Bush commutes Libby sentence

[Jester]

Presidents merely sign or veto.

Uh, no. The modern executive is much, much more powerful than its strictly perscribed consitutional limits. This has been true since WWII, and is only getting worse.

The PATRIOT act is Dubya's baby (well, not him personally, he's not much for policy, but his administration). It was written by his crony. Congress just rubberstamped it.

Ted is a bigger danger and one reason I support term limits.

This strikes me as profoundly lacking in perspective. Ted Kennedy has been a spent political force for 25 years. If you disagree with him (clearly you do) that's fine. But to assign him this kind of importance is simply bizarre.

I think we felt pretty safe prior to 9/11 with those grubby zealots (trained in Pakistani Madrasas) in their caves on the Afghan border. It doesn't mean we are. We underestimated them, and their number then, and I think you are doing it now. How many al Queda cells are in operation in London? Do you really think we could be safer by retreating from them? It seems to me that Clinton tried the minimalist approach (tit for tat), and then we had one of the worst terrorist attacks on America ever.

Not that I particularily supported him in this, but Clinton tried to put the screws on OBL. He was accused (quite rightly) of cooking up issues to distract from the Lewinsky scandal, and the whole thing died. Bush, upon reaching office, took an even more "minimal" approach, and took all the pressure off, seeing it as irrelevant.

However, to me, the whole thing is beside the point. Step up international police and intelligence action. Revamp the intelligence community to better process the information they have. Be more vigilant in defending against terrorist attacks, especially creative, bold ones. You do not retreat. You advance in ways that actually help.

I too applaud Jefferson as a free thinker, and not a brainless adherent of religious dogma. He is a true scholar of the available texts in various ancient languages and has formed his opinion, to the obvious consternation of the leaders of various Catholic and Protestant sects in his time. It is clear why he kept his views private.

We are in agreement on this point. Although I disagree with most of what even Jefferson believed about religion, it is clear he got to his conclusions through careful thought, detailed analysis, and not a little bit of chutzpah.

Of note, Jefferson says, "...it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus".

Yes. The emphasis there being on "real". Meaning that anyone who believes in the things that he cut out of the bible (like, say, the miracles, and the divinity, and the virgin birth, etc...) is not one, or at least on shaky ground. He is saying that Christianity as it is was practiced then and is practiced now by George Bush and a hundred million Americans is, in the main, a fraud perpetrated by charlatans, although built on the sound principles of a moral philosopher. If we're down to saying that this makes Jefferson a Christian, then yes, I suppose I'm willing to settle. I would certainly still describe him as a Deist by religion, if a Christian in moral philosophy. But this is a very different Christianity indeed, and distinguished in the ways I have already outlined.

I'd say if the extremists want Jihad, we should bring them Jihad in great measure and more than they can stomach. But, we should always be offering the frond of peaceful coexistence. We should endeavor to expose the warmongers on both sides and make them irrelevant.

I'm having serious difficulty with how it is those sentences coexist side-by-side. One says that if the extremists want Jihad (no need for the conditional, they do) that America should bring it unto them in "great measure"? And more than they can stomach? You're going to make war until the *extremists*, the ones who believe in martyrdom, cry uncle? That's war forever, as far as I'm concerned. And if those wars are anything like the one you've been carrying out, it is not the extremists who suffer most from this "Jihad" you bring them in "great measure". It's the ordinary people of those countries.

And then, next sentence, you're saying we have to expose the warmongers on both sides. What? Didn't you just recommend a Jihad? How does that not make you a warmonger? Because you are willing to make peace, if only the crazies stop being crazy? That's never going to happen. Never. So, what you are suggesting, if I am reading you right, is perpetual war.

I implore the United States: do *not* play right into Osama Bin Laden's hands by alienating half the world. The extremists are looking for Jihad. It is precisely what they are trying to provoke. They believe (sound familiar?) that God wants this war. They want to be the heroes and martyrs of the great war against the infidel. Why on earth would you want to give it to them? Why not just let them languish in their dank caves, and work instead to cut off their resources, track them down, infiltrate their organizations?

