Comments (65)

Woodhall Hollow wrote on July 3, 2007 6:02 PM:

Confusion reigns in the land! Even Walton is flummoxed.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CIA-Leak-Confusion.html

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 6:05 PM:

The President is NOT flip-flopping. A couple more significant differences (besides the fact that Rita had previously been convicted of a similar crime, as if that weren't enough) are that Libby was being punished as a political vendetta, when Joe Wilson should have been the one prosecuted instead, and Libby had hundreds of upstanding individuals from across the political and social spectrum write letters and attest to his good character and public service.

Woodhall Hollow wrote on July 3, 2007 6:05 PM:

OK trying once again (this site has the funkiest comment software ever!)

Confusion reigns in the land. Even Reggie is flummoxed by the president's action.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CIA-Leak-Confusion.html

Woodhall Hollow wrote on July 3, 2007 6:07 PM:

Are the comments broken? Why aren't they turning up?

Speaking of which, can't you guys fix this beast?

Code word: pull. Commenting here is like pulling teeth.

jak1 wrote on July 3, 2007 6:08 PM:

Don Siegelman's lawyers are fighting a losing battle there. They are the law.

And Ann Coulter also doesn't know why the Edwards can't take a joke. Many she could go on the Imus show and talk about it. Now that Adam Carrolla hung up on her.

>>"Scooter has dedicated much of his life to public service at the State Department, the Department of Defense and the White House. In each of these assignments he has served the nation tirelessly and with great distinction. I have always considered him to be a man of the highest intellect, judgment and personal integrity -- a man fully committed to protecting the vital security interests of the United States and its citizens. Scooter is also a friend, and on a personal level Lynne and I remain deeply saddened by this tragedy and its effect on his wife, Harriet, and their young children. The defense has indicated it plans to appeal the conviction in the case. Speaking as friends, we hope that our system will return a final result consistent with what we know of this fine man."<<

OtisIsHungry wrote on July 3, 2007 6:13 PM:

I AM a lawyer and I think we should all publicly characterize this commutation as an opportunity to reflect on the excessive and overly severe sentences which are deemed "reasonable' by Federal courts everyday in cases large and small, BUT. . . The "beauty" of the commutation is that it allows Scooter's appeal to proceed and therefore I would argue that Scooter retains his 5th Amendment privilege, even in the face of a subpoena now. I just watched the insufferable Tucker Carlson on Hardball screaming that there
was no reason "not to pardon" Scooter, as opposed to "commute" his prison sentence. But it seeems pretty clear to me as a matter of law that a full pardon would be found to supplant his 5th Amendment privilege to remain silent when subpoenaed, while a commutation wouldn't, and that makes all the difference in the world.
. . to Rove, Cheney and Bush! "Omerta. It's Not Just For Mafia Anymore!"

OtisIsHungry wrote on July 3, 2007 6:14 PM:

I AM a lawyer and I think we should all publicly characterize this commutation as an opportunity to reflect on the excessive and overly severe sentences which are deemed "reasonable' by Federal courts everyday in cases large and small, BUT. . . The "beauty" of the commutation is that it allows Scooter's appeal to proceed and therefore I would argue that Scooter retains his 5th Amendment privilege, even in the face of a subpoena now. I just watched the insufferable Tucker Carlson on Hardball screaming that there
was no reason "not to pardon" Scooter, as opposed to "commute" his prison sentence. But it seeems pretty clear to me as a matter of law that a full pardon would be found to supplant his 5th Amendment privilege to remain silent when subpoenaed, while a commutation wouldn't, and that makes all the difference in the world.
. . to Rove, Cheney and Bush! "Omerta. It's Not Just For Mafia Anymore!"

Anon A. Mouse wrote on July 3, 2007 6:18 PM:

You're late to the party on this comparison between Rita and Libby. See http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/07/senator-biden-p.html
for the best discussion of the parallels between the two cases.

tekel wrote on July 3, 2007 6:34 PM:

thanks anon, you beat me to it. Prof. Berman is the authority on Rita sentencing issues- even the WSJ lawblog cited him today, and I linked him heavily in the wrap up I wrote this morning.

And the comments here are VERY slow lately- but they do take on the first try, usually no need to repost.

Victims of your own success?

garth wrote on July 3, 2007 6:48 PM:

Jake: you're kidding right? whatever the GOP-appointed special investigator and the Bush-appointed judge (both obviously liberals) did, it wasn't political. it was prosecuting a crime. it's a crime in this country to lie under oath. calling it a political vendetta (by whom? against whom?) is just dishonest in the extreme, or willfully stupid. I had to go re-read your post to see if I was missing snark, but you seem sincere. If so, you're a liar or a fool.

SPENCER ADAMS wrote on July 3, 2007 7:01 PM:

I'm not a lawyer, but I have a couple of questions:
This commutation was pretty fast, hours in fact. Did everyone go thru the process correctly? Did anyone question the Pardon Attorney?
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clemency.htm

mo2 wrote on July 3, 2007 7:36 PM:

This is the only idea I have seen put forward, copied from a thread below:

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....

David Eoll wrote on July 3, 2007 8:17 PM:

"Libby was being punished as a political vendetta"

Political vendetta? By whom? Name a single Democrat who was within a 100 yards of the investigation or the prosecution. Are you really claiming it was a political witch-hunt by Republicans against other Republicans? Sorry, that just doesn't pass the sniff test.

If Joe Wilson did something wrong, then why isn't he the one being prosecuted by -->BUSH's<-- DoJ?

darclay wrote on July 3, 2007 9:18 PM:

After watching Bush several times talk about his reasoning he blinked so many times it was scary...he was lying through his teeth, any investigator worth his salt will tell you when you blink excessively is not telling the truth, like we did not already know that.

Archibald wrote on July 3, 2007 10:33 PM:

Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people.

jonlorenz wrote on July 3, 2007 11:41 PM:

Loved Jake's emotion and shameless specious argument regarding Rita. Rita was a highly decorated veteran who served in two wars. Haven't yet seen proof of a conviction on similar charges, but that is immaterial regarding the appeal that came before the Supremes and sentencing guidelines. Libby lied to a grand jury and the FBI. His account differs from nine other people who testified.
Jake must be drinking the same Kool Aid Ann Coulter has been trying to hand out over Wilson. Where is his indictment?

Squeeky wrote on July 4, 2007 12:22 AM:

i know these code words must be from the gag machine,.... "poison" as in "Bush is poisoning democracy."

Since the little turd is NOT going to go to jail, it is time to grant him full immunity, then put him in the hot seat again and ask him all the same questions in front of Congress and God. Let him lie again... Bush won't be around to grant him immunity when the case comes around again.

JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 6:49 AM:

"The President is NOT flip-flopping."

Actually he is: in every instance prior to this he's been a hard-assed "law-and-order" advocate who smirked at a pleas for mercy from a Born Again Christian woman. He has never been lenient -- before now; he has invariably been for ever-mor-harsh sentences.

"A couple more significant differences (besides the fact that Rita had previously been convicted of a similar crime, as if that weren't enough) are that Libby was being punished as a political vendetta, . . . ."

"[P]olitical vendetta"? A non-partisan -- non-partisan -- jury convicted Libby based upon the evidence, which evidence was -- as said REPUBLICAN Judge Walton -- "overwhelming".

That evidence was NOT of "political vendetta," liar.

". . . when Joe Wilson should have been the one prosecuted instead, . . . ."

Exactly: REPUBLICAN Joe Wilson should have been prosecuted for refuting the knowingly-false claims made based upon the "Niger documents" which were known to be forgeries before Bushit used those "sixteen words" in his State of the Union speech.

". . . and Libby had hundreds of upstanding individuals from across the political and social spectrum write letters and attest to his good character and public service."

None of which mitigates his guilt and conviction. And none of which supporters are "upstanding," unless they make it a matter of habit to do the same for every "first offense" person convicted -- a point well made to those who submitted the _Amicus_ brief which, as Walton said, wasn't worthy of a first year law student.

"Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 6:05 PM"

The reasons Bushit supported the sentencing of Rita, but contrarily commuted Libby's jail-time are obvious: Rita, unlike chickenhawk Libby, actually served in the military, therefore is a sucker deserving of contempt; and Rita, unlike Libby, is likely not white, and doubtless not Jewish.

Even though Libby did successfully lobby Clinton for the (partial) pardon for Republican-hated [but only because pardoned by Clinton] Israel first! Marc Rich.

Buck wrote on July 4, 2007 7:30 AM:

Maybe this is elementary and I'm missing something, but doesn't the law require a defendant to truthfully answer all questions that his probation agent might have. Which might conflict with Libby's fifth amendment claim, and it might not. Perhaps the law might state that Libby is required to answer his probation agent's questions, but that anything he might say to the probation agent is privileged in some form of another. I'll admit it's been a while since I was familiar with this kind of thing and it might have changed.

I think that Walton wanting to revisit the Libby sentence because of the issue of supervised release is quite intriguing. If Walton got really crafty here, things could get interesting still yet.

JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 8:53 AM:

". . . and Libby had hundreds of upstanding individuals from across the political and social spectrum write letters and attest to his good character and public service."

A liar who has no regard for law, ethics, or morality -- in simpler terms, differences between right and wrong -- would see a person convicted, beyond a shadow of a doubt, by a non-partisan jury of his peers, of repeatedly lying, to be a person of "good character". Such a liar is apparently seeking validation for his own ignoring of his own guilty conscience for being a knowing and deliberate liar against law and facts, truth and reality, and others not present to defend themselves.

Right, "Jake"?

SC = meat. As in, If you don't want to continue to be meat meeting meat-grinder, repeatedly flayed and autopsied, "Jake," disappear forthwith.

Tom Simon wrote on July 4, 2007 9:10 AM:

Save the outrage for bigger matters. The real issue is what is being hidden by Chaney in secret files. I believe the real issue will be found to be war profiteering. If access to records can be gained.

John D. wrote on July 4, 2007 9:16 AM:

Libby will be pardoned eventually, and he's already been promised it. If Libby gets a new trial on appeal, then he could be sentenced all over again, when President Obama is in office. He would drop the appeal and lock in the no-prison time if there were any risk of that.

JMOHR wrote on July 4, 2007 12:05 PM:

Jake's comments reflect the political mantra generated by the Republican party and conservative right wingers from the beginning of the case. So Jake provide us with some concrete factual basis for believing that the prosecution was political in nature or a vendetta. If you can only parrot the lines that you have heard on FOX News and from the mouth of right wing pundits, then I suggest that you have no business commenting. Jake, defending the liberty and laws of this nation is serious business. Taking part in the political discussion of important issues deserves someone who has intellectual curiosity, a belief that facts should guide our decisions and that one should think before opening one's mouth. You just do not seem to fill the criteria.

Now, I believe that the prosecution was not politically based. My reasons are as follow:

1. The special prosecutor (Fitzgerald) was selected by Mr. Comey within the Justice Department. Both gentlemen were life long Republicans, conservative and had good reputations within both parties.

2. Fitzgerald conducted his investigation in the best tradition by being impartial. As compared to some obviously political investigations in the past: Fitzgerald did not leak information to the press, did not create an ever widening scope of the investigation, strictly maintained the secrecy of the investigation. Indeed, Fitzgerald refused to testify before Congress contrary to what a publicity seeking, out-of-control prosecutor would have done to further his political aims.

3. Judge Walton had the full ability to set aside any over reaching by the prosecution in its case. Judge Walton was a conservative Republican appointed to the bench by none other than President Bush. Nothing in his actions indicated a bias in one direction or the other.

4. The jury was bipartisan and found the facts based on the evidence provided to them.

5. The appellate panel that rejected the appeal bond issue consisted of two Republican and one Democratic appointed judges. They found no merit to the issues presented sufficient to justify a stay in the sentence. Their decision was unanimous.

6. The only vendetta that could have existed was within the CIA against the President and Vice President. First, we have failed to see any evidence that the case was referred to the Department of Justice to further such a vendetta. However, one can understand the desire of the CIA to maintain the secrecy of the identity of its covert operatives and cover companies. Indeed, Bush has threatened the press a number of times with criminal prosecution for revealing state secrets. Besides, the special prosecutor and the judge in this case were certainly in a position to expose and deal with any false accusations based on vendetta.

