Comments (66)

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 1:21 PM:

What a crock: Continued Legal Fight Invalidates Bush Commutation

Supreme court ruled that until all judicial options are exhausted, the President may not grant any clemency. In continuing his legal fight to overturn the conviction, Libby and the WH should know this commutation is premture and illegal.

legal citation, discussion:

[Emphasis in original] "The Supreme Court itself has opined that '[c]lemency is deeply rooted in our Anglo-American tradition of law, and is the historic remedy for preventing miscarriages of justice where judicial process has been exhausted.' " [ 66 Ohio St. L.J. 875]

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 1:24 PM:

Well, Bush DID let the jury verdict stand (for now) as well as the $250,000 fine and $400 in court fees -- Libby will still be on supervised probation for two years as he proceeds with his appeal -- did Clinton's pardon of FUGITIVE Marc Rich show "RESPECT" for the jury system?

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 1:25 PM:

"Respecting the jury system" would mean letting the judicial _review_ of that jury verdict, and lower court setence, wind its way through the _judicial_ branch.

The Presidenet has trumped the judicial process. That is not "respect," but contempt. Why does Bush hate the American system of justice?

nofltwlt wrote on July 3, 2007 1:36 PM:

Bush was not elected, he was not actually elected at all, because of his intellect; he was elected because of his lack of intellect and a mass of people who themselves lack intellect.

It is about time that Bush realize that he lacks intellect and get the fuck out of the way. Of course, if you lack intellect you do not have sufficient intellect to know that you lack intellect.

Glenn wrote on July 3, 2007 1:36 PM:

God, the Marc Rich trolls are everywhere, aren't they? Mindless fucks.

To the point at hand, it's not even so much that Bush's act disrespects Judge Walton -- after all, he just applied the guidelines. Yes, Walton decided not to downwardly depart, and that decision has now been dissed by the Prez. But really, the sentence came from the work of Congress, in creating the guideline system, and the US Sentencing Commission, who wrote the guidelines.

Your Uncle Bastard wrote on July 3, 2007 1:38 PM:

Jake, for the love of all that's holy and out of respect for the rest of our collective sanity, PLEASE give up your Clenis fantasies and refrain from repeating them ad nauseum; this is not a right-wing echo chamber.

Perhaps you and others like you should ask the former President out on a date and get it out of your systems?

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 3, 2007 1:38 PM:

I love the "deep and thoughtful" consideration - that happened to negelect consulting with the prosecuting attorney, and DOJ. So, exactly who did the president consult with? I think it is a pretty safe bet that Cheney was probably in the loop, which is a conflict of interest that really staggers the mind if you think about it.

A man who has the keys to any information in the VP's office and is staring at 30 months in jail pardoned by in the President, with the input of the VP? Wow, not since Scalia's refusal to recuse himself from the Cheney SCOTUS case has their conflict of interest been so obvious.

Love how the Trolls always bring up Clinton when absolutely no one is talking about him or using him to justify anything - shows a lack of ability to participate in honest conversation.

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 1:38 PM:

I would love to see the legal citation (or, are you referring to a law review article?) for said "Supreme court" ruling that until all judicial options are exhausted, the President may not grant any clemency -- I guess Ford's pardon of Nixon was ruled illegal? Wow! How did I miss this living in the reality-based world?

Jimmmm wrote on July 3, 2007 1:39 PM:

Jake:

Clinton's not president. Two wrongs don't make a right. If everybody else in your study hall jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?

Security code: Prat. As in Jake is one.

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 1:39 PM:

Seems Bush has painted himself into a corner a bit now, hasn't he? Now, if he decides to pardon Libby later (and I believe he will) what will he say about his so-called respect for the jury system?

d

PS: I usually don't like to post the security code but this one is too good: "screw".

P J Evans wrote on July 3, 2007 1:40 PM:

Jake, you are a fool. Also a tool.

What does Libby know that's so critical they couldn't let him go to prison?

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 1:42 PM:

"did Clinton's pardon of FUGITIVE Marc Rich show "RESPECT" for the jury system?"

Whether it did or didn't, what does it have to do with Libby's case and Bush's commutation?

d

Ian wrote on July 3, 2007 1:42 PM:

I make no defense of Clinton's pardoning of Mark Rich. Since you brought it up, it is interesting to note who represented Rich and filed the pardon request: none other than I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby!

Back to your point, Jake. I'd like to understand why you feel that Bush's action is excused by Clinton's? If you were outraged by Clinton pardoning Rich, shouldn't you be doubly outraged to see GWB do the same thing, after promising "to restore honor and dignity to the White House?"

Tracy wrote on July 3, 2007 1:43 PM:

Paris Hilton served more time than Scooter Libby.

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 1:44 PM:

Jake:

Clinton's been gone since 2001. Please keep up. I thought Bush was supposed to be better than Slick Willy; "b-b-but Clinton!" does not make Bush look better.

spinn wrote on July 3, 2007 1:46 PM:

Jake:

You're making a case about shifting standards, but that's a significant part of the problem here. Many conservatives like to say CLINTON PERJURED HIMSELF! and minimize the insignificance of the underlying crime (got him some); but for Scooter, suddenly the fact that there was no underlying conviction is a reason to ignore everything.

anon wrote on July 3, 2007 1:47 PM:

...did Clinton's pardon of FUGITIVE Marc Rich...

And, of course, you remember who Marc Rich's laywer was? Right?

You might want to look around for a better example. Nixon perhaps? Or Weinberger?

Anon A. Mouse wrote on July 3, 2007 1:48 PM:

Notice the careful parsing of words here. "Respect for the jury" would mean leaving untouched that part of the whole situation that involved the jury (i.e. the guilty verdict). Bush did that, because a commutation does not affect Libby's status as a convicted defendant. Bush's commutation DOES, however, reveal a different view toward the judiciary, as the commutation affects the SENTENCE...which in this case (i.e. a non-capital case) was determined, in the end, by the judge. So a pardon (which Bush didn't grant) would impact the jury's work, while a commutation (which is what Bush gave) only affects the judge's work. So Tony can, with some semblance of a straight face, claim that Bush was "respecting the jury system" while ignoring the true meat of the matter. A neat little rhetorical trick, no?

Legion wrote on July 3, 2007 1:51 PM:

Very wise of Jake to include the words "for now" when he asserts that:

"...Bush DID let the jury verdict stand (for now) as well as the $250,000 fine and $400 in court fees..." ($400?!?! Cruel, cruel, cruel)

I think even HE knows that this is only step 1 of a two step process. Step 1: Buy silence by keeping Libby out of jail. Step 2: Pardon Libby on the last day in office.

Did Clinton's pardon of Rich respect the jury system? Nope, but I don't see the relevance nor do I see how "W" could possibly use it as a defense based on "precedence."

Steve W. wrote on July 3, 2007 1:52 PM:

I think maybe you got the name of the WH press secretary wrong. Shouldn't it be Tony McClellan? The more things change, the more things stay the same.......and the worse things get.

gregor wrote on July 3, 2007 1:53 PM:

So we should all agree with the trolls and conclude that Bush is worse than Clinton because, learning nothing from the past, he follows Clinton by repeating the alleged mistakes of the former President.

Scott L wrote on July 3, 2007 1:54 PM:

What turns my stomach is not that Libby got a "Get out of jail" card but that the Republican Party big wigs have taken such joy out of it. I was under the impression that they were in office to uphold the laws of our country and NOT be spending their time and money finding ways to beat the system. It's a shame they only wish for a two tier system of justice. One for them and another for everyone else.

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 1:56 PM:

Your Uncle Bastard:

Why would I ask the former President out on a date, and what would I get out of my system? Telling him he had every Constitutional right to pardon Marc Rich?

Jimmmm:

No.

P J Evans:

I don't know that Bush was even concerned about what Libby knows in making this clemency decision. I mean, we could speculate all day what Marc Rich knew about Clinton and his wife, Denise, but what's the use?

d and Ian:

I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those who defended Clinton on those pardons but bash Bush on this one.

gregor wrote on July 3, 2007 1:56 PM:

We should wholeheartedly agree with the trolls as their statements lead to the logical conclusion that Bush is worse than Clinton as, having learned nothing from the past, he repeats the alleged egregious mistakes of the former President.

Code Word: screw

JTL wrote on July 3, 2007 1:58 PM:

Eh, up is down and black is white. Anyone who expects Tony Snow to do anything other than offer absurd (and shamelessly ridiculous) justifications for why Bush and Cheney do what they do simply hasn't been paying attention.

They have no shame. They have no respect for the office they hold. They do not care one iota about the people that they are supposed to represent. It's disgusting, pure and simple.