-Jester

[Vandiablo]

Somehow, I'm going to want an opinion other than the two people I've been arguing against, no offense.

Thank you, Jester - for explaining many of my own personal views about the current state of affairs, and doing it so well. I hope you continue; please do continue.

Incidentally, I don't think you are "so emotional". If I were to call someone a stupid schmuck, it might sound emotional, but if that someone REALLY IS a stupid schmuck, then it's just reciting a fact, eh?

The question is not whether I am angry at Bush and co. Of course I am. The question is whether that anger is justified, and if it comes *from* an analysis of the situation, and is not the *basis* for that analysis.

oh, you already said it, and said it better than I did.

A war crimes trial would not be out of place.

What may happen, if those in a deliberative body have any, uh, guts, is that certain members of a certain branch would be hauled in about overreaching in terms of domestic power. It's happening to a small degree, but only to minor players so far.

-V

[eppie]

If "God told me to start the war in Iraq" is the level to which you have fallen, you are discussing a cartoon, not a person who is a president. Granted, W's not the finest specimen ever under the microscope, but not a two dimensional cut out, paper doll, president of straw as you assert.

Care to try again?

Occhi

I agree with you, everything this guy says is for the purpose of securing the midwest farmers votes.....and he succeeded very well in doing that.
Of course I'm also agreeing that he is not the finest specimen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDrq0LNrh-A

But about this Libby pardon: I don't want to start discussing which president pardonned the most people and which of those pardon were unfair. So just to be sure that what I heard about this case is correct:

A weapons inspector found that there was absolutely no proof of there being any WMDs in Iraq, so the reason given by the Bush government to invade Iraq was a lie. The guy tells this to the press and as revenge Libby leaks the name of teh guy's wife to the press and states she is a secret agent for the CIA...and for this reason would be in danger.


If this is true I find this very very heavy stuff and a pardon is completely misplaced.

[eppie]

Discuss.

"You know, this President Bush had commuted Scooter Libby because he felt that 30 months in jail for four felonies was way too harsh, so he reduced it a little back to nothing, zero. See, that's called the rich white guy reduction. See, that's 'cause his name's Scooter. There's not a lot of guys named Jamal gettin' that deal. Nah, Jamal is doin' 30 months for jaywalking." --Jay Leno

funny..

[Occhidiangela]

"You know, this President Bush had commuted Scooter Libby because he felt that 30 months in jail for four felonies was way too harsh, so he reduced it a little back to nothing, zero. See, that's called the rich white guy reduction. See, that's 'cause his name's Scooter. There's not a lot of guys named Jamal gettin' that deal. Nah, Jamal is doin' 30 months for jaywalking." --Jay Leno

funny..

Not funny, sad, and in all too many cases, too close to the truth.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Jester: Krauthammer. Classy.

I appreciate the attempted deflection, but you tarred yourself with that brush. If the shoe fits, wear it.

If you manifest the symptoms, don't be surprised when a doctor makes that diagnosis. Long before 9-11, the shrill pissing and moaning of personal dislike for Bush were a Greek Chorus that added to the American political play naught but noise. The reasoned critiques of his various policy blunders, of which there is no shortage, do not take on the BDS character, but your emotion driven diatribe did.

Jester: Somehow, I'm going to want an opinion other than the two people I've been arguing against, no offense. And my "liberal street cred" means about as much to me as the crud on the bottom of my shoes.

And it's worth about as much.:)

The question is not whether I am angry at Bush and co. Of course I am. The question is whether that anger is justified, and if it comes *from* an analysis of the situation, and is not the *basis* for that analysis.

I see, the insecurity leaps to the fore. "I must have justification for my emotion."

Really?

Why?

Harnessing "righteous anger" got a war started recently. You sure you want to go there?

Assuming there are any international actions at all that are worthy of outrage, I can't see how this fails to qualify.

Still seeking an excuse for outrage, the assumption is unnecessary, check any book on anger management.

1) Illegal war.
2) Motivated by God, or motivated by PNAC opportunism. Probably both.
3) Tens of thousands dead. Probably more.

4) Trillions of dollars flushed away.
5) Massive boost for the very terrorists it purported to combat.
6) Likely consequences appear dire. Destabilized nation at best, nuclear war with Iran at worst.

1. Prove it.
2. Gimme a break on first, yes on the second.
3. Correct. It is a war. People die in wars. The current civil war in Iraq, underway since about June 2004 (picked that start date due to Bremmer being gone) the interfction fighting, have killed more American and Iraqis than the initial phase of the America/Iraq war.

If you want to play the game of "I blame America for Sadr and his Madhi Army's killing SUnni and Shia" you are on shaky ground.

The core policy aim is not civil war, and is not interfaction fighting. The agency for such action is not American. Blaming Bush for that is intellectually dishonest, or to put it differently, pure moonshine. No one made any of those SCIRI, Mahdi Army, and various Sunni factions kill anyone. They did it for their own reasons, and it is they who are pushing up the body count, not to mention the impetus for 1.5 million people who have fled. Refugees. Powell was still right: you break it, you fix it. Bush and the gang contributed to the problem, sure, but they aren't pulling the triggers. They are trying, perhaps in vain, perhaps cluelessly, to get the trigger pulling stopped.

4. Not your problem, not your tax burden, not your debt burden. It's me who ought to be mad at that, which I am, as I have been since the tax cut in 2003 while a war was being undertaken. Crap policy.
5. Indeed. It's called in military circles "A self inflicted wound."
6. Yes to first, gimme a farkin' break on the second. Cartoons in your head, yet again.

This is a matter for all humanity to be deeply concerned about.

All humanity. There Ain't No Such Thing, it is a concept. It exists nowhere other than in rhetoric, in the imaginations of Ivory Towers, in philosophy departments, not to mention religions. Humans aren't a hive, we don't scale up to the Ultimate Macro.

So deeply concerned is all humanity that it keeps breeding itself into squalor and more conflict.

Population pressure? It's real.

This is doubly true since the United States, more now than ever, feels little obligation to confine itself to its borders.

Huh? We don't even defend and protect them, and furthermore, what the heck are you whinging about? We've been extraterritorial since TR was around. "Now more than ever?" Ever hear of Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, or Korea? Japan? Germany? Panama?

We left the Philippines, and are leaking out of Korea, and with any luck, will be out of Okinawa within the decade. The last American troops leaft Bosnia early this year. Heck, we left Saudi Arabia and closed the air base in Oman.

As far as I can tell, the sound judgement is to turf Bush and his puppetmasters out on their butts, and never, ever let them near power again. Indeed, it is deeply shocking that this has not already happened.

So, let's see, are you going to come down here with the Canadian Army and do that? Y'all gonna try and Burn Washington again? Or, maybe, is your diatribe a manifestation of impotent rage and frustration?

Let's look at the move to impeach Dick Cheney. (Kucinich, I liked the move.) Where does it go? Where Clinton's did, check the head count. (New evidence may change that in a number of matters, bet the over on Gonzo screwing up yet again. )

"Turf them?" Are you an advocate of the lead plebiscite? Election recall by fine marksmanship?

Bush and his gang didn't get into power by being idiots, though goodness knows he comes off as one most times he opens his mouth, they got into power by the usual political process of winning an election, and stayed there by being cleverer than their opponents. While there, as many people do in high political office, they see how far they could push the envelope.

Nothing new under the sun.

A war crimes trial would not be out of place.

Where? When? In the event that this comes to pass, I'd like to see how that kangaroo court handles someone with money behind him. I note that Milosevic made good sport of the Hague for about three years before he died. He was not as well connected as the neocon gang.

