Libby Sentence Commuted

Eliot Rosewater

John Budge wrote:

Bush, Cheney, and the rest the asshats in the WH aren't worth getting upset about.

I couldn't disagree more. I read a bumper sticker a while back that said, "If you're not outraged you're not paying attention." Very true words.

John Budge

don't gimme no wrote:

I couldn't disagree more. I read a bumper sticker a while back that said, "If you're not outraged you're not paying attention." Very true words.

I guess I'm past the point of outrage.

Drew263

don't gimme no wrote:

I couldn't disagree more. I read a bumper sticker a while back that said, "If you're not outraged you're not paying attention." Very true words.

I've seen that sticker too and here's my problem with it. The only people that are ever outraged are the people that are "opposite" of the party of the president.

For example, people here outraged for this Libby situation, were they outraged over Clinton trading pardons for $$$?? Doubt it. How many are calling out Hillary for her ridiculous rant on it?

All this bullshit is our fault. All of us should be outraged, no matter the party in power. But as long as our "team" is winning, we won't be.

inmytree

Drew263 wrote:

I've seen that sticker too and here's my problem with it. The only people that are ever outraged are the people that are "opposite" of the party of the president.

For example, people here outraged for this Libby situation, were they outraged over Clinton trading pardons for $$$?? Doubt it. How many are calling out Hillary for her ridiculous rant on it?

All this bullshit is our fault. All of us should be outraged, no matter the party in power. But as long as our "team" is winning, we won't be.

very true, my friend...

all I know is, I'm pretty sick of the lame-ass dems...I now understand the notion of "picking the lesser of two evils" used by many in 2004...

I'm thinking this country is ready for a 3rd party to step into the mix....I'm watching Bloomburg...he can't be any worse than what we currently have...

as for libby...he's a dick who got a free pass...nothing new for DC...

RainDog

Drew263 wrote:

All this bullshit is our fault. All of us should be outraged, no matter the party in power. But as long as our "team" is winning, we won't be.

But if you include your own "team" in your outrage and the other team doesn't, then the other team wins. You need everyone on board in order for that to work - and not everyone will be on board because someone, somewhere (actually lots of people) will see the outrage and the "tear down" of our corrupt system and use it to win a victory for their own corruption.

George Bush won the last election with just over 50% of the vote. He's currently polling at around 27%. How many of the remaining 23-24% voted for him solely because they didn't want that backstabbing traitor John Kerry sleeping in the White House with his foreign tart of a wife? And, on the flip side, how many voted for Kerry to stop monkey face from throwing feces at everyone outside our borders?

How do you fix it? You can say "don't vote for 'em, then." But then what? Vote for some third tier or third party person who, in the end, will gladly take all the power you offer and screw just as many in the process - provided he or she screws the people you think need screwed? I've no solution. I'm just ranting over something I see as a major problem. It's not a problem with our country, or our education, or our society, or any kind of "other." It's a problem with humans. Lousy animals.


P.S., I do like to see the occasional conservative talk about the fault being "ours," though. See, shared responsibility isn't so bad.

puremagic

I don't think people are surprise about Libby, in fact, I think people were expecting a full pardon at some point. The problem here is that people keep justifying the action of politicians by comparison of their predessors. People have allowed themselves to rationalize actions, right or wrong, based on democrat or republican, liberal or conservative; and not what was in the best interest of the country as a whole. In doing so, people have allowed the governing principles to be corrupted, to be overturned, and to be marginalized.

Everyone, democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives, green party and independents, bystander saw an Administration willing to dismantle the very Constitution they sword to uphold and defend; then turn around and say it doesn't apply to them. They didn't do this for the benefit of the country, they did it for self-gain and self-preservation. If that doesn't deserve some sense of outrage, then what is the point of calling ourselves, citizens, voters, or Americans, because those are the binding principles (flawed or not) that we used to defined ourselves. Those are the principles other countries are suppose to hate us for, those are our principles that keep us free. What does it say for Nation whose own leaders show contempt for these very principles?

Taft

This basically means we live under a dictatorship….Bush is saying, you can commit crimes on my behalf (lets face it, that is what Libby did) and I will get you off. Disgusting.

Abookamongstthemany

don't gimme no wrote:

I couldn't disagree more. I read a bumper sticker a while back that said, "If you're not outraged you're not paying attention." Very true words.