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 1:59 PM:

The jury, case judge and the judicial review and appeal process have been preempted and the cover-up and obstruction is complete.

Bush is sinking into history as a failure who had to resort to a cheap manuever to protect the inner circle. He is so low in the polls that it can't hurt him any more to openingly obstruct justice (makes him really dangerous.)

They are also setting a very low bar for future administrations. Wonder how the rightwing will react when a future dem presdident uses a similar manuever and comes up with the "Bush did it" excuse?

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 2:00 PM:

Jake

Let's explore your paranoia about receiving pleasures from a member of the opposite sex. Did your mother dress you as a girl when you were a child?

Xman wrote on July 3, 2007 2:03 PM:

Quick! While Tony is all tied in a pretzel, someone throws cuffs on him for aiding and abetting!

mo2 wrote on July 3, 2007 2:03 PM:

Jake,
Why do you want to lose the war on terror so badly? Why do you desire to undermine the CIA during a war? Why do you hate our soldiers?

Jake and Osama sitting in a tree.
K I S S I N G

RW wrote on July 3, 2007 2:04 PM:

The issue is what Wilson stated, it now moves to a conspiracy of obstruction of justice. Libby got a quid pro quo...no jail time for your actions for the WH...money situation can be remedied and a final pardon takes care of the Felony.

Fine...up the ante...have the USA call Libby in front a Grand Jury and give him blanket immunity. Then seek indictments on the conspirators....

RW wrote on July 3, 2007 2:04 PM:

The issue is what Wilson stated, it now moves to a conspiracy of obstruction of justice. Libby got a quid pro quo...no jail time for your actions for the WH...money situation can be remedied and a final pardon takes care of the Felony.

Fine...up the ante...have the USA call Libby in front a Grand Jury and give him blanket immunity. Then seek indictments on the conspirators....

kjenn wrote on July 3, 2007 2:06 PM:

All the talking heads are bleating about Bush's show of "respect for the jury system".

This is a pointed distinction between juries and judges. I guess Bush has no respect for judges. Even those he appointed.

Terry wrote on July 3, 2007 2:11 PM:

The joy that you hear is not love of Libby, it's a cry of relief that "one of us" didn't have to be publicly seen going to jail.

Such a scene might have given lots of people lots of ideas.

mo2 wrote on July 3, 2007 2:12 PM:

I believe that Mark Rich was working as a double agent, possibly triple. Look at where he was going and who he was talking to and he seems to be a bit of a weapons proliferator. I think he gave the CIA information and that is why he was pardoned. And I don't think you and I will ever hear about it - treat as hush hush double top secret. Perhaps Valerie Plame could tell us more - but she won't because she isn't Dick.

Robert wrote on July 3, 2007 2:14 PM:

Trolls: Who wrote this?

"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own."

Who?

Who?

George W. Bush, A Charge To Keep, 1999.

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 2:16 PM:

Jake

You are suffering from severe delusions. There is no one on planet Earth who will defend Clinton for his pardon of Marc Rich.

There are a number of posters on this site who work in the theraputic area who might be able to assist you finding appropriate treatment before you hurt yourself.

Barry Champlain wrote on July 3, 2007 2:18 PM:

That's right. Tony makes it very clear that the Bush administration is "not going in and overthrowing the hard work and the verdict of a duly constituted jury."

That's called a "pardon".

Which will not be happening, until January of 2009.

