based his "sixteen words" on them. You been lied to and suckered -- and you don't know that yet? Pay attention --
"I did read an article on MSN that actually BEGGED people to become disturrbed about Libby's sentence being commuted. It went something like, Doesn't anybody care? I don't. The court decided he had to be in jail while he appealed. No one else would have had that imposed on him for a non-violelnt crime."
Dead wrong. Last Thursday the Supreme Court upheld a sentence of 33 months for the very same crimes -- perjury and obstruction of justice. The defendant in that case -- Rita -- was a veteran of Viet Nam and Desert Storm -- a 25 year veteran in the military. Yet the Supreme Court, ruling specifically on that case, upheld the Federal sentencing guidelines -- initiated by the "law and order" Repbulicans -- as reasonable. Same crime, sentence of 30 months, within the same Federal sentencing guidelines, and Libby -- chickenhawk, not veteran -- was the only one convicted of that "non-violent" crime?
Plame's job was tracking WMDs in order to prevent them falling into the hands of terrorists. The exposure of her destroyed that effort. The exposure of covert agent Plame -- there wouldn't have been an investigation if she were not a covert agent -- undermined national security. That is at minimum comparable to treason.
Do you not yet know the facts about Bush, et al., and military service? That none of them served anywhere, let alone in uniform -- except Bush; and he served on a senate campaign in Alabama while Kerry was serving two tours in Viet Nam. Cheney? Five deferments -- he had "more important priorities" than serving in the military five times.
You should spend less time clcking your heels and saluting and more time paying attention to actual facts. Clue: reality is not a fantasy; it is the real world from which you hide.
"Bush saw the total unfairness of it and commuted the sentence. I say cudos to Bush. Throwing Libby in jail while his appeal was pending was nothing more than political."
You obviously only know politics -- and nothing about law. It is standard that appeals to stay out of jail pending appeal of sentence is are refused.
Want the politics? The CIA referred the exposure of covert agent Plame to the Bush DOJ for investigation. The Bush DOJ -- Ashcroft -- recused himself. DOJ Republican Comey appointed unaffiliated Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald presented the case in front of Bush-appointed Republican Judge Walton. A non-partisan jury found Libby guilty on the evideence -- which Bush-appointed Republican Judge Walton said was "overwhelming". The three judge panel to which Libby appealed, and which turned down his appeal as having no merit: one Republican appointed by Daddy Bushit, one Republican appointed by Bushit, Jr., one judge appointed by a Democrat. The opinion was UNANIMOUS against Libby. Which isn't unusual, as such appeals are routinely negatived.
BS
"People keep complaining about 3500+ of our men/women that have died in Iraq. Not all of those 3500+ were COMBAT deaths. Some were accidents etc."
They're dead anyway -- correct?
"The actual number of COMBAT casulities is less than 3000. In 50 months or so? That is less than 60 a month on average. We are in a WAR folks. Casulities of 3500 is a phenomonally low. We kill about 1200 a month on our highways right here in the good old USofA. How we got into the war makes no difference now. We are in it."
We are in an illegal invasion and occupation -- Geneva, punk -- because Libby was central in the attack on truth, and the undermining of national security. You're either senile, or anti-American. If you are actually in the military, then you swore an oath to protect and defend the COSNSTITUION -- not this or that pretender-King. To swear loyalty to the latter over the former is to put party before Constitution and country. and that, fool, is treason -- especially fdor the military.
"It's time people quit believing everything the "News" reports."
Unlike you, politicizer, I have an actual education in actual law. You aren't talking law; you're talking politics -- the two are not the same. In a word, you're talking horseshit.
"Happens, I'm convinced we should pull out of Iraq. We got rid of Sadam, . . . ."
After he outlived his usefulness as an ally using our WMDs against the Kurds and Iranians. I won't join you in the America/Republicans-can-do-no-wrong lies against your country.
"We don't even have a democracy, we have a Representitive form of government."