7. The Bush White House did have a political motive to discourage the prosecution Bush went from stating that he would fire whoever disclosed the identity (note not requirement that the action had been taken with malice) to taking action against any who broke the law, to we will not comment because of the pending case (unless it is to say good things about those under investigation). The case posed a threat to a presidency already suffering from numerous other scandals and already suffering in terms of its credibility to the public.

JTyroler wrote on July 4, 2007 1:22 PM:

The arguments about Libby being an upstanding citizen prior to committing perjury and obstruction of justice is similar to saying that Charles Whitman was an upstanding person before killing his mother, wife, and shooting several people from the University of Texas tower. Other seemingly "upstanding citizens" have included John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy. They were nice guys too until they started committing felonies...

Jake the troll wrote on July 4, 2007 1:49 PM:

JMOHR, I don't care about your facts. Sean Hannity and Rush and Ann Coulter tell me differently. LA LA LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING!!!

Tamar wrote on July 4, 2007 2:03 PM:

To JNagarya --
What does any of this have to do with being (or not being) Jewish? I guess bigots just have to bring their bigotry into every discussion. Ruins your otherwise insightful comments.

JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 2:07 PM:

The arguments about Libby being an upstanding citizen prior to committing perjury and obstruction of justice is similar to saying that Charles Whitman was an upstanding person before killing his mother, wife, and shooting several people from the University of Texas tower. Other seemingly "upstanding citizens" have included John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy. They were nice guys too until they started committing felonies...

Posted by: JTyroler
Date: July 4, 2007 1:22 PM

You left out "Jake"'s favorite American after Bushit: Tim McVeigh.

SC = idea. As in, As it's eaier to believe than it is to think, "Jake" wouldn't accept an idea even if offered to "him" for free.

Steve5117 wrote on July 4, 2007 2:27 PM:

JNagarya:

In response to Jake the troll Date: July 4, 2007 1:49 PM it almost sounds like a response from GWB himself. Can't you just hear Dubwa going (ala Jon Stewart) hee hee hee, I've got them liberals fooled again, and I getten to say them talking points Dick taught me.

On a scale of 0-200, both Jake and Bush are 83, pretty smart fellows don't you think?

Steve5117 wrote on July 4, 2007 2:36 PM:

Warning...

"Frebnedzo" is posting a URL: http://www.tiny.cc/kHrXH

My firewall is warning of a virus there.

lbr wrote on July 4, 2007 3:46 PM:

"and Rita, unlike Libby, is likely not white, and doubtless not Jewish."

JNagarya, I bet your post was fantastic in the original German.

I find the insinuation that Libby got special treatment because he was a Jew both silly and revolting. What gives? Hardly anyone in public life in this country can open their mouth without yapping about their love for Jesus. This is especially true of the President. We just went through a scandal that illustrated that our justice department is now crawling with fundamentalist Christians with dubious credentials. So what's with the suggestion that our country is run by and for Jews? As a Jew and a progressive, I can tell you it gets tiresome hearing "cabalist/zionist" insinuation from the left, even as the country drifts further toward having a government run by and for evangelical christians.

Frankly, I think the anti-zionist, anti-semitic rhetoric are a way for Christian liberals to deflect some responsibility for, or at least identification with, their more conservative brethren.

And while we're at it, lefties, don't blame the Jews for the fundamentalists' obsession with Israel. As Michael Kinsley illustrated with a good article about Pat Robertson (you can find a link on last week's plank, I think), it is entirely possible to be pro-Israel and anti-Semitic.

Jake wrote on July 4, 2007 4:31 PM:

Fine, JNagarya, you keep "believing" that my favorite American is Tim McVeigh and that I was upset about Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, even though I've never posted either of those "facts".

Jake wrote on July 4, 2007 4:33 PM:

Tamar and 1br:

I wouldn't bother with JNagarya anymore.

Kelvin Phillips wrote on July 4, 2007 4:38 PM:

All of which detracts from the main point; Libby seems to have cut a deal with Bush to keep from having to talk about what he really knew about the leaking of a CIA agents name. To me this is at least grounds to at least start looking at impeachment, not "take it off the table".

Jake wrote on July 4, 2007 5:39 PM:

JNagarya also "believes" that Clinton was charged -- and acquitted -- in the higher court that is Congress -- the higher court which establishes, and eliminates, all other courts except the SC. Therefore, I guess Clinton never entered that plea bargain to avoid a further indictment.

JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 6:43 PM:

"and Rita, unlike Libby, is likely not white, and doubtless not Jewish."

"JNagarya, I bet your post was fantastic in the original German."

You don't insinuate; but you do "revolt" --

"I find the insinuation that Libby got special treatment because he was a Jew both silly and revolting."

I'm a Jew. Would you have a better insight into Israel-can-do-no-wrong bigots than a Jew?

Others point to the same fact about Dershowitz: "Liberal" on everything except the JDL, and Israel-firsters. He both condemns the unconstitutional election theft of 2000 by Bushit, et al., and backs Bushit, et al., on torture. Torture is only a war crime, ya see, when done to -- but not by -- Israeli Jews to Paestinains, and the US to non-Jeiwsh Semites/Arabs.

"What gives?"

"What gives" is that you act out of knee-jerk presumption, instead of listening so as first to get the facts. See above.

"Hardly anyone in public life in this country can open their mouth without yapping about their love for Jesus."

Got me wrong there. Jesus was a Jew. Anti-Semites/right-wing fundamentalist "pro"-Israel Christians are anti-Semites. And to top it off, the "Bible," written by Jews, was a book of Jewish history -- until a bunch of "bible"-less non-Jews stole it and lied it into something it wasn't: a "holy" book.

"This is especially true of the President."

Yep.

"We just went through a scandal that illustrated that our justice department is now crawling with fundamentalist Christians with dubious credentials. So what's with the suggestion that our country is run by and for Jews?"

I made no such suggestion. I said straight out what I mean. You didn't know that both neo-cons and fundamentalist pseudo-Christians are Israel-firsters -- even though the non-Jewish of them are anti-Semites?