I have that sticker and I'm outraged at both parties. Woo hoo!

know1

I guess if he's been convicted of torturing and murdering a couple of young children, people wouldn't have a problem with his sentence being commuted (if Eddie was OK with it).

I didn't follow it closely enough, but in this case wasn't "obstruction of justice" pretty much a victimless crime?

Eliot Rosewater

know1 wrote:

I didn't follow it closely enough, but in this case wasn't "obstruction of justice" pretty much a victimless crime?

Hmmm...you might want to ask Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson about that...

RainDog

know1 wrote:

I guess if he's been convicted of torturing and murdering a couple of young children, people wouldn't have a problem with his sentence being commuted (if Eddie was OK with it).

I didn't follow it closely enough, but in this case wasn't "obstruction of justice" pretty much a victimless crime?

End justify the means type, huh? So the trial for the West Memphis Three was - problematic to say the least - but you feel they're guilty, so it's O.K. Which is a direct comparison to a man who was convicted fairly (as it appears so far), but didn't do anything all that wrong by your standards, so you're comfortable with the jail time being commuted.

In other words, "Fuck Fair Trials." Now there's a bumper sticker.

Rushlimbo

know1 wrote:

I didn't follow it closely enough, but in this case wasn't "obstruction of justice" pretty much a victimless crime?

Hindering an investigation is not a victimless crime. Let's dont forget the perjury verdict either -- that was enough for impeachment for someone I remember that the reichwingers didnt like.

know1

RainDog wrote:

End justify the means type, huh? So the trial for the West Memphis Three was - problematic to say the least - but you feel they're guilty, so it's O.K. Which is a direct comparison to a man who was convicted fairly (as it appears so far), but didn't do anything all that wrong by your standards, so you're comfortable with the jail time being commuted.

In other words, "Fuck Fair Trials." Now there's a bumper sticker.

I didn't say anything about whether I felt anyone was guilty. I specifically used the word "convicted" for a reason.

RainDog

know1 wrote:

I didn't say anything about whether I felt anyone was guilty. I specifically used the word "convicted" for a reason.

Yet glossed over the details by stating that anyone who might have a problem with how a case was tried is simply a mindless Eddie drone - that they're O.K. with torture and murder, that they don't think about where they stand.

puremagic

know1 wrote:

I didn't say anything about whether I felt anyone was guilty. I specifically used the word "convicted" for a reason.

I guess he was awarded "jail time" for NOT being CONVICTED of a crime. And, Bush was just playing a "gotcha" joke by commuting Libby's EXCESSIVE jail sentence.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

How do you reach the level of presidential contender without having a career in politics? Obama is the closest we have right now (if he wins two terms, he'll have been a national politician for grand total of 12 years - 4 Senate, 8 President), and he's still considered a careerist. Perhaps some form of presidential lottery?

Politics is a popularity contest. And, as with any other popularity contest, the most popular isn't necessarily the best at anything.

As for Libby's commuted sentence - well, excuse me while I crank up the dial on my complete lack of surprise.

Time isn't what I'm referring to when I say career politician. It's more about what you do while you're in politics, your track record....and it makes all the difference in the world between career politicians (who make moves to further their political aspirations which usually means pandering to interest groups with money and power) and public servants (who make the best moves for the people they are serving despite where the big money is).

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Time isn't what I'm referring to when I say career politician. It's more about what you do while you're in politics, your track record....and it makes all the difference in the world between career politicians (who make moves to further their political aspirations which usually means pandering to interest groups with money and power) and public servants (who make the best moves for the people they are serving despite where the big money is).

Corrupt politician, then? After all, even "public servants" can have a career in politics.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

don't gimme no wrote:

That's interesting. I've often wondered why no one has taken a shot at the worst president in history. But it's because the crazy fucks want him in office. And as criminal as he has been, the people that oppose him are far more sane than those who support him. If it were any of the three you mentioned then the tables would probably be turned.

I would say a peace minded person has a much greater chance of getting killed by a warmongering freak than the other way around.

Yes definitely.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

Corrupt politician, then? After all, even "public servants" can have a career in politics.

I guess but these days a career in politics has nothing to do with being a public servant. Many do whatever it takes to further their career and that very often happens to be the opposite of what's best for the public..ahem...like voting to not cap credit card rates.

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I guess but these days a career in politics has nothing to do with being a public servant. Many do whatever it takes to further their career and that very often happens to be the opposite of what's best for the public..ahem...like voting to not cap credit card rates.

Or for a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration.