Scooter Spared Jail Time

It just amazes me that more people aren’t more upset by what is going on here. This president is just so slimy and sleazy and so blatant about it, too. W didn’t even think he needed to wait until the end of his term to pardon his crooked friends, like his dad did, just to try and make himself seem less crooked.

As a Libertarian myself  www.lp.org), I keep hoping this kind of sleaziness amoung the two major parties will eventually drive more people to look to third parties just to get away from the scum, if nothing else, but that hardly seems to be happening. People either put up with the BS in the name of “supporting their party,” or just “drop out” and stop voting at all.

Rick

You’re right, Bush shouldn’t have commuted the sentence. He should have pardoned him. Libby’s forgetfullness pales in comparison to Sandy Berger’s stealing secret documents from the National Archives. And the number of pardons that Bush granted (29 his first term) pales in comparison to the 396 by Bill Clinton, 534 by Jim Carter, 960 by Lyndon Johnson and 1913 by Harry Truman! (See http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/actions_administration.htm.)
What in the hell are you people so upset about! You really need to get over your hatred of George Bush.

Rick and Cliff, thanks for commenting.

Rick, I agree that one of the worst things that develops is apathy. I wonder how the landscape would change over 4 years if everyone capable of voting did. If all they did was vote against the people incumbent, think how careful those elected would be about doing things that they knew would be disapproved.

Cliff, while it’s nice that you see that he has not pardoned that many, it is important to note the crimes, and the number of people affected. As above, look at the effect of THIS pardon. Think of what it says to children in school.

Although we will never live in a utopian ideal, we should strive for it nonetheless.

Eh, what’s up doc? Bugs the bunny has to ask: What is the difference between commute and pardon? Heh, heh! The answer must be: Clinton!!
Talk about pardons… !? Pay attention, folks. The man was never indicted.
‘Cept by the, well, you know, other folk…

Note the crimes? I presume you mean the “seriousness” of the crime of forgetting who he told what to. I seem to recall that Hillary had a small memory problem during the Whitewater hearings. Apparently it’s a crime only when a Republican forgets something.
Joe Wilson started all the crap by lying through his teeth in a NY Times article. The special prosecutor knew up front that Richard Armitage exposed Valerie Plame’s CIA role (which wasn’t a crime because it wasn’t undercover), and then told him to keep silent while he set some perjury traps.
Oh yes….and Sandy Berger walked.
What does THAT say to all the little children in school?

Cliff, being forgetful is a crime if you are in a position of authority, and of great importance to those you direct, as well as those you serve.

Memory problems occur on both sides of the aisle, and should be dealt wih with equal harshness. I really can’t remember the last time a government official went through the ordeal any ordinary person would have to in a similar situation. This is what I refer to.

As for both sides of the aisle, what Ronald Reagan did was criminal, and why I’ll never think of him as a good president. Iran Contra was wrong, and he was in charge. It matters not whether he was an idiot, or simply got hoodwinked by those around him.

Bill Clinton gets crucified for something that took place between 2 people, did no harm to anyone [I mean real harm here, I'm sure Hillary was upset], and the Republican party wasted millions on the public display.

George Bush continues to push toward breaking every major law in existence, and yet manages to get away with it. [Oh, and meanwhile claims to be a Christian---do you think what he does qualifies as Christian behavior? Check the Bible, I know he hasn't]

Think about the detainees. Think about it in terms of human decency, not political terms. Do you think this is right? Do you think this shows our country in a positive light? Do you think it shows our moral highground?

Oh, and I really don’t think Scooter should have been forced into prison, his boss should have been the one to go. [How far has this 'person' gone toward ruining the American perception around the world? I could regress here, and call him many names, ALL of which apply, but then everyone would see that I've dropped to his level. What is clear is that this man has helped no one other than cronies, and is helping destroy the good name and previous good works of this country]

Actuallly I do check the Bible daily. How do you know Bush does not? Do you think you really are an oracle?

Here’s a good Bible verse for today, from Matthew 7:5:
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

I’m not going to bother responding to your nonsense about Reagan and detainees–just as you never responded to my jibes about Sandy Berger. The only thing that’s clear is that you and I have no common ground, which probably makes further discussion pointless. That’s part of the problem today–we’ve each demonized the other side so much that we can’t discuss things rationally. You’re at least partly right about Clinton, though I’m not sure you’ll admit that the current era of “the politics of personal destruction” began in 1987, with the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court; then hit a new low in 1991 when Clarence Thomas was appointed.