At which time, Tony won't be available for comment.

~~~~

Look, these are extraordinary times. The Democratic leadership, to their credit, understands that the Bush administration is corrupt. To their shame, the Democratic leadership does NOT understand the nature of the enemy. And the enemy knows this, and is taking steps accordingly to seize this government for all time.

This is why Ms. Pelosi took impeachment "off the table". Bless her adorable little heart, the poor dear still thinks the bad guys are playing by pre-Rovian rules.

She's gonna do more than get slaughtered; we're going to lose the Republic completely. Because these people are playing a totally different game. A TOTALITARIAN-ly different game, if you will.

The last time something close to this happened, those who obstructed justice in the Nixon White House were sent to prison by a non-partisan Justice Department, and a bi-partisan Congress informed the president that he must be the first in history to resign.

This time, we have no such controls.

Therefore, what we need now is an EXTRAORDINARY Democratic Congress, of EXTRAORDINARY courage and boldness. NOT "business as usual", for this most assuredly is not.

A Congress that understands that our system is now one whole exit past the wrong fork of a fatal crossroad, and is willing to do whatever uncomfortable actions it may take to restore Constitutional democracy:

1. The first step is easy. Congress needs to halt all legislative cooperation with the Bush administration. Not ONE appointment confirmed. Not ONE bill passed.

If the R's threaten a filibuster on any WH-disapproved item... LET THEM. Let them use up all their batteries, effectively shutting down the business of Congress... because if they shut down Congress' legislative functions, the Bushies can't do any further damage;

2. Subpoenas need to be enforced by Congress, via a large, paramilitary body, marching on the White House (or wherever), and extracting those who would not comply. These players should then be jailed instantly for contempt of Congress;

3. The next step would be for members of Congress to strike some kind of temporary deal with (God help me for suggesting this) the military itself, to seize and detain any Federalist Society judicial plants, who might squelch subpoenas, free the above jailed lawbreakers, or overturn the rule of law, in the same vein as what Bush did yesterday.

This is less weird than it sounds. I recently predicted elsewhere that despite the solid foundation of the Libby verdict, and all its related decisions, ultimately the case would simply go in front of a "made" appeals court judge. He would then pull some faux legal reasoning out of his ass (see also the SCOTUS' interpretation of the exclusionary rule, 2000), and free Scooter Libby. I was dismissed at the time, by a famous Libby blogger, as being just plain wrong.

Well, I was wrong. The president did that yesterday, instead.

Again... the actions of this Congress must be historically EXTRAORDINARY, not just run-of-the-mill procedure, if we are to overcome what has shown itself to be nothing less than the gaming of our entire Republic.

Future generations of Americans would have a special rememberance of such a 21st century Congress as heroes, on the order of the Founding Fathers.

If all this seems too unhinged and radical to throw out onto the table... then you don't understand just how deeply the overthrow of our government by the Bush-Cheney cabal actually has taken place.

You will.

spinn wrote on July 3, 2007 2:18 PM:

Well sure, he didn't replace the jury's verdict.

Tom wrote on July 3, 2007 2:24 PM:

Marc Rich was never tried or convicted, so Clinton's pardon of him in no way showed disrespect of the jury system.

Suck it trolls.

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 3, 2007 2:26 PM:

Guys - don't bother responding to Jake. He's the 8 - 5 type if you know what I mean. He will not and cannot change, despite what demostrate, prove, or illustrate to him. He has nothing to offer beside the most standard Republican talking points and would certainly never understand a site that wasn't an echo chamber. Funny, there are rarely or never any Liberals that waste their time interrupting conservative blogs, yet there always got to be some on any Liberal blogs - kind of makes me wonder what they are afraid of.

Anyway, Jake is just here to get in the way of conversation. Don't respond or pay attention to him. Soon, he'll get tired of posting here (like he did at thinkprogress.org) and go somewhere else.

I like the utility of the comment section at TPM a lot - and I'd hate to see it turned into the shouting match that is always taking place at thinkprogress.org.

coltergeist wrote on July 3, 2007 2:35 PM:

I just don't remember all the details of the Marc Rich pardon, which I wasn't fond of, but they are not remotely similar. Rich was charged with tax evasion (sort of like the head of Tyco - on grander scale, Rich that is) and fled the country.