Politicizing misleader and fool: we are a democratic republic. The "representative" part of it is democracy -- elections. And the ultimate check on gov't is We the people -- stop avoiding your responsibility, and endeavoring to get others to avoid it with you.
Ron Paul is more of an extremist even than the extremist lunatic fringe election-stealing Bushit criminal enterprise.
Don't believe the latter? Read the Constitution for the first time in your life -- taking particular note of the only branch stipulated to resolve election disputes such as that in 2000. Clue: it isn't the unelected Supreme Court.
SO I SAY, EVERYONE HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY ATTENTION, LEARN ALL WE CAN AND MAKE EDUCATED DECISIONS WHEN IT COMES TIME TO VOTE, AT EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT. AND VOTE!!
AND, IF YOU DON'T VOTE.....SHUT UP !!!
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO AN OPINION ABOUT ANY POLITICAL SITUATION. I SAY THIS BECAUSE SO MANY TIMES, IT IS THOSE PUTTING IN AFTER THE FACT TWO CENTS IN HAVE FAILED US ALL BY NOT DOING THE HOMEWORK AHEAD OF TIME AND GETTING TO THE POLLS.
Fact check your data before posting in the future, please.
Also, it has long been apparent to me since the first neo-fascist coup de taut from the 2000 elections(?), and refortified after the second coup de taut of the 2004 elections(?), that civilian law and civil discourse will not be sufficient for "we the people" to re-seize the rule of law, to establish even the facsimile of a functional government we had before this present take over. I believe, for the first time in the 231 year history of this country that only a military overthrow of this fascist regime will functionally remove these people from the reigns of power. I suspect some people in the military have already been contemplating this potential eventuality.
I believe it is time for all people who truly crave their freedom and liberty, to begin publicly verbalizing to people within the military that their most needed operation may be Operation American Freedom.
The thought that Hillary Clinton may win the next election is more scary than anything else in the news today. Have any of you considered that? I want to believe that Obama is a better choice but with the results of the past 5 or 6 elections who can count on it?
The dems and reps only want to disagree. The thought of doing what's right for the American people hasn't entered the picture for a long time.
Scary.
Argue all you want to about LIbby or anything/anyone else - that is not the issue that needs a resolution.
How can we allow these war-mongering, money hungry, self-indulgent crooks continue? WRITE TO PELOSI, WRITE TO YOUR CONGRESS REPRESENTATIVE. BECOME A NUISANCE TO GET SOME ACTION!
If we saw our troops come home and returned to their lives before sending them off to fight again then I think people wouldn't have gotten lost about what we are fighting for this time.
As for Libby .. thankfully we will have to have a new president this time around and not have the possibility of a repeat of the White House staff. ( not to pray that Clinton doesn't make it in. ) Yes one day a woman for president but PLEASE NOT that one.
Our continuing occupation of Iraq is fundamentally wrong, humanely, historically, and honestly. As I recall, we insurgents fought off the occupying British forces in America generations ago.
The attack on 9/11 was an criminal act [of assault, murder, etc.] by an independent criminal organization without affilliation to any one (or even group of) nations. It should be, and have been dealt with as a world wide cooperative law enforcement effort. Not a few countries acting on the personal agenda of their leaders, against the wishes of the UN majority, to declare war on and invade nonparticipant countries.
Right from the beginning the experts all agreed that a war on terror is a different kind of war. A "New kind of war". Agreed? Then why are we employing the same old strategies and tactics? Could it be the reason is we still have the same old kind of leadership? Hmmm.
For those of you who corrected me on our form of government. WRONG! If you read what I wrote you would realize we are talking about the same thing.
MAN I SURE SHOOK-UP THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS BOARD.
To the one who reveiled that Ron Paul is a Libertarian - What is wrong with THAT?
It is way past time a third party got into the act again. As far as I'm concerned both the Democrats and the Republicans are more interested in their own agenda and could care less what is good for the whole country.
Craig O. You are right. We DO need a new aproach to the WAR on terror. One of those new aproaches is to deport ALL of the illegals and close our borders completely.