Let’s see, in your last response you called Bush criminal, an insincere Christian, indecent, and put ‘person’ in quotes to make it clear that you don’t think he is one. I’m sure glad you stopped before you “regress here, and call him many names.”

Although I believe your opinions are foolish, I think that’s because they’re just misinformed–not because you’re evil. I respect you enough to believe that someday you’ll begin to understand my point of view. (It happened to me, after all. I used to be a liberal; I even voted for George McGovern and Jimmy Carter–and have been apologizing ever since.)

I can probably predict (and even explain) your point of view on just about every issue of the day–Iraq, abortion, taxes, capaign finance reform, minimum wage, social security, tort reform, immigration–and never once suspect you of insincerity or malice.

Do you think you could explain my point of view on all these issues sympathetically? Even though I can just about guarantee they’re all polar opposites from yours, that would be a step in the right direction.

Or you can believe that I’m just another intolerant right-wing Christian rube from Texas. It’s your choice.

Darn I thought Clinton lied to a grand jury

Cliff, not trying for the last word here, you are welcome [and encouraged ] to respond. First, you must be older than I, as I could not have voted for McGovern.

After a small, and by no means complete study of recent history, I’d say the attacks started much earlier. I know that Barry Goldwater was accused of being a kook, and someone who would get us into nuclear war.

As for the plank, I’m not sure that scripture applies here.

Just to let you know, the ‘person’ I was referring to is Cheney. And although I have no direct proof, there is plenty of indirect proof of his evil doing.

When it comes to views on other things, you might be surprised to see how we are more alike than you think.

As someone who [very humbly] claims to be a Christian, I DON”T understand much of the behavior of this president. I certainly don’t recognize any fruits of the spirit.

I DO think Mr Bush is [in spirit, at the very least] criminal when he does things that go against the majority wishes in this country. He is supposed to be our representative, not some little dictator who has unending power between election cycles.

I also would not call you a rube, I do always question what makes others so different from me.

Thanks for the comment. I believe that this happens to be how things change, not by someone on television, pushing quick and easily remembered phrases, which are only peripherally accurate.

Winston, thanks for the comment. I do think he lied about something, and for that he was punished with more than the sitting president has been punished for his current and continuing sins. Besides, what he was asked about was not anyone else’s business. Not good, not proper, not morally upright, but no one else’s business.

Chris - First of all, just because you disagree with Cheney and Bush doesn’t make them “evil”, any more than the Clintons were evil because I disagreed with them. I just think they were wrong. I will admit, though, that I probably wasn’t so cool-headed about them in the 90’s, so your continued use of words like “criminal” and “evil” can be forgiven, if not excused. Dialogue is impossible when those kind of accusations are so freely tossed around.

There are, I believe, some truly evil people in this world: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Kim Jong-il in Korea, Osama bin Laden, and Fidel Castro to name a few. Applying that term to Bush or Cheney (or even Bill Clinton) diminishes the language.

Second, the very fact that Bush does things that are unpopular shows a certain amount of character whether you agree with him or not. I’ve never trusted “populist” politicians that alway check the wind before making a decision–one of the reasons I most distrusted Bill Clinton. A real leader is elected to do what he believes is right, and if it’s unpopular should try to bring the electorate around to his point of view. (That last part is Bush’s biggest failing. His inarticulateness is maddening.)

I was first eligible to vote in 1968, when Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey, but I honestly don’t remember voting. By 1972 I was in the Marines and on my way to Vietnam, so I voted for McGovern because it seemed like a good idea at the time. I’m glad he lost, though. Four years later I voted for Carter, mainly because he was a Southern Baptist and so am I. I only wish he had lost as well. Since that experience I’ve supported conservative candidates–not just because Carter was so bad, but because I saw in conservatism a consistent philosophy and a solid Christian world view. (Bush, by the way, may be a Christian, but he’s not really a conservative.)

I’m telling you all this just to demonstrate that people like me are not ogres just because we voted for and, to a large extent, still support George Bush. I’ve respected Lockergnome for a long time, and appreciate the many good tips you’ve passed along over the years. But it grates when someone I admire insults my beliefs so carelessly.