Rich made significant sums of money circumventing the oil embargo in place against Iran by using shell corporations/subsidiaries to buy cheap oil from Iran and subsequently sell it back to US oil companies. So he violated the spirit of an oil embargo against a terrorist nation, sort of like Halliburton violated an oil embargo to sell oil production equipment to a terrorist nation, I think it was, oh wait, it was Iran. Who represented Rich? Scooter Libby did. Do you see the connection? Wealthy businessman figures out a way to circumvent the law to make money illegally or at least unethically, is represented by Scooter Libby. Halliburton, run by Cheney figures out a way to circumvent the law to make money illegally or at least unethically and when Cheney becomes VP he picks Scooter Libby to be his chief of staff. Did Cheney and Scooter learn from Rich or did Rich learn from Libby and Cheney.

Also about the pardon, the pardon itself was contingent on Rich paying $US 100 million dollars in fines to the US Government, essentially paying his back taxes. He also was a huge benefactor to Israel, so he has many supporters and fans in the neocon crowd. He also contributed to Hillary's sentatorial campaign. If Clinton didn't pardon him, I am sure Bush would have.

Libby represented rich people (no pun intended) and obstructed justice. He should have gotten more time than that poor schmo Pena that got 33 months for the same crime (former US military service in Vietnam and Iraq).

spinn wrote on July 3, 2007 2:38 PM:

You know, instead of calling to ignore Jake, I'd rather there were a call to respond to him reasonably. The insults really don't represent us well.

coltergeist wrote on July 3, 2007 2:38 PM:

Oh and this shows respect for the jury system? How about the members of the jury that had to sit through this intolerable clusterF. How does that respect their service?

StephenH wrote on July 3, 2007 2:43 PM:

overturning the court's decision for your friend = respect for the jury system.

More of the 'do one thing and then shamelssly lie about it and spin it the opposite way' that's been the hallmark of this criminal administration from the start, and which makes them the sociopaths that they all are.

StephenH wrote on July 3, 2007 2:45 PM:

overturning the court's decision for your friend = respect for the jury system.

More of the 'do one thing and then shamelssly lie about it and spin it the opposite way' that's been the hallmark of this criminal administration from the start, and which makes all of them the sociopaths that they are.

David Bank wrote on July 3, 2007 2:46 PM:

Two Libby thoughts:

--Wonder why no one has made more of Bush’s Sept. 30, 2003 quote: "...And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

Looks like he has made good on his promise!

--How much time did Judith Miller spend in federal prison protecting Scooter Libby? If Bush had implemented his "no jail time" policy earlier it could have saved everyone the trouble.

spinn wrote on July 3, 2007 2:51 PM:

Look, if this helps the "but Clinton did X" crowd to understand the point, imagine this happened instead:

Starr has an investigation, asks Lewinsky questions, later it's found she lies about a lot. Because of her perjury, and her unwillingness to admit she did anything wrong, no convictions can be brought. She's found guilty of perjury, but Starr says he can't go any farther because justice was obstructed. She gets sentenced to jail, and then Clinton commutes her sentence.

If that had happened, that'd be much closer to what happened here. Otherwise it's just not a reaosnable comparison.

steve wrote on July 3, 2007 2:52 PM:

Marc Rich deserved a pardon.

George Bush did exactly the same thing as Rich.
During the Windfall Profits Tax both "swapped" Domestic oil (with a price cap) for Imported oil (no price cap) which were in the same tank at the refinery.

The IRS gave up on treating this as a shelter after they found out how many oil companies were doing it.

Rich was unlucky, Bus was connected.

JA wrote on July 3, 2007 2:58 PM:

Since a pardon is still on the table, does that mean one day the jury's decision won't be respected anymore?

jason wrote on July 3, 2007 2:58 PM:

Jake - you are an idiot to bring up Rich... his lawyer WAS Scooter! BAHAHAHA.

St. Augustine wrote on July 3, 2007 2:58 PM:

Slim Pickin's

I suggest that when responding to Jake's posts thst you refer to him in the 3rd person while speaking to someone else.

You know Slim. we will probably see more assholes like Jake here and elsewhere while they gloat. Remember though, this is a chess match. Bush may have made what he (Cheney) thinks is a brilliant move, but I don't agree.

Erin Medlicott wrote on July 3, 2007 3:00 PM:

July 3: Today Democratic presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden (D-DE)issued the following statement in response to statements made by
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow:

"Tony Snow said that President Bush decided to commute Scooter Libby's two and a half year-prison sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice, because it was 'excessive.'

"Yet last year the Bush Administration filed a "friend-of-the-court brief" with the Supreme Court, in an attempt to uphold a lower court's ruling that a 33-month prison sentence for Victor Rita, who was convicted of the same exact charges, perjury and obstruction of justice, was 'reasonable.'

"The questions we should all be asking ourselves today are: Why is the President flip-flopping on these criminal justice decisions? Why is Scooter Libby getting special treatment?"

"George Bush's disregard for the rule of law is truly unbecoming a President," Sen. Biden stated. "I'm calling on every American to
flood the White House this week with phone calls, and say to the President:

