Libby sentenced

<p>"Nice try. That is flat-out intellectually dishonest, FF, and I am calling you on it. "</p>

<p>Calling “me” on it? That’s pretty funny since these were not my words but the words of the sponsors of the study. They were also the ones to encapsulate their findings as a desire for a strong central government.</p>

<p>“So if you hold polls as indicative for what we should do, as you seem to, why don’t you think we should leave?”</p>

<p>If the democratically elected government asks us to leave, then we should go. So far that hasn’t happened.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Touche. I looked. You are right. My apologies. I’d have to turn my bs call on them. Sorry. Looking at the underlying question in the actual poll, to me this is left open. Does “somewhat likely” mean “just as likely as not likely” or “a bit more likely than unlikely”? To me, it could encompass either or both and is therefore not specific enough, and certainly doesn’t warrant the summary they give it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>According to reports I’ve seen, we may yet get the chance a bit later this year to find out what we’d actually do if the elected govt. asks us to leave.</p>

<p>So, as one point of conclusion, your position is we should wait until the govt. asks us to leave. Does this mean the fate of our military presence there should be determined solely by Iraqis? Or does this mean that you don’t have an opinion about what we should be shooting for beyond just staying there, and in the absence of such a sense, the only thing that would determine for you that we should leave is the Iraqi govt. saying so? If you do have an opinion about what we should be shooting for, what exactly would that be? Permanent bases? Occupation until the country is stabilized? Stand down as the Iraqis stand up? Permanent occupation like Korea?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What specifically are your concerns? Iran? Israel’s safety? Protection of our oil? Iraq as another Taliban Afghanistan if we leave, a chaotic breeding ground for terrorists? All the above? Some? I am curious. </p>

<p>Do you think Brooks is getting influenced by Dowd simply because he doesn’t support the notion that Iraq is doing better, a line that Joe Lieberman or John McCain try to put forward in support of the Administration? Since Brooks is cut from such a different cloth and rarely seems to spend anytime actually at the NYT, I was wondering if this is only a joke.</p>

<p>Here’s the current view of a Bush nominee and the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and how it’s doing in the context of the surge. It’s in the Washington Post article below.</p>

<p>Now I gotta say, reading this, it unfortunately offers no comfort with regards to the effectiveness of the surge. So I have a question for you? When do you specifically say, okay the surge did or didn’t work? 6 mos? A year? 2 years?</p>

<p>Or do you keep holding out for a particular goal whether or not the surge seems effective? And if so, again, what is that goal?</p>

<p>Nominee to Coordinate War Offers Grim Forecast on Iraq
General’s Appraisal Echoes Secret Intelligence Findings</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060702533.html?nav=hcmodule[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060702533.html?nav=hcmodule&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Thanks in advance for your responses. I want to know what people who have supported the surge and who don’t believe we should pull out think we’re heading towards accomplishing in Iraq. I want to know specifically, not just “oh, it’ll-get-better-just-because” sense. I want to know if people think we actually have a good end in sight, or if they are just supporting staying in Iraq because not leaving means we don’t have to admit defeat and leaving means we do.</p>

<p>Likewise, for those supporting a pullout (like me), I would ask what they think specifically will happen in the aftermath of our leaving.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So now FF knows more about the Libby case than the judge who actually heard it? A judge who has been so scrupulously fair that legal experts concede there is almost 0 chance of reversible error…</p>

<p>This kind of reminds me of Wolfowitz insisting to the Republican Senate that he knew more than the Army Chief of Staff about how many troops it would take to stabilize Iraq.</p>

<p>Whatever they invent for themselves is more compelling than the informed opinions of subject matter experts, who are all too incompetent, corrupt, or partisan to assess the situation as accurately as the instant expert on everything that lurks inside each 28%-er.</p>

<p>Let’s look into the background of this judge who is “making a political statement” with his sentence of Libby:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is the person abusing the bench to make political statements against a member of the Bush administration? LOL</p>

<p>David Brooks is full of carp.</p>

<p>I love how he tries to assign blame for the Iraq disaster to Baker/Hamilton and the Democrats when the reality is that George W. Bush has stubbornly refused to listen to anybody or any suggestion other than relentless escalation of a permanent force to achieve some unrealistic “victory”.</p>