To end this (I have to get up at 5:30), here’s a quote from my favorite book that we both could benefit from:
“A bird is active, because a bird is soft. A stone is helpless, because a stone is hard. The stone by its own nature must go downward, because hardness is weakness. The bird can of its nature go upwards, because fragility is force. In perfect force there is a kind of frivolity, an airiness that can maintain itself in the air….Angels can fly because they can take themselves lightly.” (G.K.Chesterton, from Orthodoxy, 1908)

We both should lighten up some. Best regards,
Cliff

First, not that I take offense, but to let you know, I am not Chris.

At last I see why we differ so much. You believe that the office of president is one where we choose the one who says he will act according to some set of past actions, and let him go at it. I don’t subscribe to this. I think that the president is our proxy, who does what the majority of the country wants. This is not to expect that he takes a poll over every small decision, just some of the big ones…like going to war. [& yes, I hold Congress responsible for continuing the war].

As to evil…is it not evil to know of how the prisoners in Guantanamo, Poland, and elsewhere, are treated by the CIA, and let it continue?

I don’t subscribe to the end justifying the means. The president does. That is most of why I hate what he does, I don’t hate him. I do have pity on him, and I pray for his enlightenment and continued health. If something happened to him before Jan 20, 2009, we would really be in a mess.

Thanks for the dialog. Perhaps some others will comment on our conversation, as I’m certain others are reading it. The very worst thing is apathy.

Well, Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. Notchris, we certainly do disagree. As my Boy Scout troop contunually remind our Eagle Scout candidates, we don’t live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. A leader in this country needs to declare his positions before he’s elected, and then act on those beliefs. That’s why I despise politicians who say anything to get elected, and then double-cross the voters.

Got to go to work. Have a great day.

“the president is our proxy, who does what the majority of the country wants.”

The President is NOT nominated as a proxy for the masses, he is elected to act as an executive for the good of the entire United States of America. He gets classified information and constant input from all kinds of sources, takes that information [including political calculations] and distills it into the best decision he can: we live in a Republic, not mob rule.

Sometimes Presidents make decisions that are bad. Sometimes Presidents make good long-term decisions that are unpopular and cause short-term (

Michael do you see why the last part of your first statement is so strange? We are not hiring a ‘parent’ to lead unruly children.
As for the last sentence…well, sometimes we have someone who led a sheltered life, never showed any real intellect, and got where he is by connection and not knowledge or performance. We also have someone who states that he believes a certain way, yet does most everything contrary to the teachings of the espoused belief. In his refusal to see that the country wants his course to change, he acts like a petulant child, which he probably was. Carefully noting the sentiment of an entire country, over a period of months, and making the change willed by the people is hardly mob rule.
Oh, and sometimes they make bad short term decisions, that we all have to pay for in the long term. The legacy of George Bush will be one of someone who never really understood the problems he caused, or was simply too pig-headed to admit to. With an approval rating in the low 20s, it means even those who wanted him there in the beginning have seen the error of his ways. He has definitely disproven The Peter Principle, he has exceeded the level of his incompetence.
Thanks for the comment.

“Carefully noting the sentiment of an entire country, over a period of months, and making the change willed by the people….”

Sounds like you’re suggesting that opinion polls should overturn election results. You may need to amend the Constitution.

And there you go calling Bush names again. Pig-headed? That scripture reference about the plank may apply more than you realize.

Cliff, I’m not sure it applies when Mr. Bush admits he’s not going to listen to the advice of anyone…it’s simply pig-headed. In any other walk of life, what would you call someone who goes against the advice of many, because he thinks he’s right [I don't think any Biblical analogy is appropriate here, as he's also shown he doesn't listen to the teachings of God...Noah, Job, et al just would not apply.]

Just curious, Notchris…when did Bush “admit” that he wasn’t going to listen to any advice? I must have missed that. And so what if he got advice from somebody to do something that you would have preferred. Surely you realize he must have also gotten different advice from someone else. Like all of us he has to make choices about whose advice he will follow–and then stand by his decision. Vacillation isn’t leadership.

You also seem to be pretty certain that “he doesn’t listen to the teachings of God.” Who are you to decide that? Are you the Pope as well as “the oracle”?

Here’s another great quote from Chesterton:
“…if a man would make his world large, he must be always making himself small. Even the haughty visions, the tall cities, and the toppling pinnacles are the creations of humility. Giants that tread down forests like grass are the creations of humility. Towers that vanish upwards above the loneliest star are the creations of humility. For towers are not tall unless we look up at them; and giants are not giants unless they are larger than we. All this gigantesque imagination, which is, perhaps, the mightiest of the pleasures of man, is at bottom entirely humble. It is impossible without humility to enjoy anything — even pride.”