"As a Jew and a progressive, I can tell you it gets tiresome hearing "cabalist/zionist" insinuation from the left, even as the country drifts further toward having a government run by and for evangelical christians."

Neo-con[artists]/Zionists. They are collaborationists with fundamentalists Christians -- which latter are Israel-first/anti-Semites.

"Frankly, I think the anti-zionist, anti-semitic rhetoric are a way for Christian liberals to deflect some responsibility for, or at least identification with, their more conservative brethren."

Got it wrong about the person at this keyboard. See above.

"And while we're at it, lefties, don't blame the Jews for the fundamentalists' obsession with Israel. As Michael Kinsley illustrated with a good article about Pat Robertson (you can find a link on last week's plank, I think), it is entirely possible to be pro-Israel and anti-Semitic."

Exactly as I said -- and before I read the paragraph immediately above. Who is using who is the only question; but both the "Christian" fundamentalists and the neo-con[artsits] are Israel-firsters.

I also note that the Askenazi Jews -- most being not from Europe but from the US -- are bigotted against non-Askinazi Jews. So let's stop pretending that every ethnic group except Jews is capable of bigotry -- even against their own kind.

"Posted by: lbr
Date: July 4, 2007 3:46 PM"

Got it yet?

JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 6:53 PM:

To JNagarya --
What does any of this have to do with being (or not being) Jewish? I guess bigots just have to bring their bigotry into every discussion. Ruins your otherwise insightful comments.

Posted by: Tamar
Date: July 4, 2007 2:03 PM

Us Jews have insight into an otherwise "Liberal" Dershowitz defending extremist right-wing JDL, and other Isreal-firsters, while giving the appearance of being "Liberal".

Hitler indulged in torture, against -- as example -- Jews. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an ethical principle common to all religions, but known to us in the US from the Judaic. From the constant rhetoric -- that the Jews were victim of the Nazis -- one would think the rhetoric was sincerely meant. But: Should an ethical Jew therefore defend and rationalize torture? Dershowitz does -- Israel tortures Palestinians; if the US lowers itself to that morally depraved level, then it can't without being a hypocrite criticize Israel for doing it. It's a good bet the US will instead join Israel in denying its imposition of and yet defending that war crime.

You could say I know the meaning of the term "hypocrite". And you could say I'm uncomplicatedly honest in that I will criticize wrongdoing even by "my" "own" people.

Want to end bigotry? Begin with that in oneself.

SC = hope. As in, 'Nuff said.

lbr wrote on July 4, 2007 6:59 PM:

JNagarya
I’m glad you cleared some of that up. I still think that it is sloppy at best—for a Jew or a gentile—to suggest that Libby got special treatment from Bush because he is a Jew. Whether you said so explicitly or not, this kind of argument feeds the canard that a neo-con cabal of Jews are in power, and has dragged us off to war. Cindy Sheehan, for example, was fond of that kind of rhetoric, and it’s poisonous. It’s also ridiculous, given that the neocons are a drop in a large, evangelical bucket. I know that Perle, Adelman, et al are Jews, but the idea that they held sway over the roiling mass of Christians who run this country is just incomprehensible.

JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 7:08 PM:

Fine, JNagarya, you keep "believing" that my favorite American is Tim McVeigh and that I was upset about Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, even though I've never posted either of those "facts".

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 4, 2007 4:31 PM

Tim McVeigh was a white supremacist and neo-Nazi who opposed our system of laws. Your reduction of everything to "politics" in order to ignore and negate the existence of law has the same goal: eliminating the rights of all who have views different than the party you put before Constitution, rule of law, and even the survival of your country.

I'm not being "funny" whan I directly ask, to your lying anti-American face: why do you hate America? In some degree I am bewing rhetorical, because I know why you hate America: it isn't that you want it to be: a one-party dictatorship.

You are the enemy of truth -- and thus of the rule of law -- as demonstrated every time you lie against it, and avoid it, and pretend your lying, and being a liar, are morally superior to those you lie against as not having any morals.

You know you fool no one. But you also assume that if you can hold out and lie long enough, you can outrun the truth. In that fallacy is embodied your delusion that imperfect finite mortality can achieve an Aryan perfection. You will fail. I have no problem with you fialing -- with your being a failure; my objection is to the damage you do to everyone else who wants no part of your self-hatred, and your projection of that onto the world as destructive of all that with which you refuse to comply: reality, and rule of law.

Whether you realize it or not, you endeavor to advance totalitarianism. By contrast, justice is not all about "winning," even if that means trashing justice. And yet you trash justice at every turn, without exception: you lie against those who aren't "Republicans" and "conservatives" as being criminal when you know they are not; and you lie for those who are "republicans" and "conservatives" as not being criminals even when you know they are. And you do that by insisting everything is only "politics" and thereby endeavoring to enforce the lie that law doesn't exist. "Everybody does it" is your excuse for being the only one's who do it.

SC = rule. As in, Your only rule is that the only times rules matter are when they are to your advantage, or to someone else's disadvantage. And you grease that sociopathic vision with constant self-serving lying.

You fool no one. Not even yourself.

JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 7:16 PM:

Tamar and 1br:

I wouldn't bother with JNagarya anymore.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 4, 2007 4:33 PM

Except that you do, liar.

And no matter what problems "Tamar" and "lbr" perceive they have with me -- that will be cured -- they are not going to join you in your anti-Americanism.

Note also, "Jake," that I don't talk sideways -- snidely -- against another. Rather, I direct my comments directly to the person which my comments concern. So, "Jake," I don't ask others to call you a liar so I don't have to: I call you a liar, and point out specifically that and how you are a liar.

My only "invitation" to inclusion of others in the discussion is to state the fact that you fool no one.

SC = shame. As in, Shame is an unpleasant feeling suffered by those with a conscience about their own behaviors. "Jake" so far has no sense of shame because he rejects conscience in preference for his hateful, deceitful anti-Americanism.

Torture is a war crime, even when Bushit does it. And it cannot be made legal, not even with "signing statements".

JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 7:28 PM:

JNagarya also "believes" that Clinton was charged -- and acquitted -- in the higher court that is Congress -- the higher court which establishes, and eliminates, all other courts except the SC. Therefore, I guess Clinton never entered that plea bargain to avoid a further indictment.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 4, 2007 5:39 PM

Read the Constitution: Congress is empowered thereby to establish the courts -- the SC itself being the only court established by the Constitution.

In addition to whih, ours being a "mixed" gov't, the Congress also has investigatory and prosecutorial authority -- up to and including impeachment.

As for your out-of-context recitation of the lies from the right-wing against Clinton -- who is not the subject of this thread -- I'll leave it to someone else to shove the actual facts down your hateful, lying, off-topic smear-mongering face, all in effort to avoid dealing with the issue: Libby's conviction by a non-partisan jury of his peers of four felonies, and Bushit's "unorthodox" interference in and subversion of the due process of law owed not only to Libby but also to We the people, for which the gov't is Constitutionally to be the servant, not the boss and bully.

Meanwhile, as we've invariably seen, you will continue to bash such as Clinton for alleged wrongdoing in transparently false pretense that you are about right and wrong, morality, in dishonest effort to distract from the fact that Libby was convicted based upon overwhelming evidence of violating the law and by that means undermining national security. A blow job is not illegal. and not treason. Undermining national security is treason. You're pretended morally superior concern with a blow job, and pressing the lie that a non-illegal blow job is more a threat to the rule of law and the Republic than is illegal treason is transparently and unequivocally immoral.

In a word, as everyone -- including you -- knows, you're a liar, a liar, and a liar. And as there are two forms of lying (and a mix of the two) -- lying by omission -- withholding a known truth -- and commission -- telling a known falsehood -- you are a liar at least as much when your lips aren't moving.

JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 7:58 PM:

"JNagarya

"I’m glad you cleared some of that up. I still think that it is sloppy at best—for a Jew or a gentile—to suggest that Libby got special treatment from Bush because he is a Jew."

I neither said not suggested that Bushit gave Libby special treatment because a Jew. I did name Dershowitz, erstwhile "Liberal," presenting the most bogus of defenses of Israel-first Jew Libby -- entirely bogus: according to him, Libby being convicted, and his appeal being denied, was all "politics". Everyone involved, except for the non-partisan jury, and the unaffiliated Fitzgerald, was a Republican -- from DOJ who appointed Fitzgerald, to trial judge, to two-thirds of the unanimous vote against Libby's appeal, to Bushit and all those who lied for Libby against law and facts and evidence. Yet Dershowitz would have us believe that Republicans screwed Republican Libby. And if pushed, Dershowitz would toss in "anti-Semitism" against Libby in effort to intimidate those who refuse to back off from telling the truth.

"Whether you said so explicitly or not, this kind of argument feeds the canard that a neo-con cabal of Jews are in power, and has dragged us off to war."

Part of the "cabal" who dragged us off to war is Israel-first Jews. To deny the truth, or any part of it, makes one complicit in that and their other crimes.

"Cindy Sheehan, for example, was fond of that kind of rhetoric, and it’s poisonous."

Bushit, et al., are poisonous. Cindy Sheehan is a passing phenomenon. Keep your focus on the perpetrators, without regard for whether they are Jewish or Gentile: they are criminals.

"It’s also ridiculous, given that the neocons are a drop in a large, evangelical bucket. I know that Perle, Adelman, et al are Jews, but the idea that they held sway over the roiling mass of Christians who run this country is just incomprehensible."

It isn't incomprehensible, when one looks at the facts, and where those persons and other Jewish neo-con[artists] were positioned. Sure: they had their non-Jewish Israel-first collaborators -- I don't think Cheney is Jewish. But I don't buy the idea that they are incompetent or inept: the chaos in Iraq serves to keep the Arabs preoccupied, thus not able to -- the paranoids' fear -- "organize" against Israel. There does come a point, ya know, when those who engage in human rights violations must be held accountable for that -- even when they are Israeli Jews and their enablers within the US. Is it "poisonous" to state that fact?

For those who engage in human rights violations, war crimes, I hope so, without the bigotries which would endeavor to deflect attention from those who commit such crimes simply because they are of a particular ethnoreligionut group. I'm not a supremacist; _ergo_, I don't buy that Jews can do no wrong, even without the involvement of non-Jews. Palestine is a hell-hole as result of Israel provoking self-defense they then lie as being "terrorism" as an excuse to "clear the land" of "Greater Israel" of non-Jews by means of rationalized genocide.

Jews, Israelis, are no different than any other humans, and thus are capable of all the same behaviors as non-Jewish humans -- including the most heinous. Israel's highest court has held that torture is unacceptable -- because torture was being imposed by Israel. And the Israeli gov't chose to ignore that holding. Ugly truth? Yes. Truth nonetheless? Yes.

Bigotry? Within Israel, there are three "classes" of Jews -- the most despised by the two upper "classes" of Jews is the Sephardic Jew. If Jews can be bigots against Jews, then Jews can obviously be bigots against non-Jews. The sooner the lying to cover up those facts ceases, the sooner the Jewish people will become part of the entire imperfect human race. Then they won't be self-separated out for special treatment -- both better and worse.

How about equal treatment across the board for all bigots and criminals, instead of pretending that one particular group is "above all that," and then characterizing it as "poisonous" to point out that that group is in fact not "above all that"? To distinguish that group as "different" invites different treatment of that group because "different". Israel is no less -- and may be more so -- hypocritical about its treatment of others than any other group; it is a lie to pretend otherwise, and supremacist -- and "exceptionalist" -- that Israel should be exempt, unlike everyone else, from that truth-telling about it.

Those Jews who accuse other Jews of being "self-hating" for telling those truths are the actual self-haters, as it is they who bring down the "holocausts" onto Jews -- which they then use as excuse to do exactly the same to others while falsely claiming it is self-defense. And thus the cycles of hatred, and Jewish-generated anti-Semitism, continue.

I don't apologize for being Jewish. But I also don't apologize and make excuses for Jews who are also criminals, in large part as result of being Jewish before all and everybody else.