<p>Brooks needs to bite the bullet and place 100% of the blame exactly where it belongs. Baker/Hamilton tried to throw him a life preserver. He refused. The Democrats tried to offer up “benchmarks” that obviously aren’t going to be achieved, but would provide political cover (“we tried”).</p>

<p>This is George Bush’s war. In the annuals of history, it will be George Bush’s war. Brooks and the rest of the George Bush apologists need to suck it up and quit trying to place blame elsewhere.</p>

<p>FF…first thank you for responding to my question concerning Mr. Libby, you make a fair point, about the severity of his punishment. I guess it was the luck of the draw that Libby got a Reagan appointed “law and order judge.” I think he is the “official fall guy” and I consider that very unfortunate for Mr. Libby and the nation. I still hold out hope that further evidence from Mr Libby or others will come forward so that we my get to the bottom of this very unseemly affair. </p>

<p>In the interest of full discloser I should point out that I have worked with Mr. Libby (though in a minor way) on several occasions in the past. I found him to be bright, well informed, and hard working, I also thought at the time that he tended to hold out for his personal beliefs beyond what would be consider prudent. </p>

<p>Now to you statement….”Hmmm, I thought that it was you who accused me of polemic BS. Perhaps there are two tommybills out there.” The word accused is not use well in your statement, it is misleading. It would be more reflective of reality, and the truth to say I pointed out that you were engaging in polemic BS. From your writing I can easily ascertain that your are a literate person. As such it is fair me to assume that you knew what I was writing about since I stated what I considered polemic BS. In my comments I said “You don’t make points you make polemics, lines like, “getting the gallows ready for the lynching and the other BS coming from you.” I did and I still do consider that statement from you polemic BS. You of course may disagree, however I don’t think an uninvolved fair minded person would.</p>

<p>Now help me better understand the point you are trying to make……You say….</p>

<p>“So rather than avoiding the issue by trying to associate me with someone else saying something I did not”</p>

<p>Hmmm, I thought that it was you who accused me of polemic BS. Perhaps there are two tommybills out there.”</p>

<p>What is the point you are tiring to make by those two lines being joined? Are you tiring to say that I am engaging in Polemic BS by pointing out that you were trying to discredit what I was saying by associating me with something I did not say? Were you saying I was engaging in polemic BS by pointing out what I thought polemic BS on your part is? </p>

<p>Explain a little more without getting into the this guy is on the other side of this issue so I’ll show him (if I may use it again) polemic BS. </p>

<p>Help me better understand you. </p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>June 29 (Bloomberg) – President George W. Bush is likely to pay a political price if he decides to pardon convicted vice presidential aide Lewis ``Scooter’’ Libby – or if he decides not to pardon him.

With the start of Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term looming, Republican stalwarts who are the president's last source of political support may revolt unless he quickly pardons the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. If Bush does act, he would violate Justice Department guidelines, alienate much of the public and run the risk of cover-up charges.

``This is a no-win situation for Bush,'' said David Gergen, who advised Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Libby, 56, was convicted in March of obstructing justice, perjury and making false statements to investigators probing the 2003 leak of Central Intelligence Agency agent Valerie Plame's identity. Unless a federal appeals court delays his sentence, he will be required to report to jail by late July or mid-August.

A Cable News Network/Opinion Research survey conducted after Libby's conviction found that 69 percent of respondents opposed a pardon while 18 percent favored it. At the same time, a pro-Libby firestorm is being fanned by self-described conservative bloggers and talk-radio hosts, and many conservative leaders are asking the president to step in.

`Railroaded' </p>

<p>Libby was <code>railroaded,‘’ said Paul Weyrich, head of the Washington-based Free Congress Foundation, a small-government educational group. David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, based in Alexandria, Virginia, said Libby got a</code>raw deal’’ and has been left to ``twist in the wind.‘’

Keene calls on Bush to display the same loyalty to Libby that he's shown to his friend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose handling of the dismissal of eight U.S. prosecutors has prompted lawmakers to call for his resignation.

``It tells you what a deep, dark, dank un-spinnable hole Bush is in when he has to pardon a guy to appease 30 percent of the country,'' said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, a former aide to Vice President Al Gore.