While you are at it, please spell out the charges. Your "illegal war" is dead in the water.

Why?

Think very carefully before you respond to that "why" since it's important to the PM's/presidents of eighteen other nations.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I agree with you, everything this guy says is for the purpose of securing the midwest farmers votes.....and he succeeded very well in doing that.
Of course I'm also agreeing that he is not the finest specimen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDrq0LNrh-A

But about this Libby pardon: I don't want to start discussing which president pardonned the most people and which of those pardon were unfair. So just to be sure that what I heard about this case is correct:

A weapons inspector found that there was absolutely no proof of there being any WMDs in Iraq, so the reason given by the Bush government to invade Iraq was a lie. The guy tells this to the press and as revenge Libby leaks the name of teh guy's wife to the press and states she is a secret agent for the CIA...and for this reason would be in danger.
If this is true I find this very very heavy stuff and a pardon is completely misplaced.

Not a pardon, a commuting of the sentence, though its effect is to primarily keep Scooter out of jail (and I expect, quiet.) There is a legal difference, of significane of Libby ever wants to practice law again.

He is still, it seems, got a felony on his record, and due to pay a $250,000 fine. I am guessing that the Five Million a guy named Fred Thompson helped to raise, via contributions from neocon friends, for Libby's trial defense may have something like that left over to cover Scooter's debts.

So, all said and done, he gets a felony conviction, probation, serves no time.

Bob Dylan once observed that in America, "justice is a game." Of course it is, see the OJ Simpson trial.

Occhi

[Jester]

If you manifest the symptoms, don't be surprised when a doctor makes that diagnosis.

[...]

I see, the insecurity leaps to the fore. "I must have justification for my emotion."

[...]

Still seeking an excuse for outrage, the assumption is unnecessary, check any book on anger management.

Or, maybe, is your diatribe a manifestation of impotent rage and frustration?

Well, thanks, Dr. Occhi!

I had no idea I was just a turbulent mess of insecurities! I see it now!

"Turf them?" Are you an advocate of the lead plebiscite? Election recall by fine marksmanship?

Come off it. To "turf" someone in this context does not mean to kill them.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/turf

I am using it, quite clearly, in the sense of "to displace or eject." Else, why would I have bothered with the clause about not letting them near power again? Are you suggesting I'm afraid of necromancy?

If you want my arguments about the illegality of the war, they are oft repeated on this forum. You yourself were their target at more than one point. I'm not going to go over them again. As far as I remember, they have not changed in any of their broad outlines.

If you refuse to believe that Bush believes the religious prattle that permeates every speech he makes, and instead see him as a cynical manipulator of the faithful, laughing at them behind a mask of devotion, then I can only say what I have already said: That's not an improvement.

I get angry at people who start unneccessary wars. If that draws out the pop-psychologist in you, that's unfortunate. But not my problem.

-Jester

Of interest: http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pno...=110010326

Even Peggy "Read My Lips" Noonan has turned against Krauthammer's ridiculous diagnosis. "No one thinks that anymore." Perhaps, one day, she will find this thread, and realize that there was still a believer out there.

[TheDragoon]

Yeah, I suppose 99/100 is a fraction.

-Jester

Where are you getting that from? I would be interested in seeing a source for such a statistic as I know my general impression has been that of Kandrathe's: the war that is being fought is mostly against non-Iraqis or Iraqis that have been supported by outside groups (Iran, other countries, terrorist organizations, etc).

[Thecla]

I get angry at people who start unneccessary wars.

I agree with you totally. Not only was the Iraq war unnecessary and without a proper legal basis, the justification given for it was dishonest (the real issue that the Libby case points toward), the management of the post-war occupation of Iraq was criminally incompetent, the costs of all kinds for eveyone involved are enormous, and the security and stability of the middle-east and the world have been seriously harmed.

There is every reason to be very angry. I know I am.