"Posted by: lbr
Date: July 4, 2007 6:59 PM"

Al in Austex wrote on July 4, 2007 9:40 PM:

Jake must be on the VEEP's payroll . Jake -Clinton was acquitted / Libby was convicted . Face facts Jake--you are twisting the facts to fit your world view - You are in fact Jake the very epitome of a" modern major NeoCon." Do you also work for the Blackwater Outfit in Psy Ops ? (Hey maybe your that brilliant strategist Doug Fieth - or wait maybe your Steve Cambone instead Jake .)
Oracle is correct the Traitors that outted the Brewster Jennings Network should be tried for Treason. And once convicted because we are at War with the Wahabee /Salafist Islamist - who would like to suitcase nuke NY,NY - once convicted lets take these Traitors to the firing squad shall we -May all the neocons traitors burn in Hell -
Happy Fourth of July there Jake -have a good day and Carry On over there in NeoConville !

SteveW wrote on July 4, 2007 11:17 PM:

Jake,

You're back? What, your guy pal is busy this evening? I'd come to believe the Republican't Party wasn't paying you trolls to work on holidays:)

Why do you bother with the enlightened here? Are you somehow, in your own strange way, trying to change our collective minds to believe in the fantasy you call your reality? Your "facts" are lies and no one is buying what you're selling here.

Jake, please go away, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and as noted by several other folks here, you're really not nearly as bright as your mother has led you to believe.

SteveW wrote on July 4, 2007 11:32 PM:

You are all missing point(s) concerning Jews who happen to also be the same neocons who LED us into this war. Yes, they led into this war.

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 4, 2007 7:58 PM

By the way, some of you folks are so touchy whenever anything slightly negative is connected to a Jew, what's up with that? You're completely stretching the context of JNagarya's posts. By the way, my great grandfather was a Jewish immigrant to the U.S. and down the line the family was Jewish, and I'm not at all tweaking over JNagarya's posts.

Now, Jake's posts are another story all together, wherin this creep is a troll you're allowing to disrupt what otherwise was/still could be a good comment thread. This guy/gal, Jake...is on here a lot lately and all he/she does is argue on behalf of any and everything Bush/Cheney/Rove and the other criminals within and without the Bush Administration.

Ignore Jake!

Scott L wrote on July 5, 2007 1:33 AM:

Funny how so many of these "Law and order throw them in jail and throw away the keys cons" turn into card carrying libs when its them on the hot seat.

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 6:56 AM:

"You are all missing point(s) concerning Jews who happen to also be the same neocons who LED us into this war. Yes, they led into this war.

"Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 4, 2007 7:58 PM

"By the way, some of you folks are so touchy whenever anything slightly negative is connected to a Jew, what's up with that? You're completely stretching the context of JNagarya's posts. By the way, my great grandfather was a Jewish immigrant to the U.S. and down the line the family was Jewish, and I'm not at all tweaking over JNagarya's posts."

It's difficult to be objective and evenhanded when the anti-anti-Semitism corwd chooses to focus exclusively on defending the Jews by pointing to the fact that not all Neo-Con[artists] are Jews. I not only never said they were, I gave an example -- Cheney -- who is not to my knowledge Jewish. Cambone is "Italian". Rumsfeld -- I'm not clear. Bush -- definitely not Jewish; a fake texan and cowby pretending he's not from Connecticut. Feith, as I understand it, is Jewish. So are Iraq war architects Wolfowitz and Perle. Shall we pretend the architects of that illegal invasion and occupation had nothing whatever to do with that illegal invasion and occupation?

Podhoretz -- Jewish.

Is William Kristol Jewish? I don't know. I do know he's a chickenhawk, like all the others, and yet another entitled Neo-Con[artist].

Shall we pretend that the "failure" to plan for after the war -- the chaos, civil war, and ethnic cleansing being both predictable and predicted -- was a matter of incompetence, instead of being intent? -- so long as "we" can keep the Arabs fighting among themselves, they won't be able to "organize" against Israel.

And then there was the article by Sy Hersh (he's Jewish, should anyone not have noticed; but he is concerned first with truth, not with being Jewish, and not with Israel before his own country) about the Israelis training Kurds in special operations so they could act as terrorists against their traditional enemies of Iran, Syria, and Turkey, in effort to "free up" the areas of "Kurdistan" claimed by those three traditional enemies. The whole point, for Israel, is to destabilize and distract Iran and Syria from focusing on Israel and its offensive aggressions against every state in the Middle East not Israel.

At the same time, Israel is an "ally" of Turkey -- against which those Israeli-trained Kurds conduct terrorist attacks. It is, of course, foolishly short-sighted to destablize the entire region -- Iraq and its neighbors -- which is the obvious intent, and believe such won't ultimately also engulf Israel.

"Posted by: SteveW
Date: July 4, 2007 11:32 PM"

I've never said all the Neo-Con[artists] are Jewish, and I made that fact clear the first time around. The difference is that I won't deny it by endeavoring to minimize their role based upon reference to their relative numbers among non-Jewish Neo-Con[artists]. According to the best informaion we so far have, it was Jews who were the "architects" of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, one of those being Wolfowitz. And we've since seen his prolonged display of entitlement -- his prolonged destructiveness, also for Jews -- in relation to the World Bank. Indeed, the whole world saw Wolfowitz publicly deny the blatantly obvious facts of his wrongdoing. Publicly deny the rules apply to him. Such conduct does not provide positive "advertisement" for being Jewish.

lbr wrote on July 5, 2007 8:31 AM:

But the point, Steve W, is that when other architects of the war–Cheyney, Bush, Rumsfeld–are discussed, their religious or ethnic identity never comes up. No one ever says that Rumsfeld attacked Iraq because he was white, or a Presbyterian, or whatever. No one has ever insinuated that Powell and Rice went along because they were black.

As Jnagaraya’s posts illustrate, the critique of Feith, Kristol, et al is entirely wrapped up in their ethnicity. They attacked Iraq because, as Jews, they wanted to keep the Arabs down (or something to that effect), and they put Israel’s interests ahead of the United States. The difference in the two critiques is stark. Feith et al are not just bad actors, they are bad actors because they are Jews.

It is a train of thought that leads to alarming places, and stupid ones. Did Feingold, Boxer, Wellstone, and Levin, who were among the small minority of senators to vote against the war, just miss the AIPAC memo? Is their good act of resistance to the war attributable to their Jewish identity? If not, why not?