Like almost all politicians, I suspect Bush probably is a bit lacking in the humility department. Since you’re a Christian, though, and (as far as I know) never elected by anyone, don’t you agree that maybe you could demonstrate at least a little more humility?

Cliff, not sure where or when I saw it, but it was a reputable source, and video tape of the president saying he was ‘going his own way’ despite the wishes/warnings of others. It was not an imitator. [I am racking my brain to cite this, but I can't remember as I write this. However, recently he has been shown on the nightly news on at least 2 of the major networks, saying he does not care what the country wants, we are in this war for as long as it takes. Not only is this public exhibiton of stubborn behavior, I'm afraid to hear the Bush definition of 'as long as it takes' ???? takes to do what? Win? I think even William F. Buckley would admit at this point, there is no win to be had.]
As I’ve said before, anyone who follows the teachings in the Bible would not allow much of what has happened during his administration, not the least of which is torture of captured combatants [playing semantics games about what they technically were is just obfuscation of the issue]
Also, where in the Bible does it say that denial of basic human rights is acceptable behavior? Some of the widely reported behavior of this administration causes remembrances of the history of the Dark Ages. This sort of behavior is expected of 3rd world countries, and those run by despots, not the United States.
We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights, with beginnings in the Magna Carta, refusing to follow these guidelines makes us no better than any other country that decides it knows better than the established wisdom of ages.
I am not the Pope, never claimed to be, I simply observe. There are plenty of examples of non-Christian behavior, one has only to look, as the press and other media are all too eager to point out the foibles of this administration.
I’m not sure where humility comes in here. I have not ever boasted about anything. I speak of things I feel, and that have been echoed by many of those I know. [I know plenty of Republicans, and 75% of those I know personally are not happy either. Just the idea that we need to debate whether we have the right to torture others sends my friends into rants about what an imbecile this man is.]

I’m still a bit curious why someone as evil as George W. Bush would admit to something like that. Evil intent implies cunning, at a minimum–hardly a common trait among imbeciles– so why in the world would he give his enemies (like you) more ammunition?

Oops….I forgot….it’s Dick Cheney that’s evil. Bush is just his stupid puppet. (I suppose that made Tony Blair a dumb puppet’s puppy dog, but never mind.) But how can you be so sure it’s not Carl Rove who’s pulling GW’s strings? But even if it was Dick and/or Carl, why would the puppetmaster(s) let him say somethng so dumb?

I’m getting more confused than a termite in a yo-yo, so let’s talk about something a little easier to understand. You’ve mentioned torture a couple of times, so here’s a multiple choice scenario for you:

If you were a terrorist captured after blowing up 2,974 civilians, where would you rather be imprisoned?
a) Guantanamo (aka “Club Gitmo”)
b) Ryiadh, Saudi Arabia
c) Caracas, Venezuela
d) Havana, Cuba
e) Moscow, Russia

Seriously, though–back to GW’s “admissionI”–’ll bet you $20 (to your favorite charity) that whatever it is you think you heard was taken out of context. (See if you can find it–I’d love to send your 20 bucks to http://www.TexasRighttoLife.com.)

And speaking of Republicans being unhappy with Bush, well, so am I–for not fighting back hard enough against the Democrats! So don’t get your hopes up–it sure doesn’t mean I’ll ever vote for a Democrat again! (Unless his name is Lieberman.)

Cliff, I would have to say [f] none, but that wasn’t a choice. Actually, I am not sure there is much difference. If you are going to say at least in Gitmo, the prisoner is still alive, I’m not sure that has been proven.
Going off on another pet peeve of mine, why is it you suppose I’m against right to life? Do I suppose you are for the death penalty?
I’ve always wondered about that…it seems you’re either for or against kiling people. You might say that the death penalty is applied to criminals. As someone who reads the Bible, you might be stuck on ‘an eye for an eye’ but I say the Bible also says Vengeance is mine, I will repay. That is not pulled out of context…nowhere in the surrounding verses does it say that God needs [or asks for] our help. I also wonder who decided that substituting our knowledge for God’s was a good idea.

That’s the point, actually. Like in real life, “none of the above” is not one of the options. When you get captured you don’t get a choice. But I gave you one and you copped out. You could have picked any country in the world, but you couldn’t think of one where captives are treated better. So you picked “F”. That’s your grade, by the way.

Just for anyone hanging ’round, in need of more proof of the dishonesty and deceit of this administration

check this: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/14/bush-saddam-dad/