[Thecla]

Where are you getting that from? I would be interested in seeing a source for such a statistic as I know my general impression has been that of Kandrathe's: the war that is being fought is mostly against non-Iraqis or Iraqis that have been supported by outside groups (Iran, other countries, terrorist organizations, etc).

I doubt that anyone has any accurate statistics --- or perhaps any clue --- about who is responsible for how many attacks, or what groups they really belong to. But you seem to have a very simplistic view of the situation, albeit the one frequently proposed by President Bush (that the war is the US and Iraq vs. Al Qaida and Iran).

From the recent National Intelligence Estimate:

The Intelligence Community judges that the term “civil war” does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa’ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term “civil war” accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.

The violence is far from just being the creation of a few non-Iraqi foriegn fighters and Iranian-fomented agents.

From what I've read (and I could be wrong---I don't claim any special first-hand information) there is a sense of complete hoplessness in much of Iraq, and a strong likelyhood that a massive civil war between multiple different factions, on a scale that dwarfs the current bloodshed, is on the horizon. And if that does happen, it's possible that it will spill over to the entire region.

Edit: p.s. On the original question, gotta love this quote from AP

President Bush always said he would wait to talk about the CIA leak case until after the investigation into his administration's role. On Thursday, he skipped over that step and pronounced the matter old news hardly worth discussing.

Damn liberal press.

[Jester]

Where are you getting that from? I would be interested in seeing a source for such a statistic as I know my general impression has been that of Kandrathe's: the war that is being fought is mostly against non-Iraqis or Iraqis that have been supported by outside groups (Iran, other countries, terrorist organizations, etc).

First off, I'm not intending 99/100 to be an academic assessment. If it turns out to be, say, 87.4%, or 99.8%, or 93.14159%, it doesn't really matter to me. What I mean to say, substantively, rather than just as a sarcastic snipe, is that the vast majority of the force opposing the US occupation in Iraq is Iraqi. Foreign fighters comprise only a small portion of the resistance, although they are likely disproportionately involved in suicide bombings and other high-profile acts of terrorism.

I must confess, I have not kept up with the demographic particulars of the resistance. Every description I've read of them breaks them into fairly obvious categories (Former Ba'athists, Sunni/Shi'a militias, anti-occupation resistance groups, moderate islamists, hard-core islamists, or some similiar) all of which seem to be predominantly Iraqi, unless they include a separate group for foreign fighters, usually numbered between one and four thousand, with total resistance strength somewhere from 20k to 200k. Even taking the maximum and minimum estimates, that would still yield 3/4.

A quick google yields the following, BBC numbers. They are roughly consistent with everything else I've seen, if perhaps a bit on the generous side for giving foreign insurgent numbers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5052138.stm

The proportion given is "less than 10% foreign fighters."

In short, while every "impression" that comes off American news, and from the talking heads gives the impression that this is a "foreign resistance" problem, I have yet to see anything to convince me that the resistance is not overwhelmingly, to the tune of 90% or more, Iraqi.

If they are recieving support from Iran, Saudi Arabia, or who knows where else, doesn't matter to me in that sense. Iraqis are Iraqis.

If someone has figures that indicate that Iraqi participation is not the overwhelming majority, like say less than 80%, I would be interested to see it, as it would contradict everything I have understood about this conflict so far.

-Jester

[eppie]

I agree with you totally. Not only was the Iraq war unnecessary and without a proper legal basis, the justification given for it was dishonest (the real issue that the Libby case points toward), the management of the post-war occupation of Iraq was criminally incompetent, the costs of all kinds for eveyone involved are enormous, and the security and stability of the middle-east and the world have been seriously harmed.

There is every reason to be very angry. I know I am.

My dutch government also makes quite a mess out of this. Our governments usually consist of several parties making a coalition (because we have many parties and never will one have a majority).
So when the Iraq war started there were CDA (christian democrats) VVD (liberals, but compared to the US they are economically rightwing and on certain poitn conservative) and LPF and/or D66, the first a populist party set up by Pim Fortyun the guy that got shotm the second a liberal party but more left than the VVD. I mention them both because we had a few governments that fell, and these parties were in teh 1st and 2nd, and are now by teh way decimated.