For those of you who think we will not have to fight them HERE educate yourself on Jihad and the Koran. It is their stated DECLARATION OF WAR to attack the United States.
-Tom D.
Yes I agree with you totally...As we have seen in election after election, no one comes in and is the honest, fair, nonpartisan, intelligent, etc. miracle that we have all been waiting for. Edward Deming was a genius who, in the past, helped American companies, such as our car companies, at least try to catch up to the Japanese in terms of quality. His decades of research told him that 94% of the time, errors were due to problems with the system, and not with the humans in control of it. I do not believe that this is any different with our system of government. While it is the best one the world has ever seen, there is still vast room for improvement. As I stated above, the Libby situation highlights one area in which our system needs improvement, which we would have otherwise not realized...The president of the United States should not be able to grant a pardon or a commutation to someone who has worked under his or her administration, and this is something that we as a people should demand be changed in the future. It simply represents a conflict of interests, and anyone who argues against that fact is ignoring reality. So while I do disagree with you on Libby, I am agreeing with you in the sense that I believe that we as Americans need to focus more on making improvements to our system of government where needed, such as eliminating the devastating effects of powerful lobbyists, instead of waiting for the perfect candidate.
"I feel that the USA was completely justified in going to WAR with the terrorist nations."
-Bethe H.
Ok Bethe H, please name the terrorist nations for me. Is it simply any country who's citizens look like those who hijacked the planes? To be clear, there has been no connection found between Iraq and 9/11, and any mention of such a connection by Bush or Chenney is a calculated lie. As previously stated by others, over 100,000 Iraqi sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, friends, etc have been killed as a result of our actions. Yes many of those killed were armed insurgents, but are you actually ok with the fact that this many people have been murdered because of a knee jerk reaction for revenge, which resulted in us attacking a country that did not attack us? Revenge should not be our guiding motivation in our absolutely justified mission to reduce or eliminate terrorist attacks around the globe. Our one true goal must be to do whatever is necessary to eliminate these attacks from occurring; whether that means a military offensive against a concentration of terrorists in some region, using CIA and FBI intelligence in an ethical manner, or worldwide political efforts to form crucial alliances with other countries. Terrorism can not be defeated with the use of military alone. This brings me to the next quote:
"I've lost many a friend as a result of this war, yet because of my beliefs in true character I feel it would greatly dishonor the memory their families hold on to if we walked away without the ability to say we won."
-Christopher King
As a civilian, all I can say to you is thank you for your service and I am sorry for the pain you, and family members have been put through due to the loss of our soldiers. But I must say to you that our soldiers CAN walk away today saying that they won. When people talk about us losing in Iraq, it is more than clear to see that it is not our soldiers who are failing us, it is the American and Iraqi politicians. And as the brother of a current soldier in our army, I must also disagree with you that speaking critically about our participation in this war serves to dishonor those who have fallen. I believe that we must be critical of all actions we take, such that if mistakes were made, then we will not make them again in the future. I love my brother and have the utmost respect for the bravery he shows in serving for our army; I simply believe that the very least we owe him, and all of our soldiers, is to make sure that our government puts them in harms way only when it is absolutely necessary. And I must reiterate...We can and should be proud and thankful of how our military has performed in Iraq.
"Thanks for giving the Bush bashers a perspective."
-Perle Champion
When will the people who use the term "Bush Bashers" realize that this is not a valid defense against any of the claims against the Bush Administration?
One other idea is to tell all of them that we will NOT buy their oil unless they sell it to us at a fair price . That'll keep most of them in line. The Middle East is not the only source of oil in this world.
Everyone seems to agree - we need an honest and intelligent man in the White House. Good Luck! If he found someone who is honest and intelligent he would not run for that thankless job. He sure would not be a Politician. Politics and Honesty are the same as being dead as opposed to living.