SteveW wrote on July 5, 2007 9:17 AM:

JNagarya,

I'm on your side and completely agree with your analysis. It's the other "touchy" folks my comments were aimed.

You're right in stating Jews are at the center of the Neocon movement, formed the agenda, and initiated a political strategy they carry out in the media, corporate board rooms, conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, and deep inside the White House and Bush Administration. The key neocon player within the Bush Administration, though often under the radar screen, is the infamous (Iran/Contra) convicted felon, Elliott Abrams. He's responsible for ensuring every diplomatic initiative in the Middle East carried out by Condi Rice or any member of Congress, is torpedoed in an effort to affirm the PNA agenda/plan for perpetual war. So, Abrams is the inside man for the Israel first crowd.

By the way, Kristol and his father Irving are Jewish. Podhertz, along with Irving started this disgusting neoconmen movement. Cheney, non-Jew represents the corporate wing of the neocon agenda, or should I say, leans more in that direction. I've always viewed Cheney's participation/affiliation with the PNA as a means to an end; the end being self-enrichment through Halliburton and no-bid contracts and the takeover of oil fields to aid his friend's in high places at Exxon and beyond who helped to fund and support Bush/Cheney's rise to political ascension and power. Former CIA Director, James Woolsey is the who knew how to push this war inside the CIA. He knew how to play that system that allowed Cheney, Feith (what a complete idiot, huh), and Libby to push their lies into official CIA documents and analysis to support the fantasy Saddam not only had WMD, he could launch strikes within the U.S. at any time.

Here's a good link explaining more of the above.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html

In summary, clearly not all Jews are neocons and virtually every Jew I know is against this war and its agenda. So, for all of those out there who claim any mention of neocons who happen to be Jewish and part of the Israel First agenda is somehow anti-Semitic, I'd recommend 1) you all take deep breath, read/take another look at whatever post/blog you believe insinuated anti-Semitism and re-read to make sure your assumptions are correct 2) read it a third time before you go off on some rant claiming anti-Semitism.

Again, ignore Jake:)

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 9:46 AM:

Posted by: lbr
Date: July 5, 2007 8:31 AM

We're more or less on the same page here. However, the neocons/PNA members who happen to be Jewish, do in fact have an Israel First agenda. They carry that banner, though in the case of Perle, he straddles both the corporate/Cheney bent and the Israel First agenda. That is clear.

Again, they are in fact Jewish and they aimed to use American military power to carry out their Israel First agenda. It's certainly not an America First agenda, so how else is one to describe these central PNA/neocon figures other than ethnicity and religion? Seriously, if there's a better way to go about describing this cabal, please let us know. I'm not attempting sarcasm here, instead I'm seriously concerned we're not seeing the forest for the trees in this discussion.

In any case, we all agree this neocon foreign policy has been disastrous for the U.S., the Iraqi's, our place in the world etc..Correct? All of us outside of Jake are on the same general page here, so let's not lose sight of our common ground. I do believe there's a great deal lost in translation through these posts, wherein face-to-face interactions/discussions would easily be kept on track through simple clarifications.

SteveW wrote on July 5, 2007 9:47 AM:

Posted by: lbr
Date: July 5, 2007 8:31 AM

We're more or less on the same page here. However, the neocons/PNA members who happen to be Jewish, do in fact have an Israel First agenda. They carry that banner, though in the case of Perle, he straddles both the corporate/Cheney bent and the Israel First agenda. That is clear.

Again, they are in fact Jewish and they aimed to use American military power to carry out their Israel First agenda. It's certainly not an America First agenda, so how else is one to describe these central PNA/neocon figures other than ethnicity and religion? Seriously, if there's a better way to go about describing this cabal, please let us know. I'm not attempting sarcasm here, instead I'm seriously concerned we're not seeing the forest for the trees in this discussion.

In any case, we all agree this neocon foreign policy has been disastrous for the U.S., the Iraqi's, our place in the world etc..Correct? All of us outside of Jake are on the same general page here, so let's not lose sight of our common ground. I do believe there's a great deal lost in translation through these posts, wherein face-to-face interactions/discussions would easily be kept on track through simple clarifications.

Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 5, 2007 11:00 AM:

Regardless of the membership in the war-mongering cabal, it's all only about one thing: war profiteering. Splitting hairs about that faction supports what is a pointless distraction.

Quoting from a song from an earlier generation:

"War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!"

Except, of course, the lining of the pockets of the profiteers.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 11:41 AM:

Wow, there sure is some serious hate in these posts. For the record, in addition to everything else I've never stated, I do not believe that "imperfect finite mortality can achieve an Aryan perfection" -- I am not a racist and think Hitler was the most evil man of the 20th century -- I could care less if ad hominem is the only way some of you care to debate.

As a follow-up for Billy Pilgrim, I have an honest question: the U.S. fighting the Japs and Nazis during World War II did "absolutely no good"?! I can't believe you think that.

I hope everyone else had a pleasant 4th of July.

Mooser wrote on July 5, 2007 11:53 AM:

There are some peoples here who could really use to learn what is done in the name of "Judaism" and what is done in the name of "Israel" and "Zionism"
What the Israelis and the Zionists do have very little to do with being Jewish, except insofar as they have kidnapped certain symbols and narratives, and everything to do with the establishment and maintenance, and maybe, God willing, the exspansion of a colonial apartheid state. These actions were almost inevitable from the day the first Zionist came into Mandated Palestine to settle.
Nothing done by Israel is "Jewish". It's the same stuff, the same rhetoric and even the same religious trappings as any other colonial apartheid regime.

Mooser wrote on July 5, 2007 11:54 AM:

There are some peoples here who could really use to learn what is done in the name of "Judaism" and what is done in the name of "Israel" and "Zionism"
What the Israelis and the Zionists do have very little to do with being Jewish, except insofar as they have kidnapped certain symbols and narratives, and everything to do with the establishment and maintenance, and maybe, God willing, the exspansion of a colonial apartheid state. These actions were almost inevitable from the day the first Zionist came into Mandated Palestine to settle.
Nothing done by Israel is "Jewish". It's the same stuff, the same rhetoric and even the same religious trappings as any other colonial apartheid regime.