So teh govermnet with CDA as head, chose to go to war helping the US. The used the same lies not only to the public but also in the parlement to convince everybody we had to join...these argumentses were taken as facts and made it then of course impossible to vote no for the other parties. I'm sure that our minister president Balkenende just liek Bush and Blair, new the lies were lies...I mean, he is not stupid.

So before last elections a majority (virtual.....untill after the elections) wanted to have an official investigation on this matter...I mean Balkenende wasn't going to admit he lied to us.
But what happened than...the PvdA a moderately socialist party (usually one of the bigger ones) formed a coalition with the CDA and the CU (a more religious christian party, but apart from the christian conservatism are more leftish than the CDA)........when they discussed about forming the coalition however one of the deals teh CDA made is that there was not to be an investigation into going to war in Iraq.

So a majority of voters voted for parties that wanted an investigation, but because of smart deal making there is not going to be one (PvdA, although being for an investigation will vote no because of the deal that was made).


This is a perversion of democracy of course, and I hope the senate, the members of which are not bound to the coalition agreement made by their parties, will step up and decide a investigation is necesarry. But often the ties to their party, and the chance of a government falling will refrain them from doing so.

[Occhidiangela]

If you want my arguments about the illegality of the war, they are oft repeated on this forum. You yourself were their target at more than one point. I'm not going to go over them again. As far as I remember, they have not changed in any of their broad outlines.

Good, then when you arrest W and his pals, arrest the PM's and presidents, serving in 1999, of 18 NATO nations, and Bill Clinton from the US, for starting an illegal war, a war without UNSC authorization, against Serbia in 1999. 71 days of bombing a sovereign nation, which is 71 days of acts of war, not in a UN sanctioned operation.

While you are at it, arrest the PM of

Japan
The NEtherlands
Italy
Spain
South Korea
The UK
El Salvador
Poland
Czecholslovakia
Denmark

Charge them too, for the Iraq War.

Shall I go on? Probably not.

The alleged laws that you cite aren't stout enough to enforce without a sheriff who gives a crap. When that sherrif is in the gunfight, odds are you won't find anyone to arrest him.

Welcome to the real world, which is indeed a bit like Dodge City, when no one has a horse to go and get the US Marshall from Kansas City.

Occhi

[Jester]

Bring the lot of them in. Give them a fair trial, and see what happens.

I'm telling you what I think should be done. You're telling me that it won't be done, but that's hardly news.

-Jester

Afterthought, couldn't resist: You remembered Poland!

[Thecla]

While you are at it, arrest the PM of

Japan
The NEtherlands
Italy
Spain
South Korea
The UK
El Salvador
Poland
Czecholslovakia
Denmark

Don't forget Tonga!

[Delc]

What exactly constitutes a legal war?

[Armin]

Don't forget Tonga!

And Iceland! Those 2 troopers sure made a difference! :P

And of course the republic of Palau...

[Armin]

What exactly constitutes a legal war?

The Charter of the United Nations lists 2 options when a nation (or nations) may legally declare war:

- repulsing an immediate armed attack against its sovereign territory
- when all means of reaching a peaceful solution to a problem have been expended *and* after the United Nations have authorized use of force

You may also Wiki the "Kellogg-Briand Pact" or the "London charter" :P

And no, none of 'em covers invading Iraq...

[Delc]

The Charter of the United Nations lists 2 options when a nation (or nations) may legally declare war:

- repulsing an immediate armed attack against its sovereign territory
- when all means of reaching a peaceful solution to a problem have been expended *and* after the United Nations have authorized use of force

You may also Wiki the "Kellogg-Briand Pact" or the "London charter" :P

ok. So my second question is, if there are absolutely no consequences for breaking the rules why bother having them?

And no, none of 'em covers invading Iraq...

Never said otherwise.