You are absolutely correct that the definition of a win is debatable. I don't think I was clear enough in what I meant in saying that our military has won. I believe that they have done their job and everything that has been asked of them, so in that sense, I say they have won. I guess saying won is maybe the wrong word to use. I believe it is the politicians of both countries that are failing...I absolutely agree with you that the establishment of a peaceful democratic government would represent an overall win or success, but I simply do not believe this to be the real goal of the Bush administration. I obviously have no hard evidence of this, but it is simply what I believe in my heart. My local newspaper had an article today which stated that there are currently 160,000 soldiers in Iraq, while there are 180,000 private contractors who are paid many times over what the soldiers are paid. Something about that just stinks to me. I also do not believe we should simply pull out of Iraq immediately as I do believe that would result in a terrible situation, though I do think we need to begin phasing out. Unfortunately, I also do not believe that the current administration possesses the leadership required to effectively prepare Iraq to be self-sufficient. My argument, and I again may have not been clear enough, is that it was neither justified nor necessary to go into Iraq in the first place. But I definitely respect your opinion as well and I appreciate your responses.
Again, fool: read the Constitution you took an oath to protect and defendL: the only branch of gov't authorized to resolve election disputes such as that in 2000 is CONGRESS. The SC has no legitimate role in the issue; thus its appointment of Bush was based upon an unconstitutional usurpation of that authority which belongs only to Congress.
It is a principle of law that anything which flows from an unconstitutionality is null-and-void. According to law -- not your substitute therefor of political slogans and falsehoods -- Bush is not president; he is an illegitmate occupant of the Executive appointed by an unauthorized body by subverting the Constitution.
"We live in a free society."
We live in an increasingly unfree society. As one example, warrantless wiretaps are unconstituional -- illegal -- regardless the excuses made by liars, and dumbassed fools such as you who don't grasp even the basics of our "system of laws, and not on men" (John Adams)
"CALLING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES "BULLSHIT" may be your right but in my opinion it is going over the top and is as low as it can get."
Bushit is illegally occupying the Executive Branch -- I spelled that out above, breying propagandist against your country. I'll remind you again: IF you were in the military, you took and oath to pretect and defend the CONSTITUION -- not the president, even if legitimate, or any other political figure. You betray that oath every time you substitute partisan political rhetoric and false propaganda for the rule of law.
"I does nothing to further your arguments and actually shows your lack manners and discredits your opinions. "
Who needs manners when the rudest thing one can do -- as do you -- is lie against the rule of law, and your country, for partisan ploitical advantage? What doesn't discredit my statement of the law of the facts which substantiate it, as detailed above. Read the Constitution you swore to uphold, for the first time in your life, or continue to betray that oath, and the Constitution, by substituting lies for the rule of law.
"For those of you who corrected me on our form of government. WRONG! If you read what I wrote you would realize we are talking about the same thing. "
Let's be clear, Jack Boot: Among the first charges at Nuremberg against the Nazis were that they violated the GGeneva conventions against wars of aggression. Buhsit, et al., in illegally lying the country in invading and occupying Iraq, engaged in an illegal war of aggression. That is the anti-Americanism you so blindly, foolishly defend. And in so doing, you btray your oath and your country.
"MAN I SURE SHOOK-UP THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS BOARD. "
The Constitution and rule of law are neither Democratic nor Republican. Your problem is your inability to distinguish between, on one hand, "A system of laws, and not of men" (John Adams), and, on the other, partisan politics and smearing labels you sling without any evidence that the labels are truthfully applicable.
When you learn to distinguish between the non-partisan Constitution and rule of law, and your smearing of those who state facts of law you want buried, let us know. Until then, continue to present as a hateful gibberish-spewing anti-American who has yet to read the Constitution he would claim to have taken an oath to defend.
"To the one who reveiled that Ron Paul is a Libertarian - What is wrong with THAT?"