"In 2000, when you ran for President, you promised to 'uphold the honor and dignity' of the office of President of the United States --
WE'RE STILL WAITING.'"

Call the White House: 202-456-1414.

Halgrim wrote on July 3, 2007 3:00 PM:

This is indeed cronyism in its rawest form, lay bare for all to see. The arguments they've given are fallacious and intellectually insulting.

I would've respected GWB more had he simply said:
"Libby is a close friend whom I don't want to see serve any prison time." At least then it would've been honest.

However we can't expect honesty from this administration. I think the breathless responses by people on this board and the Democrats themselves are a bit disingenuous. I mean, really...what else did we all expect?

The groundswell must build from the people to give the Democrats the political will to push for reigning in this administration. Too many moderates are afraid to be associated with MoveOn to take a hardline. That's why the Democrats have appeared completely gutless. It's not that Reid and Pelosi don't want to do it, it's that they don't have the support they need in Congress.

But the people support them in overwhelming numbers. It's the gutless so-called moderates that need to be pushed harder, not Pelosi and Reid. You all know how to do that:

Vote
Call
Write
Post

Get it done, people.

nofltwlt wrote on July 3, 2007 3:06 PM:

George Bush, our new O.J. Simpson!

To this day everyone knows that O.J. was guilty. From this day on everyone will know Bush is guilty.

Guilty of what? Guilty of everything that he has turned bad in our country.

I just hope that the Dems go after all of these guys when the GOP is swept out of office in 2008.

jimbo92107 wrote on July 3, 2007 6:25 PM:

Oh, and about that $250 thousand dollar fine. If the entire fine is paid by donations from Libby's rich friends, then how is that punishing Libby? It's more like a kumbayah, circle hug fund raising opportunity.

Code: loss, as is loss of even more respect for America's system of government.

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 6:59 PM:

Same as the "fine" Bill Clinton got as part of his plea bargain for perjury / obstruction of justice.

chuck wrote on July 3, 2007 7:28 PM:

Reminder: "A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 7:37 PM:

Reminder: calls for armed rebellion are against federal law.

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 7:39 PM:

Also, I doubt the definition of a "Tyrant" includes leaving said office on January 20, 2009.

johnnydoughey wrote on July 3, 2007 8:38 PM:

One things for sure...
We will be killing electrons forever discussing the travesty of presidential commutations and pardons if we don't get guarantees from ALL the candidates that their very 1st act if elected will be to get rid of this get out of jail free card for the incumbant.

Yea right...
I won't hold my breath either...

Chuck wrote on July 3, 2007 8:50 PM:

It seems Jake is unfamiliar with the quote I provided, which, by the way, was not addressed to him or intended as any response to him. Bad case of rabbit ears. But let's just keep that our little secret as to the authorship.

matt rose wrote on July 4, 2007 11:49 AM:

Libby's only crime was putting loyalty to Dick Cheney above loyalty to the American People, loyalty to the security of America, loyalty to the truth, and observance of the law.

Come on people. Who would chose Truth, Justice, and the American way over loyalty to Dick Cheney?

matt rose wrote on July 4, 2007 12:16 PM:

Libby's only crime is that he chose loyalty to Dick Cheney over loyalty to Truth, Justice, and the American People.

You have to agree with George W Bush in one respect: do the American People really deserve any loyalty after this put this President in office.

President Bush just repeated for the American people Dick Cheney's words to Patrick Lehey.

George W Bush to the American People, "On this celebration of the birth of our nation, To those Americans who respect honesty I humbley ask you to go f*** yourself."

disgusted wrote on July 5, 2007 3:24 AM:

Barry Champlain's post is the most pertinent on this page. Everyone please read it, he is exactly correct. Bush almost certainly intends to declare martial law and suspend our Constitution and the next election. He's got to be stopped or America goes down the tubes, probably forever.

J Fais wrote on July 15, 2007 2:43 AM:

Why does Bush hold the American justice system in such contempt?This is a stupid question!"The Pussy" Bush thinks he is above the law as he has continually shown,since his fraudulent reelection(remember the voting machine"problem" in Florida?)He deserves nothing less than IMPEACHMENT,with a lengthy sentence in a Florida state prison...such as Raiford to start the "rehabilitation" process needed in his case.What a fitting end to a real Unamerican SCUMBAG!

J Fais wrote on July 15, 2007 2:44 AM:

Why does Bush hold the American justice system in such contempt?This is a stupid question!"The Pussy" Bush thinks he is above the law as he has continually shown,since his fraudulent reelection(remember the voting machine"problem" in Florida?)He deserves nothing less than IMPEACHMENT,with a lengthy sentence in a Florida state prison...such as Raiford to start the "rehabilitation" process needed in his case.What a fitting end to a real Unamerican SCUMBAG!