A pardon might also raise fresh questions about whether Libby had been acting at the request of his superiors. ``I think he sort of took one for the team,'' said Weyrich.

Divided Candidates

Republican divisions over the Libby affair have emerged among the party's presidential hopefuls. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney criticized the handling of the case but stopped short of backing a pardon.

Meanwhile, actor Fred Thompson, a former Tennessee senator and an undeclared candidate, said Libby ``absolutely'' should be pardoned. Thompson has lent his name to a lobbying campaign that's raising money on Libby's behalf. Arizona Senator John McCain and several others say it is premature to weigh in.

The candidate most strongly opposed to a pardon is former Virginia Governor James Gilmore, who's just a blip in the polls. The judicial process has worked its will,'' Gilmore said in an interview.To disrupt it is to undermine the law.'' Gilmore, a former state attorney general and chairman of the Republican National Committee, said many prosecutors share his sentiment.

Public Clamor

Public clamor for a president to grant clemency isn't unusual, said P.S. Ruckman Jr., a political science professor at Rock Valley Community College in Rockford, Illinois, and an expert on presidential pardons. He cited former Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, who received ``millions of requests'' to spare the lives of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed for passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union.

Bush and Cheney have so far said little about their intentions toward Libby. White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino said Bush ``felt terrible'' for Libby and his family.

Bush has granted fewer pardons -- 113 -- than any president in the past 100 years, while denying more than 1,000 requests, said Margaret Colgate Love, the Justice Department's pardon attorney from 1990 to 1997.

In addition, Bush has denied more than 4,000 commutation requests, and hundreds of requests for pardons and commutations are still pending, Love said.

Going Against Guidelines

A quick pardon for Libby would go against Justice Department guidelines, which recommend that a supplicant wait five years after conviction or release from confinement before seeking a pardon. On the other hand, there's no requirement that a president wait; President Gerald Ford pardoned his disgraced predecessor, Richard Nixon, shortly after taking office in 1974, and before Nixon was convicted of anything.

The focus on a Libby pardon is obscuring other options available to Bush, including conditional pardons, commutations, remissions of fines and amnesties, Ruckman said.

One possibility would be to issue a respite directive, which simply delays carrying out a sentence and lets passions cool, he said. George Washington first granted respites in June, 1795, delaying the executions of two men involved in the Whiskey Rebellion; they were later pardoned, Ruckman said.

``Bush can keep Libby out of jail without exercising a pardon,'' Ruckman said. </p>

<p>To contact the reporter on this story: Edwin Chen in Washington at <a href="mailto:echen32at@bloomberg.net">echen32at@bloomberg.net</a></p>

<p>Date: July 2, 2007
To: Lewis “Scooter” Libby
From: Office of the Vice President
Re: Houskeeping</p>

<p>Dear Scooter:</p>

<p>Congratulations on recieving your commutation of sentence from President George W. Bush. </p>

<p>That you recieved this commutation of your prison sentence on the eve of the Independence Day holiday makes it even more sweet. All of us in the Administration wish you and the family a great July 4th holiday. Scooter, we are pleased you and your family will be able to enjoy the local parade, hot dog BBQ and evening fireworks without having that prison monkey on your back.</p>

<p>Scooter, a few things first however. First, the VP requests that since your prison sentence has now been commuted you please return the large, locked metal Halliburton briefcase you have been holding on to since you were sentenced. Please return both sets of keys to it as well. The contents will be verified upon reciept.</p>

<p>Second, please make sure that when completing the deletion of the remaining files–you know which ones we are talking about–on your laptop computer, you remove the hard drive from the machine. Once the hard drive is removed deposit it in the number 10 “burn bag” you were given yesterday. Follow the directions on the “burn bag,” making sure all contents of the hard drive have been destroyed.</p>

<p>Lastly, We are sorry we can’t invite you to the “Office of the Vice President Independence Day picnic.” Since there will be readings of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other matters relating to the rule of law, the VP thought it prudent you avoid attending this close to the commutation. However, Scooter, you can bet you will be in our thoughts on Wednesday. </p>

<p>Sincerly,
Office of the VP</p>

<p>I heart you tommybill</p>