Wht do you know about the "Libertarian" party, and its platform? Obviously nothing whatsoever. All that matters to you is that he says something you want to hear, without revealing what the "Libertarian" party is about. Compare and contrast:
1. The Framers agreed on one fundmental principle: the the "end" -- purpose -- of gov't is the greatest happiness of the greatest number. That means the gov't has a proper role in responding to We the people's needs. Thus has a proper role in establishing gov't entities to fulfill We the people's needs.
2. The "Libertarian" party believes not merely that gov't shouldn't do anything for anyone -- except business -- but that giv't shouldn't exist.
In short: the "Libertarian" party, which has nothing whatever in common with the Founders and Framers, nonetheless constantly -- and falsely -- invokes the Founders and Framers in effort to give their radical right-wing lunatic-fringe claims credibiility. Constantly -- and falsely -- claim that the Founders and Framers were "Libertarians". The "Libertarian" party didn't even exist before the last several decades of the 20th century; rather, it is a continuation of the anti-FDR right-wing which opposed the New Deal -- at the heart of which is social security -- and is bent on repealing it.
Being essentially pro-corporate, the "Libertarian" party opposes all regulation, including all regulation which protects the vast majority of US citizens from the lawless predations of the _minority_ that is the business sector of any society.
"It is way past time a third party got into the act again. As far as I'm concerned both the Democrats and the Republicans are more interested in their own agenda and could care less what is good for the whole country."
There has never been a successful national third-party candidacy -- and history is littered with the skeletons of those efforts. Even the thoroughly well-known, considered by many a hero, ex-president Teddy Roosevelt didn't win his later third-party effort. Not-so-by-the-way: Teddy Roosevelt, Republican, exemplified the proginal, actual meaning of the term "conservative": "to conserve". It was he who established the National Parks system in order to protect the common wealth -- that which belongs to We the people -- from the predations of private corporate profiteers. It is your George Bush who has endeavored to eliminate the legal "obstacles" against those predations upon We the people's common interest and heritage in the National Park lands, in behalf of the business sector -- a numerical minority of any society.
In short: Bushit and the Republican party are the exact _opposite_ of "conservative". How much damage must Bushit inflict upon the majority, and the common interests of We the people, before you'll wake up and cease voting against your own interests?
"Craig O. You are right. We DO need a new aproach to the WAR on terror. One of those new aproaches is to deport ALL of the illegals and close our borders completely."
Racism is only a solution for the racists. Go back to the 1930s and listen to the song "Deportees" written by Woodie Guthrie. The "illegal immigrant" "problem" is nothing new; nor is the corporate preference for subsistence illegal labor over paying a decent minimum wage. Who, after all, do you think hires the by-and-large harmless illegal immigrants? Small business!? Who, after all, do you believe lobbies against putting an end to illegal immigrants who will work for dirt cheap? The alleged "terrorists"!?
The terrorists we know of came in through Canada -- across that border. How many of the "terrorists" of which we know were Mexican, or even from South America? ZERO. Hiding your racism behind the abused "terrorists!" bugaboo is dishonest and despicable. The only moral depravity which comes to mind that is more despicable is that of the war crime of torture -- which latter is part of the package you defend.
"For those of you who think we will not have to fight them HERE educate yourself on Jihad and the Koran. It is their stated DECLARATION OF WAR to attack the United States. "
The United States didn't exist at the time the "Koran" was written, so ther is no mention of it in the "Koran". Nor was the "Koran" written by Mexicans, or South Americans, who seek a better way of life, and for that are exploited by corporations, and for that are smeared by racists and like illterates who spew nonsensical gibberish as substitute for getting the facts and _thinking_.
Colonel George W.,
Bullshit: from where did you steal the photograph of the person in uniform? It certainly isn't a photo of you, "George W."
How does it feel to be a constant liar? As if you're moraly superior to those who are liars?
When the justice system rightly tried to send him to prison the President simply used his power to keep justice from being done. The President is stating that the law does not matter. The American people should be demanding that in order to protect our Constitutional system this President and Vice President should be impeached. Trotting out the pardons of previous administrations totally misses the Constitutional problems presented by Bush and Cheney's actions.