Mooser wrote on July 5, 2007 12:02 PM:

Please try and seperate the actions of the state of Israel and its supporters, Zionists, from anything having to do with being Jewish.
Israel's actions are predicated completely on what they see as the most expedient course.
Being Jewish, or Judaism has very little to do with it, except insofar as Israel and the Zionists have apropriated the symbols and narratives of Judaism for their own ends.
Trying to equate Israel's actions with Judaism is fruitless, and bigoted at its core.
Better to look to regimes founded or maintained under comparable circumstances to predict or understand Israel's actions.
Being Jewish has very little to do with it, I only wish to God it did.

Mooser wrote on July 5, 2007 12:05 PM:

Whoa! there's no tellin' what this comment system is gonna do next!

pointus wrote on July 5, 2007 12:18 PM:

Mooser: your comment brings up the recent things I've seen detailing how anyone who takes issue with Israel's atrocities is immediately branded "anti-semite".

P.S. Back on topic, sort of: David Brooks' OP-ED on "the end of Plame-gate" just about made my head explode... what an ASShole that David Brooks!

http://iraqwarit.blogspot.com/2007/07/brooks-ending-farce.html

lbr wrote on July 5, 2007 12:25 PM:

For the record, Steve, we are not on the same page. If you accept the idea that there is a cabal of Jews who have an “Israel first” agenda, and that who have infiltrated U.S. policy, you are no ally of mine.

Jane wrote on July 5, 2007 1:48 PM:

So Jake:

You hate Hitler because he corrupted a democracy, was a dictator, conducted torture and was a war criminal?

Is that it?

Also, you are entitled to your own set of opinions not your own set of facts. Bush's pipe dreams of a flower strewn walk through Baghdad have killed thousands of our soldiers.

SteveW wrote on July 5, 2007 3:31 PM:

For the record, Steve, we are not on the same page. If you accept the idea that there is a cabal of Jews who have an “Israel first” agenda, and that who have infiltrated U.S. policy, you are no ally of mine.

Posted by: lbr
Date: July 5, 2007 12:25 PM

Well, for the record 1br, frankly I don't give a shit if we are on the same page at this point. I tried to be fair in my response to you, though apparently you're too narrow to understand my aim/intent.

If you don't believe there's a Israel First agenda within the PNAC Middle East agenda, then you likely don't believe the PNAC had a component meant to capture the oil in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

PNAC's agenda does include an Israel first agenda whether you know or understand what that organization was about. PNAC's larger agenda was extending the U.S. empire and Israel First. Go look it up.

Just as Jane pointed out to Jake above, I'll echo the same sentiments. You're entitled to your own opinion, though not your own facts.

By the way, there is no tooth fairy...sorry to burst that bubble too:) Seriously, I'd rather not go down this path of sarcasm, though your responses to my post(s) are so ridiculous, I can't help myself. I'm doing the best I can to restrain my darker side.

You and Jake just want to spout bullshit, so please both of you go elsewhere and be happy together.

lbr wrote on July 5, 2007 5:44 PM:

SteveW,

I'm not the one who started in with the obscenities, so I'm not sure why you think I should be the one who should leave the board. You wrote that we were on the same page, and we are not. My post was responsive, and doesn't deserve a response laced with scatology and tooth fairy references.

I understand what PNAC is. You won't acknowledge my point that it is significant, and irresponsible, to critique Feith, Adelman, et al because they are Jews. Binding critiques of policy and identity together for Jewish politicians, but not for others, is irresponsible. As I said before, no one ever says that Powell and Rice collaborated on Iraq in support of an "African-American cabal."

It is depressing how often casual references to a cabal, or to unequal treatment for Jews (such as the comment by JNgarya that started this discussion) go unremarked upon in "progressive" circles.

Al in Austex wrote on July 5, 2007 9:34 PM:

Gee maybe we need a time out regarding the neoCons & Zionist convergence of agendas/I am with Jane - we did not get what they sold us in Baghdad. And Jake what the NeoCons did in Iraq has actually made us less safe-not more/ We need you to take a hard look at Reality On the Ground in Iraq Jake.
And Jake what are we going to do about the NeoCons that exposed Brewster Jennings -thats criminal activity Jake . At least Bush 41 understood that -Bush 43 is an incompetent & dangerous rouge Leader- and Jake Dubya will be impeached -and maybe even convicted for Treason.

Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 1:06 AM:

Want to bet that Bush is never impeached or convicted of treason?

Al in Austex wrote on July 6, 2007 5:40 AM:

Jake,
I will walk back from previous post -I do not know if President Smirk will be Impeached for Treason. But I rather think the VEEP has a very good chance to be Impeached for Treason
Now Jake be sure to keep "conflabbing" Impeachment in the House , with Conviction in the Senate. See since you & the right wing Noise Machine always hit all the same false points togather --you all always stay in harmony in your Orwellian Chorus of Disinformation.
Jake , Fitz is still actively investigating the VEEP. And Jake -the Field Officers & Trainers over at the Farm are really -really angry about how the the VEEP has treated the CIA (one former trainer said don't piss down my leg and say its raining ). And in case you forgot Jake (or maybe never knew )- the CIA Field officer killed at Mazar Sharaf -well that fallen hero's Daddy has come out -publically - demanding to know who outted Mrs. Wilson. So if I could bet you Jake - I would bet that the VEEP will be impeached -and now that Sen Domenici has broken ranks with you all on Iraq-we might even get a conviction of the VEEP in the the Senate.
Have a good day over there in NeoConville Jake,
and thanks for all you do for the Republicant Troll Association-

Barbara wrote on July 11, 2007 5:30 PM:

I'm really on the side of just ignoring Jake. No legitimate reader is fooled by what he says and the discussions are getting way off track. I remember awhile back we we began ignoring someone of his ilk and the person got tired and went away. And even if he stays, if we don't respond we can just go on with our usual intelligent discussions and skip his comments. A much better use of our time. There is really absolutely no point in arguing with a bigot. The "discussion" with Jake is really spoiling my interest in reading the comments.